Immigrants, Amnesty, and Foreign Aid

by Kerby Anderson

Some really bad ideas are floating around Capitol Hill and the White House, so it's time for concerned citizens to express their opinions before these bad ideas become law. Two that need immediate attention are amnesty for illegal immigrants and proposals to substantially increase foreign aid.

Amnesty for illegal aliens would already be a done deal if it weren't for Senator Robert Byrd's action to delay the pending legislation. "It is lunacy -- sheer lunacy -- that the president would request, and the House would pass such an amnesty at this time," said Byrd. The events of September 11 should provide ample proof that we need to scrutinize illegal immigrants like never before.

But there is more than meets the eye. The bill in question did not deal with all illegal immigrants, only those from Mexico. Mexican immigrants generally represent a much less significant threat than illegal aliens from the Arab world. Could it be the real issue is politics?

Senator Byrd believed that the Republican House and the White House pushed forward this measure to curry votes with Hispanics (who are the fastest growing segment of the voting public). In fact, the only illegal aliens who would be granted amnesty are Mexican immigrants who overstayed their visas. Even though Mexican immigrants raise less of a security concern than immigrants from other countries, there is an important principle at stake.

This bill would reward lawbreakers who violate the system and punish those who dutifully go through the naturalization process. And once we grant amnesty to some illegal immigrants, it's likely that the trend will quickly be extended to those from other countries. The current bill would grant amnesty for 200,000 but is seen as part of an incremental approach that could eventually lead to amnesty for as many as 12 million people.

So immigrants who break our laws get amnesty, while law-abiding immigrants wait in line for years to receive citizenship. Something is terribly wrong with this bill, especially since it seems to be done for politically expediency so that Republicans can build its base with Hispanic voters.

Another bad idea making its way through the corridors of power is an unprecedented increase in foreign aid. In March, the Irish rock singer Paul Hewson -- who insists the world call him Bono -- visited the president in March demanding the U.S. give more foreign aid around the world. And later that month, at the United Nations conference in Monterrey, Mexico, the president proposed a 50 percent increase in foreign aid.

The foreign aid, the president said, would be in the form of grants rather than loans. Moreover, he also proposed forgiving much of the current Third World debt. So countries that refuse to repay the debts they owe will be forgiven, and nations receiving future aid won't be obligated to pay back the funds they receive. Looks like we aren't just giving amnesty to illegal aliens; we are giving amnesty to most of the debtor nations of the world!

Meanwhile the International Monetary Fund is also pushing for more funds to distribute worldwide. Media stories are beginning to surface lauding the benefits and success stories of the IMF and other international donor agencies. But reality is just the opposite.

Economist Thomas Sowell points out that it was "the cutbacks in American economic aid to Taiwan and South Korea in the 1960s which forced these countries to get their own acts together and institute the reforms which led to their economic rise." Economic success in these and other countries did not come about because of dependency on U.S. foreign aid. Just the opposite.

Of course there are times when short-term help is essential. The Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe and emergency aid to countries devastated by earthquake, famine, or typhoon are essential. But continued shipments and dependency often inhibit the development of business and agriculture.

Professor Peter Bauer of the London School of Economics convincingly argued that foreign aid was often a foreign hindrance. Transfers of wealth to Third World governments often arrested economic development frequently making matters worse rather than better.

Research at the liberal Brookings Institution comes to a similar conclusion. Michael O'Hanlon and Carol Graham concluded that "countries getting more aid do worse macroeconomically, on average, than those getting less." Foreign aid is rarely invested, but instead is immediately consumed. Government grows larger and consumption expands, but no positive impact is made on the economy or its infrastructure.

Poverty exists usually for one of three reasons. First, a country may have the wrong political system. Citizens are exploited by their dictatorial leaders and they have no legal recourse for redress, thus poverty remains. Second, a country may have the wrong economic system. Investment, entrepreneurship, and a free market are stifled by an economic system that keeps the poor from escaping the cycle of poverty. Finally, a country may have the wrong religious system that prevents the wise and compassionate use of vital resources (land, livestock, capital). Foreign aid does not deal with these major reasons for poverty.

Over the last 40 years, more than $1 trillion in foreign aid has been spread throughout the globe. Much of it has lined the pockets of dictators and despots. Much of that which remained has been wasted or poorly invested. In many parts of the world poverty is worse than when foreign aid began to be liberally distributed in the Kennedy-Johnson era.

A fifty percent increase in foreign aid will not help poor nations. And forgiving debts from Third World countries will send the wrong signal just as granting amnesty to illegal aliens will send the wrong signal. These are bad ideas that don't need to become laws.