Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform

Let me state the following premise about which there is little
disagreement. It is the obligation of the Federal Government to
secure the borders of the Nation from illegal entry and unauthor-
ized invasion…. It is not a question of being anti-immigration.
This country was founded by immigrants. I am the son of one
of them.

—Rep. Steven Horn (R-CA), August 9,1996

In these opening remarks to a hearing on federal border control efforts, immigrants appear simultaneously as villainous invaders of the nation and as its heroic founders. That Americans view and treat the immigrant population with both veneration and fear is an accepted peculiarity of the nations history. However, Congressman Horns remarks also reveal four themes that have become the hallmarks of contemporary discourse on immigration policy, which blends old and new sensibilities about the benefits and harms of immigration to the nation. For example, Mr. Horn reminds his audience that the only entity with the power to engage in national defense is the federal government. This first theme, the tendency in political discourse to describe immigration with the crisis language of “war” and “invasion,” is as old as the immigration phenomenon.¹

Similarly, the congressman's reminder that the federal government has a responsibility to control immigration alludes to another historical theme, the dispute over state versus federal fiscal responsibilities in immigration administration and settlement. State and local governments have periodically complained that they bear the costs of large-scale immigration policies that they do not design, but are mandated to implement. In 1882,

-1-