As a lifelong Democrat, I usually find much to agree with in the columns by John Buell. Not so with his recent column “Immigration not main cause of stagnant wages” (BDN, May 29, 2007). Cobbling together a report from a publication titled Left Business Observer (replete with articles about bourgeois this and ruling-class that) and a sound bite from the national Chamber of Commerce, the article claims to prove that present levels of immigration have little effect on wages. Given that we are presently considering legislation that could increase immigration by millions, this question deserves more reliable information than that provided by a fringe leftist publication and a big-business mouthpiece.

Fortunately, such information is easily available and shows that many mainstream experts feel that immigration does indeed depress wages. I’ll list just a few (and will be happy to provide references if requested). Paul Krugman, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist, writes, “many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration – especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans.” According to Robert Reich, President Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, “The only reason any job remains unfilled is because the wage is too low. Require it to be filled with an American and employers have to raise the wage. But if they can get legal guest workers, they won’t.” Similar conclusions have been published by Andrew Sum of Northeastern University Center of Labor Market Studies, George Borjas of the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University, Vernon Briggs of Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Rakesh Kochhar of the Pew Hispanic Center, Philip Martin of University of California, Davis, and The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. All argue that present levels of immigration depress wages, especially those of low-skilled workers. In other words, the Left Business Observer might be wrong on this one.

People in the trenches have known this for years. Nineteenth century African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote, “Every hour sees the black man elbowed out of employment by some newly arrived immigrant, whose hunger and whose color are thought to give him a better title to the place.” A century later, Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farmworkers of America, complained bitterly that agribusiness employers were using illegal workers to break strikes, and the UFW resorted to reporting illegal alien workers to the authorities. Just last month, T. Willard Fair, President of the Urban League of Miami, offered testimony to Congress titled “Mass Immigration vs. Black America.” After describing the bleak situation in Miami, he stated, “Immigration isn’t the whole reason for the drop in employment of black men; it’s not even half the reason. But it is the largest single reason, and it’s something we can fix relatively easily.” He then poses three questions. “If there is a young black man in Liberty City, where I live, who’s good with his hands and wants to become a carpenter, which is more likely to help him achieve that goal – amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration? Which is more likely to help an ex-convict or a recovering addict get hired at an entry-level job and start the climb back to a decent life – amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration? Which is more likely to persuade a teenager in the inner city to reject the lure of gang life and instead stick with honest employment – amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?” Congress plans to answer that question within the next few weeks.

Both the experts and the people in the trenches agree with what common sense tells us: that flooding the labor market with millions of low-skilled workers will depress the wages and opportunities of low-skilled domestic workers. And our Washington delegation would be wise to ignore flimflams such as the Left Business Observer and address themselves to protecting the well-being of their most vulnerable constituents.

Kenneth Christian of Holden is a physician and can be reached at christianken@compuserve.com.