Inviting Mexican Guest Workers Into U.S. Would Worsen Problems

0 Comments | Insight on the News, August 27, 2001 | by James R. Jr. Edwards

The Bush administration has announced that it is considering both a mass amnesty of illegal Mexican aliens and a guest-worker program. Both ideas are signs that the administration is in denial regarding immigration.

First, guest-worker programs don't work. The U.S. Bracero program from 1942 to 1964 brought in millions of Mexican workers to do field labor. It contained worker safeguards, but guest workers still were exploited.

The Bracero program stimulated a flow of illegal immigration after the program ended. Formerly legal workers continued to return illegally. Many settled in the United States with their relatives and friends following them. This guest-worker program sparked a migrant flow much larger than might otherwise have occurred.

The Germans also know that there's no such thing as a guest worker. Germany's guest-worker program created a permanent second class of Turkish residents. In fact, all guest-worker schemes suffer a fundamental flaw: There's no way to guarantee that guest workers return home. After guest workers have stayed put a few years, unrelenting pressure builds to grant them permanent residence because they have put down "roots."

Second, U.S. workers would go unprotected. Guest workers could flood the labor market in certain job sectors and drive down wages. While lower wages may reduce consumer prices a bit, they reduce America's standard of living even more. Low-skilled native workers and recent immigrants would suffer most from that kind of direct competition.

By granting de facto permanent residence, guest-worker programs create the worst of both civic worlds: They preserve a resident's loyalty to the mother country, while undermining civic loyalty and assimilation to what actually is his new homeland. An amnesty would reward 3 million illegal Mexican aliens already here by putting them first in line for guest-worker visas. Do we really want to send the message throughout the Third World that the United States rewards lawbreakers?

This ill-advised proposal comes just at the wrong time. The United States faces a sharp slowdown in economic productivity in the 21st century, according to a recent study by economists at the Boston Federal Reserve Bank. It concludes that mass immigration mostly of uneducated, unskilled people, coupled with low native birthrates and retirement of baby boomers, threatens the growth of productivity.

The Boston Fed economists say that, normally, economic output per worker rises when population growth slows. Improving U.S. education levels in the last century spurred the productivity gains we have achieved. Our homegrown workforce of "knowledge workers" has met great challenges and brought about the highest standard of living of any nation.

The Boston Fed report estimates that the United States needs a 40 percent gain in labor productivity by 2030 just to keep up our present standard of living. But given present immigration policy, we're importing Third-World standards of living for our children and grandchildren.

The U.S. economy doesn't need warm bodies alone, which our present immigration system, proposed guest-worker programs and mass amnesty provide. The United States needs bright individuals who will benefit -- not burden -- our society.

Our immigration system should favor individuals who bring certain assets to the table. We should award points toward admission for having earned a college degree, for being proficient in English, for having a proven track record in certain career fields in which we lack workers and for other such criteria. We want such people here permanently.

For example, my neighbor immigrated from Italy. He came speaking English fluently and had a college degree. He works in the high-tech sector. He assimilated into American life, became a U.S. citizen and is a valuable member of the community. He easily would have gained admission through a point system. He's the kind of immigrant who will help us achieve the productivity level the nation needs just to keep steady.

By contrast, we shouldn't compound our problems by admitting millions of unskilled, uneducated people. Presently, the foreign-born are more than three times as likely to drop out of school as the native-born. Current immigrants are more likely to be unemployed, twice as likely to live in poverty, more likely to take welfare and two-and-a-half times more likely to lack health insurance as natives.

We can't afford to keep importing poverty, both for immigrants themselves and for Americans who increasingly will rely on immigrants' productivity to sustain our standard of living and to fund Social Security and Medicare for baby boomers.

The Boston Fed report should serve as a wake-up call to both political parties that cheap foreign labor cannot be sustained if the United States is to remain a thriving society. It's time to get serious about immigration reform.

James R. Edwards Jr., an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, coauthored The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform.