SO HERE'S where we stand on the immigration issue, the policy question that has split the nation: The Senate, led by Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Bill Frist, had agreed to a "compromise" bill that allows for a "guest worker" program and limited amnesty for some long-term illegal immigrants. It also promised, in principle, to send back illegal immigrants who crossed the border in the last two years. Conservative senators stand behind the "tougher" House of Representatives bill, which would have made being in the country illegally a criminal offense and called for building a fence dividing the Mexican and U.S. borders. Despite splashy public demonstrations denouncing the House bill, the "silent majority" of American voters (52 percent according to a recent Pew poll) believe illegal immigrants are a burden on society.
Yet despite the national division on this issue, there is room for consensus that would prove more effective than the "compromise" bill. Democrats and President Bush would need to give up the demand for a guest-worker program while conservative Republicans must give up their demands to send illegal immigrants back to Mexico. Both sides must get serious about border enforcement.
We first need to acknowledge that there is a real problem here. National concern with illegal immigration is not a product of irrational caprice. Legitimate federal laws have been flouted -- a harm in itself -- as the hiring of illegal immigrants becomes widely accepted in many industries. The additional immigrants are overwhelmingly poor and lead to increasing poverty levels in the United States: 90 percent of the increase in individuals living below the poverty line has come from Hispanics. This is not because the immigrants are not hard-working but because they are unskilled and receive low wages because of the pressure exerted on wage levels by the constant stream of new arrivals. Previous generations of immigrants had space in which to assimilate into American culture because eventually the immigration ceased due to new laws, such as the National Origins Act passed during the 1920s. In these circumstances, residential segregation has increased among immigrants while the increased poverty has placed a huge strain on public services such as schools and housing.
One reason that consensus has been so hard to come by is that, as is so typical in American politics, the agendas of interest groups are being put ahead of the national interest. The benefits of cutting off illegal immigration are diffuse and will take time to materialize; the stream of cheap labor directly benefits businesses. Even many Democrats have expressed concern about the rising poverty, lower wages and strain on state governments necessitated by the arrival of the immigrants. But big businesses like the fact that the influx of labor keeps wages low and do not care about the social tensions produced by the immigrants. Thus, big business, supported by President Bush, has insisted on a guest-worker program designed to allow immigrants to cross the border in order to work. These "guest workers," once they have arrived, rarely return home.
The argument is often made that the American economy "needs" these workers. Many bourgeois liberals decry "labor shortages" in industries where natives are simply unwilling to work. But as economist Robert Samuelson has pointed out, this "labor shortage" in entirely imaginary. What really attracts these immigrants is that wages are higher in the United States than in their home countries. If employers would simply raise wages, they would attract a sufficient number of laborers. Doing so would lift many out of poverty. But employers, ever-concerned with the bottom line, do not want to have to pay their employees more. As it is, wages have stagnated because of this inflow of illegal laborers. The "guest-worker" program is a sop to big business, and leaders from both parties should be ashamed for putting it into the "compromise" bill.
In turn, conservatives need to give up their utopian fantasy that by criminalizing the presence of illegal immigrants in the country they will force the immigrants to go home. Criminal laws of this sort that punish behavior that is not at all morally reprehensible conflict fundamentally with American values and would remove productive workers whom businesses have come to rely on. The demonstrations against the House bill were largely sparked by this provision.
Finally, both sides of the debate seem to have coalesced around more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws in the future. Employers should be required to verify that new workers are in the country legally, and employers should face sanctions for hiring illegal labor. Not even most liberals would oppose this measure. The proposal for building a wall across the Mexican border must also be considered.
A compromise along these lines, with more vigorous border enforcement plus limited amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, will allow Hispanic immigrants to assimilate by removing the constant stream of illegal labor that forces wages down and increases poverty and inequality.
Noah Peters' column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at npeters@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
