|
Dear Auntie Pinko,
Perhaps you can help me with a conflict I have in my own mind. Understand, before I begin, that I am a lifelong liberal Democrat...but there is an issue I seem to be splitting with the vast majority of liberals on. Immigration. I'm against it. Hugely.
As an unemployed American, who has been unemployed now for nearly a year, I am against any immigration, legal or otherwise...it can only increase the competition for fewer and fewer jobs. The proposed "guest worker" program really troubles me, though, as I believe those who are illegal immigrants would tend to accept lower wages, and substandard working conditions. Thus it makes it more difficult for me to get a good paying job, in acceptable working conditions.
It seems to me this "guest worker" program will continue to fuel the "race to the bottom" we see in wages, and I see absolutely nothing but harm to my own economic interests in this proposed program. I would like to see others do well, but not at my expense. Auntie, can you explain to me how this proposed "guest worker" program is anything but harmful to the economic interests of unemployed Americans like myself?
Sincerely,
Angela
Saylorsburg, PA
Dear Angela,
Auntie has seldom seen so many people, so nearsightedly confused, so emotionally augmented, so far out of proportion to all reason, as the current furor over immigration. I think we’ve bundled all the agony of the last six years into a hard, infected boil in our collective national psyche. Clever politicians from both parties have wielded a lance labeled “immigration” in an attempt to focus and relieve our discontent, but when any boil is lanced there is a lot of pain and nasty stuff spewing out, whether healing actually occurs or not.
We have loaded the immigration cart with a vast freight of concerns about the economy, about national security, about social norms and culture, about crime, law and order, about democracy itself — all matters that have become painful, festering issues over the last decades, but especially over the last six years. For six years, the pain has accumulated at frightening rates, while our government has ignored it and those who profit by it have pretended it doesn’t exist or attempted to shift the blame in ways that will preserve their profits.
Immigration is an important area of public policy and immigration policy is one of many factors that strongly affect our economy. Immigration policy has been ignored and/or misused for many decades, and America could only benefit in the long run from a sustained national discussion of immigration policy and a rational reworking of our laws and enforcement mechanisms to implement a thoughtful policy that balances competing interests. Unfortunately, the current hysteria guarantees there will be no such discussion or reworking any time soon. It’s a bit like the roof — the time to fix it is when it isn’t raining.
Because immigration carries such a heavy suitcase of mixed issues, it’s easy for each person to see only the issue(s) that concern them, and to accuse others (who are worried about other items in the immigration suitcase, as it were,) of “not getting it” with respect to the problem as a whole. And because the emotional index is so high, the accusations of “not getting it” generate even higher levels of negative emotion. Positions harden, and our risk of making things worse through either enacting “quick fix” legislation or through doing nothing at all becomes a certainty.
Because so many Americans are feeling greater levels of pain and insecurity about the economy, it’s easy to focus on how immigration policy, and especially the measures currently under consideration, affect Americans’ current economic interests. I won’t rehash all the many arguments here; they boil down to, in effect, “Our economy needs cheap labor,” versus “Cheap labor is the problem, not the solution.”
Although there are a dozen other critical aspects to immigration policy, that particular debate is at the core of most peoples’ pain, and it is one of the most intractable conflicts. Does the damage done by cheap labor outweigh the benefits of cheap labor? It’s in the interests of those who benefit most from cheap labor to convince the rest of us that we can’t live without it. And it is true that almost all of us benefit from cheap labor, though many of us are unaware of the scope of those benefits or are unwilling to admit to them.
I don’t think it is true that we can’t live without those benefits, nor that we would lose those benefits altogether by decreasing the supply of cheap labor. And I think that the damage done by cheap labor is much greater than its supporters realize or are willing to admit. Greatly decreasing the supply of cheap labor would sharply realign the US economy and cause considerable pain in the short run, but I believe in the long run it would be a positive adjustment.
It astonishes me (though perhaps it shouldn’t,) how determinedly our policy makers are ignoring the only real, practical way to decisively limit (I do not believe it is possible to eliminate) the flow of illegal immigration. It’s as though the whole establishment of Congress, the Administration, the punditry and press corps, etc., are ALL sitting there with the solution playing like a brass band three feet in front of them, and they’ve got their hands over their ears going “la la LA… I can’t HEAR anything...”
If the national consensus boils down to “it would be good to have fewer people immigrating illegally” there is a clear and simple way to achieve that: Ensure that businesses who employ illegal immigrants face devastating penalties. It isn’t even that hard to do. We have managed to ensure that businesses comply with tax withholding laws, because businesses who don’t face a very high risk of detection, and devastating penalties for noncompliance. When businesses are as reluctant to hire illegal workers as they are to cheat on withholding, the supply of jobs for illegal workers will constrict sharply, and the flow of illegal immigrants will constrict in response.
Auntie recognizes that even if our policymakers all went sane tomorrow and implemented such a program, it would not solve all of our problems or make everyone comfortable. Such a solution would not address the concerns related to culture, security, crime, etc., carried in the immigration suitcase. And it would create as many problems as it solved, especially in the short term as the supply of workers willing to take poorly-paying jobs dries up.
American businesses would be forced to seek other solutions to the problem of labor costs. Offshoring and outsourcing would probably rise sharply, and trade/tax policy debates would get emotional and ugly. Eventually, if we close off all the “easy” solutions, American business might finally be forced to make common cause with labor in demanding that our leaders take on the hard tasks of rebuilding the public infrastructure of housing, health care, transportation, communications, education, etc., so that American workers can sustain decent consumption levels on moderate wages. We will all, business and labor alike, have to make the painful sacrifices needed to pay for such rebuilding.
There will never be a shortage of outrage, emotion, chaos, and dissension in the public policy arena. If only we could find a way for someone besides lobbyists and elected officials to profit from it. By the way, I think you’re right about the “guest worker” program, Angela — and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(46 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
