Debates over U.S. immigration policy generally consist of two major positions. One side, generally the position taken by the Right, is primarily concerned that allowing more individuals into the country will increase the number of people who are overly dependent on U.S. taxpayer funded programs and services. Of particular worry are illegal immigrants, who generally do not pay payroll taxes, which fund such social welfare programs as Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The lower the barriers are for legal immigration and temporary work and study programs, the easier it is for illegal immigrants to also enter into the country. Why should more and more of hard-working AmericansÕ income go to supporting increasing numbers of people, particularly when many of those people do not pay their fair share into the system? Furthermore, since 9/11, concern has grown over monitoring which foreigners enter the country.

The other major position in the immigration debate is primarily held by those on the Left. This argument posits that it is not fair to prohibit immigrants from entering the U.S., since the U.S. itself is a nation of immigrants. Most of our own ancestors emigrated to the U.S. within the last few hundred years. The U.S. owes its strength to its diversity of citizens. Immigrants take the low-paying jobs, such as working in the fields, that even none of our teenagers would accept.

Both of these arguments have merit to them, but both only skim the surface of what is really a deeper, underlying problem. In actuality, the two sides would not be polar opposites, if this underlying issue were to be resolved. The deeper issue here is taxpayer-funded handouts. Before the Great Depression, immigrants who came to America had no welfare, Medicaid, affirmative action, minimum wage, low-cost student loans, state-funded schools or other benefits to rely on. They had to make a living without help from the government. Now, after just three years of living in the U.S., legal immigrants are entitled to public assistance. Fairly recent studies have revealed that in California, seven percent of foreign-born citizens receive public assistance, as compared with four percent of the U.S.-born citizens. 14 percent of foreign-born citizens receive food stamps, as compared with four percent of the U.S.-born citizens. This doesnÕt even include the hidden governmental assistance programs, such as the Earned Income Credit, which is taken by 25% of immigrants and only 13% of the natives. Furthermore, immigrants stay on the welfare rolls longer than U.S.-born citizens do. Immigrants tend to have larger families, and so it is more difficult for them to support them, particularly if they speak little English and can only obtain low-paying jobs.

Granted, it must be acknowledged that part of the concern over immigration has nothing to do with government handouts, but stems from the fear that immigrants bring more crime with them. It is feared that relaxed immigration makes it easier for terrorists to enter the country. However, studies by researchers, including a study done by the General Accounting Office, analyzed FBI records and found that crime by foreign-born residents (which includes both citizens and aliens) accounts for no more crime than their proportion in society - 19%. Furthermore, according to a study done at HarvardÕs Kennedy School of Government, the immigrants who had been in the country the least amount of time were less likely than older immigrants to commit crimes. ImmigrantsÕ recidivism rate is just a little over half that of the general populationÕs recidivism rate - 37 percent compared to 66 percent, according to INS data.

Terrorists can enter the country even without work or student visas or immigration papers. They can enter the country temporarily as "visitors" on vacation. Terrorists will find a way to attack the U.S. regardless of whether our border policy is strict or just somewhat strict. Even if the U.S. completely restricted all foreigners from entering the country, terrorists could still bomb U.S. embassies and launch missiles at us.

So what can be done to resolve the conflict between those who prefer to relax the borders, and those who oppose a vast influx of immigrants into the U.S.? There are two ways to feasibly harmonize these two positions. The first, the more difficult to achieve, would be to end the welfare state. Why not give churches and charity an opportunity to provide for those in need? Even though some argue that the Great Depression demonstrated that churches and charities arenÕt enough, it has never been conclusively established that it was government help that pulled people out of the Depression. There are strong arguments to the contrary. First, it was government meddling that started the Depression in the first place, when President Coolidge tinkered with the interest rates to allow businesses to play fast and loose with risky credit. When President Hoover was elected after the crash, instead of allowing the market to recover, forced wages and prices to stay high. President Roosevelt continued along the path of government intervention, injecting more money into the economy and then promptly devaluing it, adding myriads of government assistance programs. At this rate, it took ten years for the Depression to finally end in 1939. Having learned the lesson from the Great Depression, the U.S. government should know not to make this serious of a mistake again.

The second solution, which would be easier to implement because it would not require removing social welfare programs for U.S.-born citizens, would be to screen immigrants before they came into the country for productivity and then hold them to it. Make it a requirement that adult immigrants work full-time, and if they have children or intend to have children, that they are capable of supporting their children. Of course, this second solution is just a band-aid on a deeper problem, the problem of welfare in general, but it will eliminate the disproportional drain that immigrants place on taxpayers. The problem is not the immigrants, but the system that allows them to take the easy way out. America should be the land of dreams, not of handouts.