Washington Post that appeared a few da’srnlater. Ms. Adams’ death “is an indietmcntrnof a system” that lias “failed to address”rntlac “underlying causes” of homelessness,rnhe said. Curing “underlyingrncauses” is always good for a few million.rnIn deciding where the initial allotmentrnof money should go, Mr. Cisnerosrncalled a meeting to vyhieh localrnchurches running soup kitchens were notrninvited, histcad, the meeting was wellrnattended by groups like the “Communityrnfor Creative Non-Violence” and thern”United Planning Organization,” who,rnlike Mr. Cisneros, use others’ misfortunernto enhance the political fortunes of liberalism.rn”How can I help?” Mr. Cisneros asked.rnHands went up around the room. Onernby one, representatives made their demands.rn”It was like a Christmas wishlist,”rnsaid a department official whornrefused to give her name.”Raise yourrnhand and it’s yours.” One recipient organizationrnwill be the National Coalitionrnfor the Homeless, whose spokesmanrnsaid Mr. Cisneros “was eleady moved byrnthe death of Yetta Adams.” He demonstratedrnhis charity, as liberals do, byrngenerously spending other people’s money.rnWhat remains of S25 million will bernsimilarly distributed around the country,rngoing to nonprofit groups engaged inrn”community organizing” as part of theirrn”help.” These groups, who don’t hiderntheir political agenda, already receive bigrnbucks from IIUD’s coffers and have forrnmany years. The Clinton administrationrnstaffed the department directlyrnfrom their ranks, so their employees getrnthe money coming and going.rnOne fine example is Mr. AndrewrnCuomo, assistant secretary for “communityrnplanning.” He first made a name forrnhimself as a ruthless strategist for hisrnfather’s New York gubernatorial campaigns.rnThen, to soften his image andrndevelop liberal credentials, young Andrewrnstarted a firm that built housing forrnthe “poor” with corporate and governmentrnunderwriting. Predictably, hisrnhousing was erected in hostile communities.rnMr. Cuomo has long campaigned forrn”privatizing” housing programs, but notrnbv selling off public housing to the highestrnbidder. That might actually savernmoney. Instead, he wants to “contractrnout” department services by giving cashrndirectly to leftist nonprofit groups. Inrnthis way, the money becomes highpowerrnfuel for statist causes. Thomas ].rnDiLorenzo and James T. Bennett wroterna book on such nonprofit graft calledrnDestroying Democracy: How GovernmentrnFunds Partisan Politics.rnPrivatization or not, I lUD alv’ays pretendsrnit is starved for money. No matterrnhow manv tax dollars are shoveled in itsrnfront doors—or how much its spendingrnsucks the economy dry—it is neverrnenough. For example, the WashingtonrnPost recently called HUD “one of thernsmallest federal departments.”rnLet’s see. When President Johnsonrnleft office, HUD’s budget was $3.7 billion,rnand by President Carter’s last year,rnit had more than tripled. President Reaganrnwas vilified for “cutting” the budget,rnbut the data show a 28 percent increase,rnfrom $14.8 billion to S19 billion. Therndepartment boomed another 40 percentrnunder Jack Kemp’s leadership, and withrnPresident Clinton’s ambitions, Mr. Cisnerosrnmav vet beat Kemp’s recordsettingrnspending increases.rnIbis spending flurry came as the department’srninspector general released arnsemiannual review, which reported badrnbookkeeping, missing money, and sloppyrnmanagement. It is a familiar litany, tenrnears running, but with one difference.rnThe IG’s office could not comment onrnpast reports of shaky finances since HUDrnhadn’t even filed the proper statementsrnto make an investigation possible.rnCommenting on the report, Cisnerosrnsaid that “we have made some importantrnfirst steps” and promised “improvements”rndov n the road. That’s just whatrnhis predecessor said. Mr. Cisneros canrnnow put off serious changes until he isrnout of office. While on the speakers’ circuit,rnhe can tell the sad story of YettarnAdams and continue calling for morernsocialism.rn-Jeffrey TuckerrnO U R IMMIGRATION PROBLEMSrnbriefly received national attention lastrnyear when boatloads of illegal Chinesernmigrants landed on American shores.rnYet, because many of these illegals madernbogus claims of political asylum, somernpolitical leaders spoke as if asvlum abusernwere the only real problem. RepresentativernLamar Smith (R-Tcxas) set thernrecord straight when he observed thatrnreform of such abuse was onlv a “2 percentrnsolution,” as it dealt with only 2rnpercent of the problem of illegal immigration.rnAnd, he might have added, itrnsaid nothing about the even greaterrnproblem of excessive legal immigration.rnThis flow of c|uota immigrants, refugees,rnand asylces is at an all-time high. iMostrnarrive from impoverished I bird Worldrncountries, as do at least 300,000 morernillegal aliens across our virtually uncontrolledrnborders. Thanks to thesernnumbers and to higher birthrates fi)rrnimmigrants than for native-born citizens,rnAmerica is racing to a Third Worldrnfuture.rnFortunately, at least some congressmenrnseem to perceive this bigger picturernand have offered legislation to dealrnwith the substance of the nation’s growingrnimmigration crisis. The following isrna summary of the leading proposals.rnThe most comprehensive is SenaternBill 1351 by Senator Harry Rcid (DNevada).rnAmong other steps, Reid’s billrnwould set a fixed annual limit of 300,000rnon immigration and limit refugee admissionsrnto 50,000 within the 300,000rntotal. 1 he 300,000 ceiling, say manv advocatesrnof immigration control, is stillrntoo high. They prefer 200,000, a figurernroughly ecjual to the number of peoplernwho leave each year. In any case, Reidrndeserves credit for the first serious proposalrnin many vears to put immigrationrnquotas back in kilter with our abilitv tornabsorb and assimilate newcomers.rnThe limit on refugees is also a move inrnthe right direction. Reform in this area isrnlong overdue. By legal definition, arnrefugee is someone with a well-foundedrnfear of persecution. Bv this definition,rnobserved journalist Don Barnctt at thernCarrv ing Capacity Network conferencernin Washington last summer, nearly 90rnpercent of the 130,000 or so “refugees”rnnow arriving each year are not truernrefugees, but simply people who thinkrnthey’ll find greener political and economicrnpastures here in America. Accordingrnto Barnett, some of the greenrnc[uitc often is federal taxpayers’ cashrnfunncled through church resettlementrnprograms for refugees. After thesernchurchmen practice their “Christianrncharitv” at other citizens’ expense, thevrnroute the “refugees” to the appropriaternwelfare agencies, which arc highly gratefulrnfor the new business. Refugees,rnunlike other categories of immigrants,rnare immediately entitled to the full rangernof welfare benefits.rnIvvo other provisions of Reid’s billrnwould tighten safeguards againstrnfrivolous asylum claims and increase thernsize of the Border Patrol from 4,470 torn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn