Los Angeles Times
Sunday, June 14, 1998
Clinton Hails Benefits of Immigration to America
Culture: President backs high levels of legal migration to U.S.
while saying it's the duty of new arrivals to learn English. He concedes
influx can test national cohesion.
By DOYLE MCMANUS,
Times Washington Bureau Chief
PORTLAND, Ore.--President Clinton made a strong statement in favor of
continued high levels of immigration Saturday, saying it is Americans'
duty to welcome new citizens from abroad--and immigrants' duty to learn
English and "embrace our culture."
"I believe new immigrants are good
for America," Clinton said in a commencement speech at Portland State
University. "They are revitalizing our cities. They are building our
new economy. . . . They are energizing our culture and broadening our vision
of the world. They are renewing our most basic values."
In unusually blunt language on an emotion-charged
issue, the president said he understood why many Americans feel threatened
by burgeoning immigration, most of it coming from Asia and Latin America.
"They are afraid the America they know and love is becoming a foreign
land," he said.
And he conceded that record-high levels
of immigration could threaten the nation's cohesion. But he asked native-born
Americans to extend more tolerance to newcomers and, in return, for immigrants
to abandon foreign ways.
Clinton, who headlined a Democratic Party
fund-raiser Saturday night in Los Angeles, did not directly mention California's
recently approved Proposition 227, but he clearly had it in mind as he
called for greater efforts to teach English to immigrant children.
The initiative, passed in the primary election
earlier this month, outlawed most bilingual education in the state and
mandated, instead, a one-year English immersion program to teach young
immigrants the language. A lawsuit has been filed to block the measure's
provisions from taking effect in the fall.
"It is important for children to retain
their native language, but unless they also learn English, they will never
reach their full potential in the United States," he said. He called
on Americans to "do whatever it takes . . . to make sure [immigrants]
learn as quickly as they can the language that will be the dominant language
of this country's commerce and citizenship in the future."
But Clinton also touched on the difficulties
of achieving that goal. "Now, it's all very well for someone to say,
every one of [non-English-speaking immigrants] should learn English immediately,"
he said. "But we don't, at this time, necessarily have people who
are trained to teach them English in all those languages" spoken by
various immigrants, he said.
Clinton opposed Proposition 227, but he
acknowledged that bilingual education programs had deep flaws; he called
for a compromise that would allow bilingual education but limit it to three
Aides said Clinton's speech, the third in
a series of addresses on major national issues he has made at commencements,
was not prompted by Proposition 227 but was the product of months of discussion.
In its broad sweep, the speech was the most
complete exposition of his views on immigration during his presidency and
elaborated two themes he has struck before: Americans should welcome immigrants--"give
them their chance at the brass ring," as he put it Saturday--but immigrants
must work to integrate themselves into the larger American culture.
Addressing the newcomers, he said, "
. . . you must honor laws. Embrace our culture. Learn our language. Know
our history. And when the time comes, you should become citizens."
With legal immigration to the country approaching
1 million a year, Clinton noted that the current wave is "larger than
any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history" and has
had particular impact on California.
Within five years, there will be no majority
race in our largest state, California," he said. "In a little
more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States."
He added: "No other nation in history
has gone through demographic change of this magnitude over so short a time.
What do the changes mean? They can either strengthen and unite us, or weaken
and divide us. We must decide."
Responding to the president's remarks, a
leading critic of liberal immigration policies accused Clinton of ignoring
the "massive societal changes" brought about by droves of immigrants.
"Rather than revitalize the cities,
immigrants have driven Americans out of the cities," said Dan Stein,
executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform in
Washington. "Native-born Americans are fleeing cities like Los Angeles
because of the impact of excessively high levels of immigration."
Stein's group favors a limit of 200,000
newcomers per year, but he said there is little chance of lawmakers backing
that goal anytime soon.
Indeed, on Capitol Hill, the focus has been
on stemming the flow of illegal immigrants--who number an estimated 5 million--while
welcoming those entering the country legally. Republican leaders have endorsed
a steady flow of legal immigrants as good for business. Most Democrats,
meanwhile, support the flow of new immigrants to join their extended families
here as a civil rights issue. Clinton, in
his speech, noted that he was supporting legal immigration, not illegal
"It's wrong to condone illegal immigration
that flouts our laws, strains our tolerance, taxes our resources."
But Clinton also condemned "ballot propositions to exclude immigrants
from our civic life," an apparent reference to California's Proposition
187, which passed in 1994 and prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving
an array of public services.
He condemned "identity politics,"
the increasing division of American society into interest groups defined
by ethnicity and sex.
"Not just immigrants, but every American--on
our campuses and in our communities--should reject identity politics that
seeks to separate us, not bring us together," he said. "Ethnic
pride is a very good thing . . . but pride in one's ethnic or racial heritage
must never become an excuse to withdraw from the larger American community.
That does not honor diversity; it breeds divisiveness."
While calling on Americans to "treat
new immigrants as we would have wanted our own grandparents to be treated,"
he also cautioned that "unless we handle this well, immigration of
this sweep and scope could threaten the bonds of our union. Around the
world, we see what can happen when people who live on the same land put
race and ethnicity before country and humanity."
Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this story from Washington.