‘Middle-class’ immigration test

As the U.S. Senate reconvenes to consider immigration reform, we should all be thinking about the principles that should guide this debate, and convey these to our legislators.

The Drum Major Institute (DMI – a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank) offers two “middle-class” tests that any sensible immigration policy should pass, and grades the bills that have been introduced in the Senate and House accordingly. Each of these tests requires that policy “strengthen and expand the American middle class.”

The first DMI principle requires that immigration policy “should bolster – not undermine – the critical contribution that immigrants make to our economy. …” Why should we support this? Because immigrants as a group provide useful goods and services, they account for about 12 percent of the consumer demand, they pay taxes, and according to 44 out of 46 economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal (April 13), illegal immigration provides a net gain to the U.S. economy.

Tested against this standard, the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy Senate bill receives an “A.” That bill bolsters immigrants’ ability to work and to attain permanent regular status, and it requires, as a condition of normalization, that they pay back taxes. In contrast the Republican House bill proposed by Rep. Sensenbrenner receives a “D,” because it fails even to acknowledge that immigrants make a contribution, focuses solely on enforcement, turns illegal status into a felony, and calls for the deportation of millions.

The second DMI principle is that immigration policy “must strengthen the rights of immigrants in the workplace.” The reason we should support this idea, with a view to strengthening the middle class, is that an uneven playing field between native and immigrant workers is bad for both.

An immigrant who depends on a particular employer for work, who is in fear of being reported and then deported, who does not enjoy the same workplace rights as citizens, is vulnerable and exploitable by employers. Many employers willingly employ such workers because they can get away with paying them little and ignoring workplace safety. This lowers the standard in the entire labor market and worsens the condition of native workers.

Hence it is not surprising that many American unions have lined up in support of McCain-Kennedy, which earns a “C” for enabling immigrants to attain legal status; requiring that employers hiring them observe minimum wage and safety laws and not use them as strike-breakers; and not binding immigrants to a single employer so that they can exercise the right to quit without fear of deportation.

The bill is not perfect but it compares favorably with the Sensenbrenner bill, which received an “F”, because it will drive undocumented workers further underground, make them more vulnerable in the workplace, make them, as felons, ineligible for normal status, and because of the inequities produced in the labor market, accentuate a race to the bottom.

Unfortunately, we are not likely to see a sensible immigration reform without greater interest and lobbying from ordinary middle-class citizens. The right wing of the Republican Party is hoping to capitalize on anti-immigrant fears by demanding deportation and fences. The center of both parties wishes to appease the employers who want cheap labor and calls for a “guest-worker” program.

This is a misnomer to the extent that the bill provides a clear road to permanent residence, because then people are not just guests. It is also a false promise if the idea is that people will come for three or six years and then go home, as Bush’s proposal requires.

People get married, have kids, become integral parts of communities, and they stay (and why shouldn’t they?). What we are likely to get out of inertia in an election year is a lot of wasteful spending on ineffectual enforcement and measures that leave a very unequal playing field to the disadvantage of native and immigrant workers and to the continuing advantage of employers.

A long-term solution must measure up better than any of the current bills to the two principles mentioned above. Further, it must include a measure of global justice. Labor migration springs from two causes: 1) the relative poverty of workers in the country of origin – especially in Mexico and Central America – and 2) the demand for cheap labor in the host country. Even a policy that satisfies the DMI principles will not strengthen the American middle class if low-skilled immigrants come in such numbers that they flood the labor market and wages fall as a result.

No amount of legislation and enforcement will keep the wages up if there is a plentiful supply of cheap labor. Workers will come as long as they are desperately poor and as long as jobs are on offer. The DMI principles aim to do something about the jobs on offer. If they are decent jobs with good pay and safety conditions, native workers will

do them, and employers

will stop recruiting migrants. That would do a lot more than fences to stem the flow.

But will consumers pay the higher prices for their grapes and lettuce in comparison with cheaper imports? Even more important in reducing labor migration is addressing the poverty in the countries of origin. The flow of workers from Mexico to the United States is related to the terms of NAFTA, which among other things allows the dumping of government- subsidized agricultural products, especially corn, in the Mexican market, undercutting local prices and driving many farmers out of business and into the migrant labor market.

We need to reform our trade agreements so that they are in the interests of the least advantaged in each country, not in the interest of the most powerful transnational corporations that have virtually written the terms hitherto. Only by identifying and addressing the root causes of immigration can we design a policy that will be effective and fair to everyone.

Michael W. Howard is a professor in the University of Maine Department of Philosophy. His e-mail address is MichaelHoward@umit.maine.edu.