by Bobby Jindal
The data show that in 2004, for example, low-skill immigrant households received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because they received more welfare. Low-skill immigrant households also pay less in taxes than the rest of us. In short, low-skill immigrant households receive nearly three dollars in immediate government benefits and services for each dollar they pay.8
Does this mean we should only allow immigrants who are highly skilled and educated to come to America? Absolutely not. While attracting high-skilled immigrants should be a special focus, our country can also benefit greatly from immigrants whose only credentials are a desire to work hard, assimilate, and chase the American Dream. But the American Dream is not to have the government take care of you. That is an American nightmare.
Hard-working, unskilled immigrants are in fact vital to America. I’m sure nearly every person reading this book has some personal experience with these kinds of motivated immigrants. Much like my parents, many of them have experienced third-world poverty, giving them a perspective most native-born Americans just don’t have. These people make America a better place and a stronger nation. They should be embraced, not feared. But we need a legal, orderly system for admitting them, where their number is agreed upon by our elected representatives and then rigorously enforced. Despite all the heated rhetoric about this issue, there is actually a pretty simple way to do that.
Our illegal immigration crisis is causing all kinds of serious problems, especially by straining our healthcare and education systems. Some fire-breathing politicians argue we should simply deny healthcare and education to illegals and their families. But that’s not the American way—we are far too compassionate to turn people away from emergency rooms or keep 6-year-old kids out of first grade.
My approach to stopping the massive wave of illegal immigration is straightforward: build a fence (partly high-tech, comprised of cameras and censors, and partly a traditional fence) and enforce the laws. When I was in Congress, I voted in 2006 for building a high-tech fence along the border and committing to systematically monitoring our border. Due to a lack of political will from nearly all parts of the government, however, the fence has not seen much progress; it is limited to a small part of the Arizona, California, and Texas borders. I also voted to prevent the federal government from tipping off the Mexican government about the whereabouts of Minuteman Project volunteers who monitor the border and report illegal immigration activity to the border patrol. Unlike some of my liberal critics, I believe we should encourage the peaceful involvement of public citizens in protecting our country and upholding the law.
Many members of Congress claim it would be impossible to secure the border. That’s an amusing argument. Apparently, we can send men to the moon, we can kill terrorists with unarmed drones from half a continent away, but we can’t build a big fence. Others emotionally compare a border fence to the Berlin Wall, ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Berlin Wall was meant to keep a captive people in, while our border fence would keep people out who get here by breaking the law.
Advocates of amnesty or quasi-amnesty for illegal immigrants don’t know their history. In 1986 Congress passed an amnesty called the Immigration Reform and Control Act, legalizing about 3 million illegals and providing for employer sanctions for hiring illegal workers in the future. At the time, advocates promised the amnesty would be accompanied by strict border control to finally solve the illegal immigration problem. That should sound familiar, because it’s the same plan and the same promise we hear from amnesty advocates today.
But instead of ending the problem, the 1986 amnesty led to an explosion of illegal immigration. The promise to secure the border wasn’t kept, and the Act sent the message that if illegals can just make it across the border, they’ll eventually get amnesty. Roughly two decades later, President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain pushed for a de facto amnesty for the millions of illegals who had arrived since the 1986 amnesty. Their plan was similar to the 1986 policy, except that amnesty recipients were required to fulfill a few minor requirements, like paying a fine. I know President Bush and Senator McCain had the purest of motives, opting for the course they believed was most compassionate. But I also believe any replay of the 1986 amnesty will fail.
We’d go a long way toward solving the illegal immigration problem if the federal government would fulfill its responsibility to enforce existing immigration laws, especially against employers of illegals. Federal courts have affirmed that local authorities also have the right and the responsibility to enforce these laws. In Arizona, for example, the state Legislature passed a law allowing state authorities to suspend or revoke the business license of a company that knowingly employs illegal workers. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of this law.
More recently, Arizona enacted new policies to enforce immigration laws. These have sparked various protests by left-wingers, including an attempt to boycott the entire state of Arizona. Clearly, when the federal government does not do its job, the American people take action on their own. The ultimate solution is for the federal government to fulfill its responsibility to secure our borders.
Some immigration experts argue a moderate enforcement of immigration laws, costing less than $2 billion over five years, would cut the illegal population in half. The key is not just to round up illegals, but to punish their employers. Without available jobs, millions of illegals will have little choice but to return home voluntarily.
Citizens of most countries define their identity by ethnic descent. But Americans are different. We’re bonded together by ideals and values that form a common national creed. That’s why all immigrants should learn English; in order to communicate these values with each other, we need a common language. Moreover, learning English is crucial for immigrants’ chances of success in America. Today, an immigrant who doesn’t speak English will probably experience a low standard of living and even government dependence.
Through most of our history, the need for immigrants to learn English was so widely recognized that it wasn’t a topic of serious political debate. Congress even traditionally refused to admit new states if they lacked an English-speaking majority.
But in recent decades, the incentive to learn English has eroded. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required the provision of bilingual voting ballots. California and some other states also allow voting by mail in state elections using non-English language ballots. But bilingual ballots should not be needed, because immigrants since the Nationality Act of 1906 (later reaffirmed in the Nationality Act of 1940) have had to demonstrate literacy in English in order to gain U.S. citizenship.9 Since only citizens can vote, why would anyone need a foreign language ballot?
Furthermore, just before he left office President Clinton signed Executive Order 13166, which required federal agencies to ensure people could receive communications and services from the government in foreign languages. Although well-intentioned, the policy further reduces the motivation for immigrants to learn English.
I co-sponsored a bill in Congress to declare English the official language of the United States and to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, to reaffirm the previous law. Understanding how vital English is to success in America, many immigrants enthusiastically supported the bill. In fact, much of the opposition to it didn’t come from immigrants, but from guilt-ridden liberal elites who believe that encouraging English unjustly imposes American values on immigrants.
According to this philosophy of multiculturalism, we should not try to spread our values because our culture is no better than anyone else’s—and in many ways, it’s supposedly much worse. This view is popular among liberal academics at elite universities and professional “civil rights activists.” But in my experience as both the son of immigrants and as a governor, the vast majority of immigrants reject this nonsense. They know life in Ameri
ca is better—that’s why they came here in the first place.
I have no problem imposing American values on people who want to become Americans. Freedom, hard work, self-reliance, and rugged individualism are values all Americans should embrace. If immigrants reject these values, well, it’s a big world out there.
The reasons we must secure our borders are really beyond dispute.
First—the safety of our citizens. Our porous borders tempt terrorists to sneak into America. Additionally, many border communities are imperiled by the violence, drug smuggling, and other crimes committed by vicious Mexican drug cartels that now threaten to spill over the border.
Second—the cost to our citizens. As I noted before, America is the most generous nation on earth. We care for our poor and needy, and we do the same across the world through government foreign aid as well as private charity and humanitarian assistance. But we cannot allow millions of illegal immigrants to sneak into our country and eventually end up on government assistance.
Third—the cost to our culture. Robust immigration is a great benefit to America, but immigrants have to come here legally and they have to be not just immigrants, but converts. When we accept immigrants who see America as a mere resource to exploit for their personal gain, we spread a debilitating welfare mentality that chips away at the traditional can-do attitude that has made America great.
The truth is, with the exception of Native Americans, we are all immigrants to this country. Some came hundreds of years ago, some hundreds of hours ago. My mom and dad came to America to work hard and chase the American Dream. And in the end they caught it. Becoming converts to the idea of America, they are now middle-class Americans. Make no mistake, many Americans helped them along the way, by hiring them to work, loaning them a car, and teaching them the ways of America. But they never accepted welfare, nor did the idea ever cross their minds.
Determined, highly motivated immigrants helped make this country great. And they will continue doing so—if we reform immigration.
CHAPTER 9
THE MOST BORING GOVERNOR IN LOUISIANA’S HISTORY
You could hear the snickers in the crowd. “Did he just say he’s going to clean up corruption in Louisiana? Sure he is, and I bet he thinks the Saints will win the Super Bowl, too! The poor young fella.”
During my runs for governor in both 2003 and 2007, many Louisianians thought it was quaint, perhaps even charming, that I pledged to crack down on the corruption that has made our state famous for over a century. It’s not that folks didn’t want clean government; they just thought it was terribly naïve to think we could ever achieve it.
You could see it in their faces. Some of the older ladies on the campaign trail looked like they had to restrain themselves from patting me on the head. I think a few of them wanted to adopt me. The state’s grizzled political veterans were less charitable, taking me for a dreamer, a fool, or both.
A former Louisiana congressman has often remarked that at any given time half the state of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment. Indeed, you could fill a small library with books about, shall we say, the “colorful” history of political corruption in my state. Although our poor reputation on this issue is long-standing, once in a while we manage to outdo ourselves.
One of the most famous examples occurred in 1991, when our race for governor came down to a battle between Edwin Edwards, a former congressman and governor famous for his corruption scandals and gambling debts, and David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. That was like having a choice between being shot or stabbed—either way, it’s not going to turn out well. Much of the country was transfixed by this weird campaign, which produced unusual slogans like the pro-Edwards motto, “Vote for the Crook, It’s Important.” In the end, a majority of folks did just that. Edwards returned to the governor’s mansion, served out his term, and a few years later was sentenced to ten years in prison on corruption-related charges.
More recently, another Louisiana politician grabbed national headlines for corruption. Bill Jefferson, a man whom I served alongside in Congress and whose congressional district was adjacent to mine, was convicted of taking bribes after the authorities found $90,000 hidden in his freezer. He gave new meaning to the term “cold hard cash.”
And remember, for every high-profile case like Edwards or Jefferson, there are many more local corruption stories that don’t get a lot of attention outside Louisiana. In February 2010, former state senator Derrick Shepherd was sentenced to three years in jail for money laundering. Worse still, three of our last four insurance commissioners ended up in prison.
I sure don’t have room here to cover the whole history of Louisiana’s colorful politicians. But I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the grand-daddy of them all, the Kingfish, the one, the only, Governor and Senator Huey Long. This guy takes the cake ... and Lord knows what else.
In addition to being a tremendously talented politician and what many call a socialist, Huey Long wrote the book on patronage, packing the state government with his own network of political supporters. Offended by his corruption, cronyism, and his efforts to begin taxing refined oil to pay for his social programs, the state Legislature in 1929 moved to impeach Huey on eight charges, including bribery, seeking to intimidate the press, and misuse of state funds.1
When news of the plan to impeach the governor leaked out, Long’s handpicked Speaker of the House quickly moved to adjourn the session. After that, a massive fistfight broke out on the House floor, an event known as “Bloody Monday.” (It was a fitting name, in light of reports that some legislators used brass knuckles.) It wasn’t one of our state’s better moments, but hey, at least it was before YouTube was invented.2
The House eventually did impeach the “Kingfish,” but he stopped the effort in the state Senate by convincing fifteen senators (just one more than he needed) to sign a statement vowing they would not vote to convict Long regardless of any evidence.
Having grown tired of endless critical news stories, Long founded his own newspaper in 1930, Louisiana Progress, which he used to trumpet his achievements and to trash his opponents. Companies receiving state contracts were expected to buy ads in the paper, and Long even tried to pass a law forbidding the publication of “slanderous material”—in other words, negative stories about him. (My staff has repeatedly suggested I try the same thing, but so far I’ve managed to fight them off.)
As colorful a politician as Huey Long was, my favorite Louisiana character is Huey’s brother, Earl Long. Serving multiple terms as governor, Earl became famous for carrying on a multi-year affair with a stripper, Blaze Starr. Less well-known is that Earl Long, while serving as governor, was involuntarily confined to a mental hospital. His wife, the first lady known as Miz Blanche, is said to have played a major part in having the governor committed—owing in part to his ongoing affair with the stripper.
But the story gets better. Nothing in Louisiana law required Earl to step down as governor, so he ran the state by phone from the mental hospital. He fired the head of the state hospital system and replaced him with one of his own political supporters. Long was then immediately diagnosed as having no mental illness and later released from the hospital. He began wearing a large button that read, “I’m not crazy.”
You just could not make this stuff up. And if you did, no one would believe it. I know many people who fervently insist most politicians should be committed to mental hospitals. Imagine how chagrined they would be to learn that, in Louisiana at least, even that will not stop a politician.
So it was against this backdrop of bribes, cronyism, strippers, fist-fights, and mental institutions that I pledged right after being elected in 2007 to try to be Louisiana’s most effective and most boring governor of all time. My wife immediately told me that I would have no trouble with the boring part.
To be fair, Louisiana does not have a monopoly on government corruption. I saw for myself that Washington, D.C., has its share—and then some. I serve
d in Congress at the tail end of the Republican revolution that began in 1994 when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in over forty years. By the time I got there in 2005, the revolution was running on fumes. The new thinking and idealism that had fueled the Republican renaissance had given way to a desperate attempt to amass and retain power. This led to a series of ethical lapses by congressmen—not strictly Republicans, but plenty of Republicans for sure.
The party that had a decade earlier stormed into Washington to change it had become changed by it. Of course these are generalities, and they don’t apply to everyone, but they do apply to far too many. And the Republican Party was much too slow to condemn their own. You can’t slam the other party when one of their guys breaks the rules and turn a blind eye when one of yours does it. The public sees that for what it is: hypocrisy.
Ethical lapses were not the only reason Republicans lost control of Congress, but they played a big part. In my short three years in the House we saw one of our own, Duke Cunningham, nailed for taking bribes from defense contractors. Another Republican, Bob Ney, pled guilty to corruption charges. And Republican Mark Foley was discovered to have been sexually harassing male high school students in the House page program.
Of course, with 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate, you’re always going to have a few bad apples. And with all the temptations of power in Congress, corrupt people, shall we say, will always be well-represented there. But the key issue is how seriously we try to prevent corruption, and how we deal with it when it’s discovered. Personally, I’m for throwing the book at elected leaders who cheat, steal, enrich themselves, and otherwise exploit their position for personal gain.