Fantasy. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University,Industrial Relations Section).

Stiefel, L. and R. Berne (1981) "The Equity Effects of StateSchool Finance Reforms: A Methodological Critique andNew Evidence," Policy Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 1.

Stuart, B. (1972) "Equity and Medicaid," Journal of HumanResources, Vol. 7, No. 2, 162-178.

Thurow, L. (1980) The Zero-Sum Society: Distribution and thePossibilities for Economic Change. (New York: Penguin).

Verba, S. and N.H. Nie (1972) Participation in America:Political Democracy and Social Equality. (New York:Harper and Row).

LOS INDOCUMENTADOS: PRACTICES, RECOMMENDATIONS,AND PROPOSALS

Elizabeth Hull, Rutgers University^Wemark

The 197O's has been described as the "decade of theimmigrant," and indeed the influx of newcomers during thisperiod was at record levels: the United States absorbed fourmillipn immigrants and refugees, and in 1980 alone, withthe inclusion of 160,000 Cuban and Haitian "boat people,"more than 800,000 new arrivals were admitted.r—more than inany other decade in the nation's history, and perhapstwice the number taken in by all other countries combined.

During the 197O's an unprecedented number of undocument-ed, or illegal, migrants walked, swam, sailed, drove, or flewin as^well—probably as many as were admitted on a legalbasis. While clandestine entries have occurred ever sincethe United States first enacted restrictive immigration laws,public outrage against these illegal migrants—i.e., thosewho enter the country "without inspection," or, once here,violate the terms of their visas—erupts in cyclical fashionwhenever economic or political tensions are high. This pastdecade, predictably, when unemployment and inflation havebeen at rates unequalled since the Great Depression, thecitizenry again became more aware of, and alarmed by, thepresence of undocumented aliens.

In response to public alarm, a succession of officialbodies have convened throughout the past decade to study, andissue recommendations for dealing with, illegal migration.

638

Last summer, shortly after the latest Commission culminatedits two-year study with a series of such recommendations,amid much publicity the Reagan Administration announced itsown "immigration package." A number of proposals contained inthis package disregard or contravene altogether the counselof these presumably expert commissions, thereby raising twoquestions that will be addressed in this paper: one, for whatpolitical or prudential reasons did the Administration electto disregard this counsel? Two, notwithstanding thisdisregard are the Administration's proposals likely to bereasonably effective?

POLICY AS A "WINK". Large-scale migration, both legal andillegal, generates problems that cannot be ignored. To date,however, debate on the issue has been characterized less by areasoned assessment of the facts than by exaggeration andconjecture—perhaps in part because there is a dearth of ver-ifiable data whith which to determine the social and economicimpact, geographic dispersion, long-term consequences ofundocumented migration, or .£ven the most fundamental fact:the number of such migrants.

What is known, however, is that illegal migration is aworld-wide, inexorable phenomenon, likely to persist and infact grow in intensity given the multitude of problemsafflicting developing nations. What is similarly known isthat factors both beyond its control, and conscious policyvery much within its control, have rendered the United Statesparticularly attractive to prospective migrants.

The United States is the only rich, industrializedcountry that shares a long border with a comparatively poor,less developed nation, and the only such country accessibleby water from impoverished neighboring islands. It is theonly wealthy country that has touted itself "the land ofimmigrants," and historically welcomed large numbers.Finally, the United States, with its tradition of pluralism,offers supportive communities for members of differentnationaIities.

This country has encouraged a rate of clandestine immi-gration, however, beyond that for which either its geographiclocation or pluralist tradition would account. Its active,world-wide promotion of the "American way of life," coupledwith the fact that whenever it has fought a war, or developedstronq bonds in its quest for non-communist allies, it hasproduced an unanticipated result: denizens of poor, third-world nations have been exposed to a "land of opportunity,"where reputedly freedom and affluence abound.

Through interaction, as well, the country has encouraged

639

illegal entries. According to a recent New York Timeseditorial, "the United States does want (illegal aliens), orat least many of them, and it is not, in, any case, willing todo what's necessary to keep them out." The United Statesis unable "to articulate its policy concerning them," theeditorial continued, "but that's not to say the nationdoesn't have such a policy. It surely does. It is a wink."Perhaps it is more accurate to characterize the country'simmigration policy as one that is both self-serving, at leastin a short-term sense, and irresponsible, from a long-termperspective: immigration policy has never been a priority forthe nation's lawmakers, and hence never a factor to be con-sidered in economic, social, and demographic planninq. More-over, despite a world still characterized by nation-statecentrism, America's immigration policies are inevitably andintimately aligned with international conditions; it isconsequently unfortunate that little effort has been made toestablish linkages between immigration, both legal andillegal, and the country's foreign policy.

The United States will continue to invite illegal migra-tion, what is more, as long as it entrusts the enforcement ofits immigration laws to the Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS), as presently constituted. This agency is sowoefully understaffed and i I 1-equipped, so mismanaged anddemoralized by official inattention that, to the extent itfunctions at all, it does so in only the most capricious andhaphazard of fashion. According to a recently-issued Govern-ment Accounting Office report, any unauthorized person, oncehere, "has little chance of being located and deported."As a result, the United States has what the Select Commissionon Immigration calls a "half open-door policy:" while thecountry officially forbids i I legaJ entry, it effectivelycondones it through lax enforcement.

Leon Castillo, former commissioner of the INS, observedin reference to this country's immigration policies that"Congress likes what we have now. Clearly sosoe people derivegreat benefit from the present situation." Some peopledo in fact derive great benefit—middle and upper class fami-lies who can hire cheap babysitters, maids, and gardeners;consumers who benefit to some indeterminate extent by the low-cost labor that aliens supply. The chief beneficiaries, ofcourse, are employers—like those in the garment industry,which is virtually dependent on illegal labor, or in agri-business, where undocumented workers are considered a primefactor in budgetary planning, or employers in the restaurantindustry, who insist that their business could not existwithout such labor.

Consequently it is no accident that time and again legis-

640

lative efforts to proscribe the employment of illegal alienshave failed. While in most countries it is unlawful foremployers to hire people lacking proper documentation, in theUnited States Section 1324 of the Immigration and NationalityAct—the so-called "Texas Proviso"—specifically exemptsemployers from the legal sanctions against harboring illegalaliens. Legislation to penalize such employment haspassed the House on two occasions, but business lobbyists(who found a sympathetic ally in James Eastland, formerchairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and himself aplantation owner) succeeded in blocking its passage in theSenate. The Texas Proviso continues intact, therefore,resulting in a peculiar anomaly: while a person withoutproper documentation is ineligible for employment in theUnited States, any employer is altogether free to hire him.

Finally, for well over a century the United States hasencouraged clandestine migration from its neighbor to thesouth by actively recruiting Mexican workers whenever it hassought a cheap and readily accessible supply of labor, andpolicy-makers have time and again relaxed or suspendedrestrictive immigration laws in order to facilitate thissupp ly.

POLICY AS PUBLIC OPINION. During the 196O's, for the firsttime in American history (excluding the pre-1868 blackslaves), the majority of its immigrants were not white, andten yeas J^ter seventy percent were from either Latin Americaor Asia. This phenomenon is not unprecedented, however;the nation has in the past experienced radical shifts in itsdemographic composition; moreover, at present there are fewerforeign-born in its population than a± any other time since1860, when records were first kept. Finally, each succes-sion of new immigrants has engender^ed fears not unlike thosetriggered by the latest influx. Notwithstanding theseconsiderations, however, many members of the public fear thatrecent developments will erode what is perceived to be thecountry's historic national identity.

Contributing to public alarm is the fact that over thepast decade at lest fifty percent of the legal and illegalimmigrants to the.gUnited States spoke a single foreignlanguage: Spanish. This fact has prompted a mountingopposition to bi-lingualism and, indeed, to cultural plural-ism in general. Last year voters in Dade County, Florida,passed, by a three-to-one margin (and without noticeableprotest from most "liberal" politicians), an ordinance estab-lishing that "expenditures of county funds for the purpose ofutilizing any language other than English, or promoting anycultuce other than that of the United States, is prohibit-ed." Simi lar measures recently have been introduced or

641

passed elsewhere in the country, and the Secretary of Educa-tion, Terrell Bell, is one among many governmental leaderswho is outspoken«.in his opposition to federally-funded bi-Ii ngual programs.

Because the Spanish-speaking groups appear to regardtheir language as a symbol of cultural pride, or as animpetus for ethnic unity, there is also fear that the UnitedStates will in time be ridden with the divisiveness thatcharacterizes Canada, with its French-speaking Quebecians, orthe Dutch, with their "unassimilable" Moluccans. SenatorAlan K. Simpson noted that the Spanish-speaking aliens seemto adopt the English language and other nationalcharacteristics less completely than other immigrants, and hewarned that "linguistic and cultural separatism j/ii ght erodethe unity and political stability of the nation."

In Texas, where the terms "illegal alien" and "Mexican"are vitually interchangeable, seve^al public school districtshave either refused to enroll chii Idren who lack proper docu-mentation, or have imposed tuition requirements that aseffectively bar these children from public education. If theSupreme Court upholds the constitutionality of these restric-tions, a number of other states, particularly in the South-west, are likely to ijfipose further civil disabilities uponundocumented residents.

Undocumented aliens, regardless of their national origin,arouse antipathy because they are frequently seen as threatsnot only to the country's cultural and demographic status,but also to its standard of living. James Farrell, in GiveUs Your Poor, argues that the United States has dwindlingphysical resources, insufficient for Americans, let alonemillions of "illegals." Columnist Garrett Hardin esti-mates that every illegal alien will use, "conservatively," aminimum of 1500 barrels of oil during his tenure in theUnited States. "Does he bring 1500 barrels of oil with him?"the coJumnist asks: "if not, the rest of us must share withhim." Similarly, Senator Strom Thurmond lambastes thepolicies of the CarterJidministration for their "give us yourpoor" sentimentality, and agrees with Senator Simpsonthat "the real issue...is what is best Jxir the existing humanbeings who are United States citizens."

Public sentiment is reflected in a recent Roper publicopinion poll, according to which 91 percent of those ques-tioned believed the United States should make an "all outeffort" to stop illegal immigration, and in the emergenceof grass roots organizations, such as the New York City-based"Citizens Against llligal Immigration." One new, well-financed organization. Federation for American Immigration

642

Reform (FAIR), merits particular note both because it is thefirst "nationaJ organization formed solely to abolish illegalimmigration," and because of the influence it has ^^readyamassed in official circles during its brief existence.

POLICY AS CONTINUED STUDY. United States policymakers,then, have tolerated — if indeed not encouraged—undocumentedmigration, and they bear considerable responsibility for theproblems it has occasioned, including, certainly, the resul-tant neo-nativism in the country. While policymakers areconsequently obliged to implement corrective measures thatare both humane and effective, whether or not they will do sois uncertain since immigration traditionally has been an un-popular issue. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative"think tank" whose members reputedly wield considerableinfluence in the Reagan Administration, noted in Mandate forLeadership that "(t)here are no clear 'conservative' posi-tions on immigration, and no clear 'conservative' solu-tions," and, in fact, offered this advice to the presentAdministration: "Clearly an approach which would be politi-cally safe in the.«short-term would be one of continued studyand exami nation."

There has indeed been continued "study and examination."At least since the early 197O's one official body afteranother has convened on a near-annual basis to recommendmeasures. In March of 1981 the Select Commission on Immigra-tion and Refugee Policy concluded its two-year study with aseries of recommendations for dealing with illegal immigra-tion, and the Reagan Administration responded by impannelingan Inter-Agency Taskforce to study the Select Commission'sproposals, and in turn make suggestions of its own.

Notwithstanding this discouraging record, however, sub-stantial reform may in fact be undertaken by the 97th Con-gress. On July 30th of last year President Reagan announceda "package" of immigration reforms whose passage apparentlyranks high among his priorities. While these proposals wouldordinarily represent a welcome culmination to a decade-longseries of studies, they in fact distinguish themselves pri-marily in one respect: their total disregard for the adviceand admonitions issued by almost every one of these studies.

The Select Commission concluded that Northern Europe'spostwar guestworker program, as well as this country's sim^^lar bracero program that operated from 1942 until 1964,were from a long-term perspective counterproductive: theyserved actually to increase, rather than decrease, the rateof illegal immigration into the host country, and in bothcases several million "temporary" lodgers became insteadpermanent inhabitants. Moreover, since they are welcomed

643

only as long as a country needs their cheap labor, partici-pants in such a program are inevitably shunted into anunderclass that is prohibited from enjoying the rights andprivileges of citizenship.

The Select Commission accordingly voted against theestablishment of a temporary worker program; the ReaganAdministration proposed one nevertheless, and according toits terms 50,000 Mexicans would be admitted to work in thiscountry from nine to twelve months ^ t those jobs for whichdomestic labor is in short supply. (While disadvantagesinhere in any temporary worker program, the Administration'svariant is particularly deficient; it is too limited in scopeto make any real difference, and it is confined to Mexicanlaborers when in fact t.hfiy comprise at most only half theundocumented population.)

The Reagan Administration has also proposed an amnestyfor those undocumented aliens who can establish that theyhave been living in the United States before January 1, 1980,and while the cut-off date may be impractical the proposalitself is realistic and humane. Unfortunately, however, theAdministration attached conditions that will guarantee itsfailure, and in so doing ignored the counsel of every author-ity familiar with similar amnesty programs implemented inother countries. These programs were successful to the extentthat they were supported by the resident leaders of thoseethnic groups whom they most affected.

The Administration's amnesty program has been condemnedby many leaders, certainly those representing the Hispaniccommunity, who object to a number of its features: afterbeing granted amnesty, most individuals will not becomeeligible for resident alien status until they have lived inthe United States for ten years; in the meanwhi le they arenot allowed to bring in their spouses or young children.During this period, moreover, they must pay social security,income, and other taxes, but they remain ineligible forwelfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and federallyassisted housing. The President of one Hispanic groupreflected the degree of consternation aroused among manyminority members by the Administration's pcogram when hecompared it to "government-sactioned serfdom."

Most studies on illegal immigration agree that employersmust be penalized who knowingly hire undocumented aliens.Whatever the potential risk for civil liberties, however,these studies conclude with near unanimity that any schemefor employer sanctions must be coupled with some "fraudproof" national system for worker identification. Absentsuch an identification system, any scheme would be at best

644

ineffective, and at worst both ineffective and unjust, sinceemployers could easily discriminate against those who look orsound foreign.

Again, however, expert testimony went for naught. TheReagan Administration supports employer sanctions, butinstead of a national identification system suggests thatdraft cards, birth certificates, or drivers licenses sufficeas identifiers. This recommendation appears eitherdisingenuous or naive, since the Southwest border supports aflourishing industry devoted to the mass-production of forgeddocuments; no prospective employee would have any moredifficulty procuring these documents than did the intrepidalien recently seized by the border patrol, who at the timeof his apprehension was clutching in his hands "900 phonesocial security cards."

Finally, every commission that has convened this decadehas emphatically and unanimously emphasized one point: thedebate on immigration must be "cj^ilized," characterized by aspirit of sobriety and reason. Undocumented aliens aretempting scapegoats, and if officials continue to blame themfor everything from unemployment to the deteriorating qualityof life, then the public will inevitably demand immediate,and often gratuitously harsh, solutions. Members of thesecommissions consequently have urged leaders to educate thepopulace—admit that reliable information is so scarce thatauthorities are not even certain whether, on balance, undocu-mented aliens represent a net gain or loss for this country;admit that undocumented aliens are present in the UnitedStates at least in part because of official sufferance, ifindeed not encouragement. Such admissions in themselves willnot solve any problems, of course, but they will contributeto an atmosphere in which effective and human solutions arepossible.

Although members of the Reagan Administration receivedextensive media coverage when they announced their "immigra-tion package," neither at the time nor therafter did anyspokesman attempt to correct public misconceptions aboutundocumented migration, or acknowledge that the United Stateshas in any way contributed to this phenomenon. As a result,the general public is apparently satisfied even with thoseadministration propsals that expert commissions have conclud-ed are either counterproductive or unjust.

RECOMMENDATIONS VERSUS PROPOSALS. Why this reluctance toadapt recommendations, such as those offered by the SelectCommission, that are potentially efficacious? Governmentofficials routinely disregard recommendations issued byexpert commissions, but presumably factors other than custom

645

motivated the current administration. Perhaps it concluded,not without reason, that by issuing its particular immigra-tion package it could finesse a strategic coup—appease animpatient public with schemes that are politically appealing,and at the same time antagonize no significant interest groupby any major change in the status quo.

Civil libertarians, and certainiy members of the increas-ingly powerful Hispanic bloc, insist that amnesty should begranted to most undocumented aliens now present in the UnitedStates. A substantial percentage of the American public dis-agrees, however, reasoning that amnesty merely, rewards thosewho "successfully sneak across our borders." The Adminis-tration's proposal is a clever compromise: some undocumentedaliens will be given amnesty, but they will be denied many ofthe benefits to which most members of the community areentitled.

The proposed guest worker program is similarly clever:the public is convinced, however mistakenly, that foreignmigrants will hereafter be admitted in orderly and control-lable numbers, and employers, particularly those in seasonalindustries, are assured of a guaranteed supply of labor.Finally, the employer sanction scheme, as contemplated by theadministration, again convinces the public that tough mea-sures are being implemented, while the absence of an effec-tive system of identification removes any threat to thosebusiness interests that profit from a sizable pool of under-ground labor.

If the proposals offered by the Reagan Administration areintended to stem the flow of illegal migration to the UnitedStates, either individually or cumulatively they will not besuccessful. If they are intended, as they presumably are, as"palliatives" for the public, they may in fact be successfulin some short-term sense. In the meanwhile, however, theproblems occasioned by undocumented migration will grow in-creasingly intractable, and an indeterminate number of aliensactually affected by these proposals will be relegated to anunderclass in society, where they will remain easy victims ofexploitation and discrimination. This is a high price to payfor hoodwinking the public.

NOTES

John M. Crewdson, "New Administration and Congress FaceMajor Immigration Decisions," New York Times, Dec. 28,1980,p. 1, col. U 2 , p. 120, col. 1&6.

646

^Michael S. Teitelbaum, "Right Versus Right: Immigrationand Refugee Policy in the United States," 59 ForeignAffairs 21, 23 (Fal1 1980).

^Crewdson, supra n. 1; see also Teitelbaum, supra n. 4,p. 23.

See i nfra, pp. 5-7.

For various estimates of the number of undocumentedaliens currently residing in the United States, see,for instance, TIME (eight-to-ten-mi 1 I ion), Oct. 16, 1978,p. 58; "Unnamed authorities in the State Department" (asof 1980 "The number of illegal aliens in the United Statesis at least ten million, and these ranks are swelling at arate of about two million a year.") New York Times, Jan. 16,1980, p. A. The Select Commission on Immigration andRefugee Policy employed three demographers to study theexisting data and therefrom es+imate the number ofundocumented aliens, and despite conceded inadequacies intheir source material, they established that "the totalnumber of illegal residents in the United States for somerecent year, such as 1978, is almost certainly below 6.0million, and may be substantially less, possibly only 3.5to 5.0 million." Jacob S. Siegel, Jeffrey S. Passel, andJ. Gregory Robinson, "Preliminary Review of ExistingStudies of the Number of Illegal Residents in the UnitedStates." Paper prepared as a working document for the useof the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy,January, 1980, p. 18.

^"Denying the Immigration Wink," New York Times,Editorial, March 18, 1981, col. U 2 .

Crewdson, supra n. 1.

^^"United States Immigration Policy and the NationalInterest: Final Report and Recommendations of the SelectCommission on Immigration and Refugee Policy," March 1,1981, p. 35.

12Quoted in Crewdson, supra n. 1.

•̂̂ 8 U.S.C. §1324(a) (1976). The Texas Proviso reads: Anyperson who willfully or knowingly conceals, harbors, orshields from detection or attempts to conceal, harbor, orshield from detection, in any place...any alien...not duly

647

admitted...shalI be guilty of a felony, and upon convictionthereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 orby imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, orboth, for each alien in respect to who any violation ofthis subsection occurs: Provided, however, that for thepurpose of this section, employment (including the usualand normal practices incident to employment) shall not bedeemed to constitute harboring. Immigration andNationality Act, §1274 (a) (emphasis added).

14Leon F. Bouvier, Testimony Before Joint Hearing of theSenate and House Subcommittees on Immigration and RefugeePolicy, May 7, 1981, p. 13. For a listing of the billsthat have failed to get through Congress, see Staff Reportof the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy,April 30, 1981, Attachment B. (Herein cited as StaffReport.)

15For discussion, see Charles B. Keely and S.M. Tomasi,"The Disposable Worker: Historical and Comparative Perspec-tives on Clandestine Migration," Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Population Association of America,Session on Clandestine Migration, Montreal, April 30, 1976,p. 10. Reproduced by the Center for Migration Studies,Staten Island, New York. Illegal immigration was stimu-lated by the so-called "bracero program," which was agreedupon by the United States and Mexico in 1942, and whichoperated for 22 years thereafter. By the terms of thisprogram, several million Mexican nationals were temporarilycontracted to domestic employers. When the bracero programwas terminated, more than a million Mexican workers, bythen dependent upon the employment it guaranteed, continuedto work in the Southwest, although in a status thatabruptly had become illegal. For discussion, see SheldonGreene, "Public Agency Distortion of Congressional Will:Federal Policy Toward Non-Resident Alien Labor," 40 GeorgeWashington Law Rev. 440, 452-3 (March 1972); Staff Reportpp. 669-673.

Sasha Gregory Lewis, Slave Trade Today: AmericanExploitation of Illegal Aliens. Boston, Beacon Press(1979), p. 167.

Robert Pear, "Now Up for Debate, A Chain of Proposalson Illegal Aliens," New York Times, March 1, 1981, E3,col. 1-3.

18See "The Tarnished Golden Door: Civil Rights Issues inImmigration," Report of the United States Commission onCivil Rights, April 30, 1981, pp. 177-216.

648

' Teitelbaum, supra n. 4, p. 12.

"Approval of Anti-bilingual Measure Causes Confusion andWorry in Miami Area," New York Times, Nov. 9, 1980, Al,col. 1-3. The reporter cited a survey conducted by TheMiami Herald which found that 71 percent of non-Latinwhites who voted supported the ordinance, including 71percent of those who voted for John B. Anderson in the1980 Presidential election. Supporters of this independentcandidate are presumably middle class and liberal Miamians.The author noted that "(s)ignificantly, the ordinance wasnot opposed by civic groups or a number of liberalpoliticians." Id.

21On May 17, 1981, a law was passed that designated"English as the official language of the State ofVirginia." California Senator S.I. Hayakawa has recentlyannounced that he will introduce a constitutional amendmentto designate English as the official language of the UnitedStates. FAIR, Immigration Report, Vol. 11, No. 7, April1981. On February 2, 1981, the Secretary revoked proposedfederal rules that would have required public schools toteach foreign-language-speaking students in their nativelanguage. As a result, either local school districts orstate officials must now determine the character and scopeof the training that will be provided these students.FAIR, Immigration Report, Vol. 11, No. 5, February 1981.

Robert Pear, supra n. 17. In interviews with thisauthor, legisIative aides to both Congressmen Henry Hydeand Wayne R. Grisham emphasized the resentment felt bytheir employers' constituents over government-financedbilingual programs. Fran Westner, assistant for Congress-man Hyde, noted that people in her district feel "welearned to speak 'American'. So why can't they?" (NancyIsikoff, aide to Representative Grisham, interview on May28, 1981; Westner, interview on May 22, 1981).

§21 of the Texas Education Code, which had provided atuition-free basic education to all children residingwithin the state, was amended in 1975 to limit sucheducation to "citizens of the United States or legally-admitted aliens." In 1977 the Tyler Independent SchoolDistrict (TISD), pursuant to the revised statute, imposeda $1000.00 annual fee on children lacking proper documen-tation. Plaintiffs, undocumented children represented bytheir parents, challenged §21 and the TISD tuition policy iifederal court on the grounds that both were inconsistentwith federal immigration law and, more importantly, thatboth deprived affected children of the equal protection ofthe laws, as guaranteed by the Constitution's fourteenth

649

amendment. Plaintiff's claims were upheld in districtcourt. Doe v. Pyler, 458 F. Supp 569 (1978), and in theFifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 628 F. 2d 448 (1980).Last spring the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oralarguments were heard during the Fall, 1981 term (PyIer v.Doe, No. 80-1538). On September 8, 1981, the JusticeDepartment filed a brief in the Supreme Court backing awayfrom its previous position that the Texas statute violatedthe fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause; accord-ing the Justice Department, the validity of the statute isdependent upon state, rather than federal, law. StuartTaylor, Jr., "U.S. Retreats from Its Challenge to Texas Lawon Alien Schooling," New York Times, Sept. 9, 1981, p. A1,col. 2&3.

24Give Us Your Poor: The Immigration Bomb (1975).

25"Must Care for Our Own First," Syracuse Post-Standard,May 13, 1980, p. A5, col. 6.Quoted in FAIR, Immigration Report, Vol. 11, No. 6,March 1981 .

27Crewdson, supra n. 1 .

98Roper Poll, June 18, 1980, cited in Teitelbaum, supran. 4, p. 21 .

29FAIR is the first national organization, by its ownaccount, that has been established solely to abolishillegal immigration and, according to its descriptivebrochure, "to set a limit for total legal immigrationconsistent with the realities of the 198O's." "The FAIRWay," published by FAIR, Washington D.C.

Employees at FAIR helped draft, for instance, the"Immigration and National Security Act of 1981" (S. 776,H.R. 2782), that provides, inter alia, for a significantincrease in the border patrol, and for criminal sanctionsagainst those who knowingly employ undocumented aliens.Westner (supra n. 22) told this author that FAIR is atleast occasionally privy to information that "we can'tget from the INS," and consequently that "we can callFAIR" for this data. Frederick Dale Schwartz, member ofthe Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights UnderLaw, stressed as well the influence that FAIR enjoys withcertain agencies and elected officials. Interview withauthor. May 22, 1981 .

Roger Conner, Statement Before a Joint Hearing of theSubcommittee on Immigration, U.S. Senate and House of

650

Representatives, May 5, 1981, p. 33.

^ , Immigration Report, Vol. 11, No. 6, March 1981.

'For discussion, see supra n. 15.

For a discussion of the Commission's recommendationsconcerning temporary worker programs, see "United StatesImmigration and the National Interest: Final Report andRecommendations of the Select Commission on Immigrationand Refugee Policy," March 1, 1981, recom. VI.E.

Robert Pear, "White House Asks a Law to Bar Jobs forIllegal Aliens," New York Times, July 31, 1981, p. Al ,CO I. 6.

The three demographers employed by the Select Commis-sion on Immigration and Refugee Policy contend that,contrary to popular belief, the percentage of Mexicansamong the undocumented migrant population "is almostcertainly less than 3.0 million, and may be substantiallyless, possibly only 1.5 to 2.5 million." Siegel et al.supra n. 7.

' Tony Bonilla, quoted in Robert Pear, supra n. 35.

"58

John M. Crewdson, "Critics Attack Reagan on Immigra-tion Reform," N|evMrork_Ij_mes_, Au'g. 1, 1981, p. 6, col. 4&5.

See, for instance. Testimony of the Reverend Theodore MHesburgh, Chairman of the Select Commission on Immigrationand Refugee Policy, before the Subcommittee on Immigrationof the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, May 5, 1981,p. 6.

Accoridng to a poll conducted among Congressman HenryHyde's Illinois constituents, for instance, when asked"Should Illegal Aliens presently in the country be grantedamnesty," 84 percent responded in the negative. "Henry J.Hyde Reports," May, 1981, p. 4.

651