Suppose moderators of presidential debates and reporters who cover the campaigns knew how to ask intelligent questions about immigration. Today's journalists lack that ability. Even if they knew what to ask, few would press the candidates on this radioactive issue.

Carolyn Washburn, editor of the Des Moines Register and moderator of the Des Moines Register Presidential Debates, told the GOP candidates at the beginning of their mid-December debate:

"We won't talk a lot about issues like Iraq or immigration. They're important issues, no doubt, but Iowans say they know where the candidates are coming from on those."

Do Iowans "know where the candidates are coming from"?

Washburn put no such limitations on the Democratic Party candidates the next day. She had no need. The furor in late October-early November over New York Democratic governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens and Senator Hillary Clinton's seeming support for Spitzer's plan then reversal two weeks later taught Democrats and the news media that the less said about immigration the better for the Democratic Party.

But suppose we had capable, less partisan moderators, editors and reporters. Suppose they were able to put tough questions to the candidates. Here are seven questions which would tell the public much of what they need to know about how the candidates for the nation's highest office plan to address the greatest threat to America's long term existence as one nation: chaotic and thoughtless immigration policy:

To the Candidates

1) The Houston Chronicle had the following headline for a 2006 report: "Border Baby Boom Strains South Texas." The report focused on pregnant illegal aliens "streaming into Texas to give birth" to obtain American citizenship for their newborns. Other terms associated with the phenomenon: "anchor babies," "jackpot babies," "birth tourism." Constitutional scholars such as John C. Eastman of the Chapman University School of Law and Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec believe Congress has the authority to end this abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Would you support legislation to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born to parents illegally in the United States? (1)

2) Legal immigration to the United States is governed by the principle of "family reunification." Generous family reunification provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act produce the unintended consequence of "chain migration" of extended families. These provisions yield an immigration mix that is heavily tilted toward the lower end of the skills spectrum. As a consequence, school systems confront a large "achievement gap" between students from immigrant families and majority students. Unlike the United States, Australia and Canada give greater weight to skills in selecting immigrants. Studies indicate skilled immigrants assimilate rapidly to a First World country's economic and cultural norms. Would you, as president of the United States, support changing U. S. immigration law to put emphasis on skills rather than family reunification? (2)

3) Do you see a connection between Congress' 1986 decision to provide a path to citizenship for three million illegal aliens and the presence in the U. S. today of 12 to 20 million more illegal aliens? (3)

4) In its 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 that children illegally in the United States are entitled to a free public education. The language of the decision suggests Congress may, in effect, overrule Plyler by amending U. S. immigration law. Would you support legislation overturning Plyler? (4)

5) A 2002 Zogby poll found that 58 percent of Mexican citizens agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Yet, the United States permits high levels of both legal and illegal immigration from Mexico. Is it prudent to encourage high rates of immigration from a country with historical grievances against the United States? If the answer is no, how would you change current policy? (5)

6) Following the Great Wave of immigration from1880 to1920, restrictive legislation in the 20s and then World War II reduced immigration to a trickle for five decades. This "time-out" allowed the processes of assimilation — the "melting pot" — to work on the Great Wave immigrants. Considering the challenges schools, communities, and states face today because of more than three decades of low-skilled immigration, would it benefit the United States to legislate a similar period of greatly reduced immigration — another time-out, if you will — to permit assimilation of the latest "great wave" of immigrants?

7) The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), which just missed passing in the Senate in October, would have provided illegal alien high school students who wish to attend college an opportunity to pursue this goal and to attain legal status. What is your position on the DREAM Act? (6)

Endnotes

1) According to a 2005 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 10 percent of all U. S. births are to illegal alien mothers.

"A new analysis of birth records by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that in 2002 almost one in four births in the United States was to an immigrant mother (legal or illegal), the highest level in American history. In addition, nearly ten percent of all births in the country were to illegal-alien mothers" ("Births to Immigrants in America 1970 to 2002," July, 2005)

For the dubious origins of U. S. policy of "automatic birthright citizenship" and thus the legal basis for challenging the policy, see "Automatic Birthright Citizenship: An Emerging Crisis."

The full text of "Border Baby Boom Strains South Texas," Houston Chronicle, September 24, 2007 has been preserved at FederalObserver.com.

2) The fiscal impact on school systems of heavy, sustained low-skilled immigration can be gauged by a recent U. S. Congressional Budget Office study, "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on Budgets of State and Local Governments," December, 2007. But bear in mind when reading the numbers from the CBO study below that they apply only to the schooling costs of illegal immigration. The full effects of both illegal and legal low-skilled immigration on schools are, by necessity, much larger than these numbers indicate.

But the data do give some sense of the effects on schools of Washington's policy of encouraging mass low-skilled immigration.

Highlights from the CBO report:

Higher Per-Pupil Costs: "Analyses from several states indicate the cost of educating students who did not speak English fluently were 20 percent to 40 percent higher than the costs incurred for native-born students." (page 2)

Ten Percent Higher Public School Enrollment: "Current estimates indicate that about 2 million school-age children (5 to 17 years old) in the United States are unauthorized immigrants; an additional 3 million children are U. S. citizens born to unauthorized immigrants. According to the most recent population data released by the Census Bureau, as of July 2006, there were 53.3 million school-age children in the United States." (pages 7-8).

Thus, ten percent of U. S. public school enrollment is a direct result of illegal immigration.

The CBO does not attempt to provide an estimate of the total costs of illegal immigration on America's schools. I will. It's a simple calculation:

5 million students (who would otherwise not be here) x $10,000 (average annual per-pupil expenditure) = $50 billion in annual costs.

Note: The $50 billion estimate is conservative for two reasons: 1) The figure is not adjusted for the 20-40% extra costs of educating non-English speaking students and 2) per-pupil costs reflect operational costs. They do not include capital expenditures (school construction and debt service), which typically adds $2000 in annual costs per pupil. The true direct costs of illegal immigration on schools may be closer to $70 billion..

This cost estimate for illegal immigration excludes the costs of legal chain migration of extended families with mostly low levels of education. Immigration of chains of relatives is the result of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. This pivotal Civil Rights Era-inspired measure has transformed American immigration — legal and illegal. For details see: "Immigration Milestones: 1965: Family Reunification Replaces National Quotas."

3) Details on the 1986 amnesty: "Immigration Milestones: The 1986 Amnesty."

4) For details on Plyler v. Doe, see: "Plyler v. Doe (1982) Transforms American Education."

5) Mexican grievances are explained in: "Mexican Immigration: Special Challenge." Details on the Zogby poll can be found at: "American Views of Mexico and Mexican Views of the U. S.," June 6, 2002.

6) Supporters of the DREAM Act use a we-can't-punish-the-children-for-the-crimes-of-the-parents rationale to move the DREAM Act forward. It's effective. On Oct. 24, 2007, supporters came within eight votes of getting the 60 needed in the U. S. Senate to invoke cloture (and thus permit a sure-to-succeed vote in the full Senate). But here are a few effects of a "DREAM Act" supporters fail to tell the public: Illegal alien minors brought to the U. S. before age 16 would, on reaching age 21, be able to seek legal status for their illegal alien parents, eventually putting in motion chain migration of extended family. Moreover, the DREAM Act would be an invitation to fraud. Only an affidavit would be required for "proof" of minor status on entering the U. S. Illegal aliens up to age of 29 could apply. Moreover, merely filing an application, no matter how far-fetched, confers instant legal status (immunity from deportation). Thus, the DREAM Act, if it were to pass, would prove to be one more very powerful reward for breaking U. S. immigration laws.