Ironies of illegal immigration

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH'S proposal on immigration delivered during his State of the Union address was a political response to a complex and dire social problem. It is social because it has to do with the integration of American society and its continued relatively smooth functioning; dire because there are millions of immigrants in the U.S. who do not have health or automobile insurance or educational support for their children; complex because we not only need these immigrant workers now but, because the economy is doing so well, we will need more of them later. A political response may satisfy some constituent interest groups, but it does not address the reality of immigration.

Let's face the facts on immigration, legal or otherwise. First, the U.S. is going to have more immigrants. America's history is built on regular infusions of new labor, skills, and thinking. Immigrants are an infusion of fresh blood. Simply accommodating ourselves to the process of arriving peoples keeps us in touch with the diversity of cultures that make up the global mosaic.

Second, the country needs more immigrants. This is a paradox in the recovery of the Bush Administration economy. Economic growth over the last year has meant that the attractiveness of the U.S. for immigrants has gone from "push" (escape from Mexico) to "pull" (the U.S. economy inviting them). "Invitation" is presented in the lack of enforcement of immigration laws on U.S. businesses who are employing undocumented workers, despite the facility for requesting verification by the Federal government. The pro-business Bush Administration has an odd track record here.

The U.S. population primarily is growing as a result of births in the minority and immigrant communities. We do not like to think about it--as it is a political correctness problem--but there is stratification of labor, mostly along education lines, where the tough jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, and services are taken by those without recourse into the white-collar world of employment. Especially when these low paying jobs do not require language ability, immigrants historically have jumped at these opportunities as a way to get their foot in the door. The U.S.-born unemployed do not think first about having just any job to help plant their feet. They first think about what their wages will be. If you are here illegally, you clearly have a competitive advantage.

It is hard to argue in favor of illegal immigration, but let us at least look at some of the ironies involved in trying to curb it:

* The protectionist policies of the Bush government with regard to the agricultural industry have meant that there are jobs in the fields and processing plants--positions that Americans have not taken, for whatever reason. A part of agricultural competitiveness is that, where mechanization is not possible--picking low-lying fruit and vegetables, food processing, tree and vine trimming--manual labor is necessary. Costs, however, still have to be kept as low as possible to compete in a globalized economy. New immigrants (for the most part, illegals) are taking these jobs at these wages and keeping the U.S. competitively afloat. Were the laborers legal and their wages higher, the Administration would have to be even more protectionist than it is at present.

* If the labor market were not being filled by illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border, these positions would have to be filled by someone else. If we were to bring more agricultural and service workers into the U.S. through a regularized process, the resulting body of immigrants would be less Mexican and more Arab, Muslim, South Asian, and African. For those who want an idea of how this would impact American society, take a look at Europe. This is an issue of culture, language, and religion. Author Samuel Huntington (Who Are We?) and others have argued that Mexican culture is not readily compatible with the Anglo-Protestant culture under which the U.S. has prospered. This may be true. but it certainly is more compatible than Iraqi culture.

* If the Mexicans were not coming in illegally, we would have to process--and keep track of--all of them. What would the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS, the successor agency to the Immigration and Naturalization service under the new Department of Homeland Security) have to look like to process the 500 workers who are sneaking into the country illegally on a daily basis? What would it cost? There roughly are 11,000,000,000 illegal immigrants in the U.S. By any process other than deporting them all, there will be a substantial increase in the size of the government agencies designed to monitor them.

* By making such an issue of illegal immigrants from Mexico, we are discouraging all immigrants about life in the U.S., including those that we need desperately. The issue is plugging up the immigration system for applicants who have math and science skills. Many claim that the education system is being overburdened by the children of illegal immigrants. Yet, such skills have not--at least over the last 20 years--been produced by that same system, forcing us to import our technological capability from India, East Asia, and elsewhere.