By Jerry McDaniel

Last week while in Mexico President Bush changed the debate over immigration (at least in my own mind) when he used the word “migration” instead of immigration. While migration and immigration are similar in their dictionary definitions there in a vast difference in the images they conjure up in the mind. Migration brings to mind uncontrolled masses of people moving from one place to another, either to escape a failed or failing political or social system, or for better economic opportunities, sometimes both.

Uncontrolled migration has never benefited the host country. If you doubt this hop into your time machine, go back 100 years and ask the first Native American you see if uncontrolled migration has helped or harmed his culture. Throughout history the final nail in the coffin for most of the great civilizations has been uncontrolled migration.

There is a logical reason for this. When a country is mired in poverty and oppression it is only natural that its citizens begin to look for a better way of life someplace else. Not being stupid they naturally look to the most prosperous and successful country they can find because the opportunities are better.

The word immigration brings to mind an orderly and controlled movement of people from one country to another. Controlled immigration has served our country well since 1882 when the first immigration law was passed to bring a growing problem under control. Since then immigration law has undergone several changes as our needs and problems changed. However, they worked fairly well until we began to lose control in the early 1980’s due to lax enforcement.

President Reagen attempted to regain control by convincing congress to pass the infamous “amnesty” law. This attempt failed because the punitive parts of the law was never enforced and consequently were ignored by migrants and businesses alike looking to satisfy a perceived need for cheap labor.

The difference between uncontrolled migration and controlled immigration are important. With controlled immigration the host country sets the rules and admits only those immigrants who show promise of contributing to its improvement. For the most part these immigrants are people who have shown they have the ability to thrive to a certain extent even in their own culture. Many of them are well educated and accomplished. They are simply seeking opportunities not available in their home country to apply their skills and talents.

With uncontrolled migration it’s different. The migrant groups for the most part are made up of the least successful from their own country. Unfortunately, they bring with them the social and political attitudes and customs that have contributed to the failure of the culture they left behind. Over time, if the migratory group is large enough they pass along these attitudes and customs and eventually weaken or, at minimum, drastically alter the culture of the host country.

Our current migration crisis is fostered and encouraged by four groups: The government looking to increase its power base, churches concerned about dwindling attendance, businesses looking to decrease their labor costs, and unions eager to replenish their membership roles. When you realize who the “enablers” are you begin to appreciate the difficulty the average citizens are having in getting any meaningful action to bring the problem under any sort of control.