Home Archive
Carrying Capacity Network Action Alert OPEN BORDERS LOBBY LOVES "REFORM LITE" GROUPS New Reform Bill Introduced

HR 5013, the so-called "SAFER" Act, was introduced in the House on June 26,2 002 by Representative George Gekas (R-PA), Head of the House Immigration Subcommittee, with good intentions, including stopping terrorism.

We commend the members of Congress who sponsor it because it has many very good provisions. No one could ever claim that even a single one of its sponsors is an open borders partisan. Yet it does contain one serious flaw involving the most important immigration issue: reducing numbers.

IF passed in its current form, it would "modestly reduce legal immigration levels by about 20% from their current levels of over one million a year," according to the Press Release.

Of course, the historical reality (e.g., 1996) is that a bill containing such a "modest" reduction when introduced, is highly likely to have that reduction be amended or compromised away, if and when any bill emerges from Conference Committee.

If you want to end up reducing immigration by 20%, you do not start out at 20%! The fatal flaw of this bill is that it is thus likely not to result in any significant reductions at all.

Given this political reality, HR 5013 is NOT, contrary to what one Reform Group said, "the best immigration reduction (emphasis added) bill with a shot of moving forward ..... since 1995." If HR 5013 does move forward to pass, it will likely not include significant reductions.

It saddens us to say that we must also address the fact that the national "Reform Lite" groups pushing HR 5013 (rather than the Tancredo Moratorium Bill HR 2712) are pursuing a demonstrably failed strategy for reducing mass immigration numbers.

What one "Reform Lite" group's News Release last week (when crowing about "this-bill-that-we-have-all-been-waiting-for") does not say is that:

1. HR 5013 undercuts the most potentially beneficial bill that we have seen in several years, HR 2712, which would put a moratorium on many categories of immigration and result in reducing the flow to about 300,000 a year. (Compare that with what HR 5013 would do if passed intact: make a 20% reduction of the annual flow of over a million a year.) Yet the "Reform Lite" groups have refused to push this superb bill, HR 2712, introduced in August, 2001.

2. HR 5013 would also give those Representatives who want to claim to their constituents they are voting to reduce immigration, but who are too timid to support HR 2712, "cover" by allowing them to say they supported it.

3. Worse yet, historically speaking, pressure for immigration reforms is able to make its way into a successful bill only every four to eight years (e.g., the Acts of 1980, 1986, 1990, 1996). Thus, if passed in its current form, HR 5013 would, in effect, at best, still saddle us with nearly-a-million-a-year-or-greater legal immigration levels -- for another four to eight years. Hardly an improvement.

For example, if last year's record 1.5 million legal immigration flow had been cut by 20%, the resulting 1.2 million annual immigration flow would certainly not be that significant a step toward "a sustainable future with less population growth, sprawl, and congestion..." which the "Reform Lite" group's June 25th Press Release is touting -- indeed, it would actually be an impediment to getting a bill with real reductions which actually would be a significant step toward these goals any time soon.

Moreover, that "Reform Lite" group seems to forget the effect of recent immigrants' higher-than-average fertility rates, among many other points, when making its misleading claim about "less population growth."

Bottom line: If passed in its current form, the bill would likely condemn us to more years of millions-plus-a-year legal (!) mass immigration with nothing realistically to be done about it politically.... After all, Congress would have just passed HR 5013 "fixing" the problems with mass immigration, many would say. So, you can begin to see why the "Open Borders Lobby" would be loving the "Reform Lite" groups.

Make no mistake about it -- the aforementioned "Reform Lite" group takes credit for this bill, saying, on June 13, 02, that we have "been working for many months with key members of Congress..." to get HR 5013 put together.

So when that "Reform Lite" national group leader rejoiced, on June 25, 2002, that "not since 1995 have I been able to write to you about as exciting of a (sic) legislative development as I am tonight," serious immigration reductionists are saddened because, in effect, his call to support this bill undercuts the pressure to support the bill which would actually significantly reduce the numbers -- HR 2712. Here are the reasons:

1. By pushing HR 5013 (instead of HR 2712), this "Reform Lite" group is de facto giving up on any significant reduction in the numbers of legal immigrants for four to eight years, if history is any guide, and;

2. Pushing for HR 5013 (as a vehicle to reduce immigration numbers) instead of HR 2712 represents an incredible naivete and/or ignorance on the part of "Reform Lite" groups. If one wants to end up with a bill that reduces immigration by 20% , one does not start at %! One starts at a much lower level -- like the approximately 300,000/yr. level of HR 2712. This is an elementary principle of negotiating which the national "Reform Lite" groups have been disregarding for several years now. And...

3. The "Reform Lite" group's statement that this represents "about as an exciting of a (sic) legislative development ... since 1995" also demonstrates the primary reason immigration reductionists have been unable to get reductions for years. The "Reform Lite" groups have refused to push bills which actually could achieve reductions! For example, in one Congressional session in the 1990s, over eighty members of Congress supported the Stump Bill (which would have created a moratorium on many categories of immigration and reduced others). Yet two national "Reform Lite" groups refused to seriously push either the Stump Bill in the 1990s or the Tancredo Bill (HR 2712) in the current session. [Indeed, in 1996, one national "Reform Lite" group pushed a bill which would have admitted 780,000 annually, thus effectively killing any chance of passage of the Stump Bill.]

4. The "Reform Lite" group's recent press release thus reflects a continuation of the failed strategies of national "Reform Lite" groups in general in recent years: Support a bill with very modest reductions in a couple of categories and ignore a much better bill (e.g., Stump and Tancredo Bills). Then, as the "modest" bill moves through Congress, the reductions get removed in the final version (cf. 1996), and we end up with no reductions, predictably.

5. Several of the excellent reforms in HR 5013 pertain to illegal aliens or tightening the requirements for legals, and, while they would be positive if enacted, the primary focus on them in effect serves to deflect attention from the massive numbers of legal immigrants. -- Yet another silver lining for the "Open Borders Lobby."

6. The "Reform Lite" group claims the bill would end the "diversity visa lottery and chain migration," though we would bet that, since there are no significant reductions in numbers elsewhere in the bill to trade away in the Conference Committee negotiations, such modest reductions in numbers will be traded away entirely and not see the light of day in any final bill, just as were the reductions in the first version of that "modest" reform bill in 1996.

The timing for introduction of HR 5013 is particularly unfortunate and puzzling. Its introduction occurred just as we reductionists were making headway in getting more signatories for HR 2712 -- the bill which, we repeat, would enact a moratorium on several categories of immigration and strictly limit others with a resulting total of about 300,000 a year.

Bottom line: The "modest" reductions proposed in HR 5013 in effect remove the pressure for any significant reductions in legal immigration this session, and beyond.

Yes, the "Open Borders Lobby" must be happy with the "Reform Lite' groups.

While it is arguably commendable for a member of Congress to try to alleviate the effects of mass immigration with a modest bill, it is unconscionable for an immigration reform group (whose fundamental job is to change an existing Congressional consensus for high levels of immigration, rather than merely reflecting it in the legislation such a "Lite Group" pushes) to support a bill with such high numbers when there is a superb alternative bill. The only possible justification for a "Lite" group's pushing such a "modest" bill is that it "...has a shot at passing."

Yet, incredibly, in its recent news release, the "Reform Lite" group which claimed it has been working for months with "key members of Congress" to put together HR 5013 stated "the bill at this moment does not look likely to be passed this year...."

But if HR 5013 is not likely to pass (even given its "modest" character) any time soon, why not support the bill which would achieve substantial reductions -- HR 2712?!

Worse yet, the political "message" the "Reform Lite" partisans' enthusiastic support of HR 5013 (and its failed predecessors in the 1980s and 1990s) actually sends to Congress is: "We're really happy with the bill so far as numbers reduction is concerned... You don't need to do any more for us...."

With supporters like these "Reform Lite" groups, the "Open Borders Lobby" could well agree to go out of business so far as numbers reduction goes, since the "Reform Lite" movement has, once again, undercut the "reduction" movement.

Of course, politically speaking, most if not all of the members of Congress who are supporters of HR 2712 will also have to sign on to HR 5013 because they can not be seen to not support a bill which will do something, anything, about mass immigration, however modest.

But before going gung-ho for HR 5013, which, at the end of the day, probably will get us no reductions, the "Reform Lite" groups should remember the words of the National Council on Terrorism that if there are no numbers reductions:

"The massive flows of people across U.S. borders make exclusion of all foreign terrorists impossible." June, 2000

The Solution

To eventually get significant reductions in numbers and to preserve the many good provisions of HR 5013, the strategy should be to push even harder to increase support for the immigration reduction bill HR 2712 and urge that the best provisions from the reform bill HR 5013, except for its proposed legal immigration level, be added as an amendment to HR 2712. In that way, we thank the well-intentioned members of Congress who co-sponsored HR 5013, yet we maintain pressure for real reductions.

Activists have asked us what they can do to change the counter-productive behavior of the "Reform Lite" groups of which they may be members.

Ask them if they have been and will continue to make HR 2712 their first priority legislative initiative, and what, specifically, they are doing.

Ask them if they have joined the ASAP! Coalition, whose first priority is a five-year moratorium on all immigration in excess of 100,000 per year (because that is the highest number which would ever allow U.S. population to stabilize).

And, of course, a very effective way to strengthen the push for HR 2712 is to support CCN's campaign for a moratorium. Visit us at www.carryingcapacity.org.

AREFORM LITE@ -- A LESSON IN EQUIVOCATION

Carrying Capacity Network's July 1 Alert "Open Borders Lobby Loves 'Reform Lite' Groups" generated many positive responses from activists. Also included in the responses was one from a D.C.-based Reform Lite group. This, sadly, reflected the failed strategies of the "reform movement" for the past 25 years.

That Reform Lite group's response is perhaps understandable, given its relatively recent arrival (in the mid-1990's) on the scene of immigration reform. Yet its inexperience is no excuse for failing to seriously push H.R. 2712 or for continuing to advocate a policy of "modest reductions" in categories, an approach which, this Reform Lite group is quite aware, has been tried and failed on several occasions in the past 25 years.

The Reform Lite group's response to CCN and to H.R. 2712 exactly makes the point why its strategy is doomed to failure from the start. It notes "earlier forms of this moratorium bill were introduced in 1993 by Senator Reed (sic) (D-NV) and by Rep. Stump (D-AZ) (sic) in every Congress since until (sic) this one"... However, "none of them...has ever gone anywhere."

What the Reform Liter misses is that the Reform Lite lobby never made a serious attempt at pushing the Stump Bills. For example, in 1996, a different national Reform Lite group put all of its efforts into passing a conflicting bill which would have resulted in 780,000 admittees a year, and which thus undercut the Stump Bill. Result: No Reductions.

And speaking of that other D.C. based Reform Lite group, we have not noticed any calls to action to support H.R. 2712 (or any other bill with significant legal immigration reduction for that matter) in any of their 2002 newsletters. Have we missed something?

Sadly, the Reform Lite group's July statement that H.R. 5013 "permanently eliminates the family chain migration and visa lottery categories" represents a extraordinary political naivete. What the Reform Liter misses is that pushing for elimination of only these categories at the beginning of the legislative process (as opposed to pushing for a moratorium) plays right into the hands of the Open Borders lobby. Not pushing for an all-inclusive moratorium at the beginning will likely result in the elimination of these "category cuts" well before any such bill is ready for the President's signature.

Pushing a "category approach" to reduction, as the Reform Liter does, plays into the opposition's strength, allowing the opposition to mobilize support for retention or expansion of its favorite categories. This tactic, the Reform Liter even admits in yet another equivocation, has resulted in the Open Borders lobby chipping away "piece by piece to increase immigration to current astronomical levels." The proof is that in the past 25 years, category cuts have historically always gotten eliminated in Conference Committee, or before.

This Reform Lite "category approach" also fails to mobilize the grassroots in getting the simple all-encompassing message to Congress that we need to end mass immigration with a moratorium. Instead, it sends the message: "If you just reduce immigration by 20% and do a few other things, we'll be satisfied."

But the reality for our side is that only the moratorium message will motivate all our potential grassroots supporters to put pressure on our government to do the right thing by America!

Bottom Line: To even get reductions in categories, you have to push a moratorium.

Moreover, speaking of getting the "legal reduction horse out of the corral", Reform Lite groups have had many opportunities since one first appeared at the ASAP Coalition's conference in Estes Park, Colorado in 1997 to sign on, along with fifty other organizations, to the ASAP platform. That platform advocates a moratorium on all immigration in excess of 100,000 annually -- the highest number which would allow U.S. population to eventually stabilize.

Yet this Reform Lite group still equivocates, while claiming to support U.S. population stabilization, and has refused to sign on, and still refuses to do so. The half hearted support that Reform Liter now evidences for H.R. 2712-- the moratorium bill House Immigration Caucus Chairman Tancredo sponsored -- is exactly the kind of half hearted support that undercut the Stump Bills of the 1990s.

The Reform Liter makes much of the fact that key supporters of H.R. 2712 are now supporting H.R. 5013. Well, of course they are! Politically speaking, most if not all members of Congress who are supporters of H.R. 2712 will be impelled to sign on to H.R. 5013. This is because they cannot be seen not to support a bill that will do something, anything, about mass immigration, however modest.

It is noteworthy that Representative Tancredo introduced his original Moratorium Bill H.R. 2712 nearly a year ago in August 2001 without the conspicuous support of the Reform Liter. It obviously represents his first priority, but, politically speaking, he and the other supporters of H.R. 2712 are now impelled to support H.R. 5013.

But the Net Effect of the Reform Lite group's "many months of work" to put together H.R. 5013: OUR ALLIES -- THE CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN SUPPORTING H.R. 2712 -- HAVE BEEN IMPELLED BY THE REFORM LITERS TO UP THE LEGAL IMMIGRATION LEVEL THEY SUPPORT FROM 300,000/YEAR TO 1.2 MILLION/YEAR (assuming 2001 levels continue) ... ALL WITHOUT THE OPEN BORDERS FOLKS LIFTING A FINGER!

The Reform Liters should heed Congressman Tancredo's view about what is necessary to get immigration reduction:

"The challenge is enormous, and you have to talk about a moratorium. You can't talk about anything short of a moratorium, because, frankly, anything less will never get you one step closer to stabilization."

Finally, in more a manifestation of naivete than equivocation, the Reform Lite group's projections about what the bill will do are pie-in-the-sky, not merely because they are not likely to pass, but because they miss the point. The point is, if you start with the "category approach" and a "20% reduction," you will end up with no legal reductions, historically.

Sadly, there are even more flaws in the Reform Lite group's position. By framing the issue as: "Would passing a SAFER Act hurt the passage of a moratorium bill later?" the Reform Lite group demonstrates both poor strategy and its misunderstanding of history. We must repeat: Legislative history shows that if one pushes for a bill with a 20% reduction (and not a moratorium) at the start, you get nothing.

But, should such an immigration bill as H.R. 5013 pass against all odds, that probably forecloses any action on real immigration reduction for 4 - 8 years. Is that what we want?

As well, the Reform Lite Group's question "should we keep everything as bad as possible ... or should we try to achieve any gains that we can get..." not only caricatures CCN's position, but represents another misunderstanding. If the Reform Liter truly wants "constant improvements almost any time they can be gotten," then it needs to push a bill which will create sufficient leverage to get that done. Pushing a "category approach" bill with a 20% cut in legal immigration reduction does not generate nearly as much pressure as pushing for a moratorium.

Sadly for the immigration reduction movement, the Reform Lite group's description of all the good things H.R. 5013 would do if passed represents a delusional or extremely naive view of the realities of legislative process -- painting a word-picture of an ideal series of incremental category reductions achieved in one Congress after another as envisioned by the Reform Liter is a pipe dream -- the past 25 years have demonstrated that.
If the Reform Liter really wants to get the 20% reduction, it should be, and should have been, pushing hard to support The Moratorium Bill H.R. 2712, with the provisions of H.R. 5013 added as an amendment.

Finally, the Reform Lite group's position that "at the same time (as you support the H.R. 5013 Bill) we encourage you to push members of Congress to also co-sponsor the moratorium bill" is exactly the wrong strategy because it relieves the pressure to end up with any significant reductions. Many politicians tend to gravitate toward the easiest compromise bill, and then even that bill gets amended.

For the population stabilization movement to succeed, reform groups outside of Congress must push for an all-inclusive moratorium. Leave the compromising to Congress. We need not fear, Congress will compromise.

It is precisely the Reform Lite groups' support of category reduction bills like H.R. 5013 (for which the Reform Liter claims credit) which have opened the door for the Open Borders lobby to "chip away piece by piece to increase immigration to current astronomical levels."

By failing to actively support only the Tancredo bill H.R. 2712 (and by instead "working with key members of Congress for months to support H.R. 5013"), the Reform Liter has opened that door, and the result will be predictable, more of the same.

To be sure, as CCN indicated in its Alert, there are many good provisions in the SAFER Bill H.R. 5013.

Thus, the effective strategy is to push even harder for the H.R. 2712 Moratorium Bill, with an amendment incorporating the best H.R. 5013 provisions ... except those relating to legal immigration numbers.

So, we hereby ask the D.C. Reform Lite Duo if they will unequivocally support H.R. 2712 with such an amendment?

We must send the message: no more mass immigration. That message is sent by an unequivocal support of the Tancredo Moratorium Bill H.R. 2712.

ACTION: 1.) Ask if the groups you support will:

a) make H.R. 2712 their first priority, and
b) join the ASAP Coalition (ask to see the letter they send signing on).

2.) Support CCN in its push for a moratorium.

3.) Urge your Representative/Senators to co-sponsor H.R. 2712.

4.) Visit our website at www.carryingcapacity.org.