Recruiting temporary foreign workers to take low-wage jobs seems like a win-win for everyone. The employers get cheap hard-working labor. Poor foreigners get the chance to make a better wage, and we all pay less for goods and services.

Over the past 30 years, Congress has bought this argument and continually expanded the number of foreign workers. But no matter how much they expand the programs, it never seems to be enough. In other words, the demand for cheap foreign labor is becoming a bottomless pit.

The Bush administration is now proposing a massive new guest-worker plan to legitimize 10 million to 15 million illegal workers already here and to allow employers to hire an unlimited number of new workers. So what’s the problem?

There are two sides in this debate: politicians and the employer lobbies who support them (in other words, those who gain from cheap labor) vs. economists and those experts from blue ribbon commissions who advise Congress on labor policy (those without an economic stake in the matter).

Not surprisingly, the cheap labor lobbies and the politicians they support continually work together to increase the number of guest workers, and they are now clamoring for more.

So what do the economists and the experts say? Surprisingly, we find much agreement among this group too. At least four panels of experts have extensively studied guest worker programs, and all came to the same conclusion: no more guest workers. That’s right. Four out of four blue ribbon commissions, made up of experts who don’t have an economic stake in the decision, concluded that expanding guest worker programs was a bad idea for the country. The most recent, President Clinton’s U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (1997), concluded: “The Commission believes … that guest worker programs are not in the national interest and unanimously and strongly agrees that such programs would be a grievous mistake.”

The Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, chairman of President Carter’s Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, testified before Congress in 1980: “The idea of a large, temporary work program is tremendously attractive. Perhaps a better word is ‘seductive.’ … I can recall being very much entranced by the idea when I first joined the Commission. In the end, we were persuaded, after much study, that it would be a mistake to launch such a program.”

Two other panels reached similar conclusions. (U.S./Mexico Bi-national study on Migration, 1997; U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers, 1992.) All felt that guest worker programs were a bad idea. There is no other aspect of immigration policy in which the message from scholars is so clear and unequivocal.

The commissions cited multiple reasons for their opposition. It is very difficult to set limits or turn off a program once started. Enforcement is a nightmare, and fraud is rampant. There is no mechanism to adequately screen workers and to ensure that they leave when required. These programs introduce new immigrant networks, leading to increased illegal migration, and they force vulnerable groups, such as ethnic minorities and the working poor, to compete against each other. Such programs distort the labor market and drive down the wages of entry-level workers.

But don’t we need these workers to do the jobs that Americans won’t do? Responding directly to the Bush proposal, Robert Reich, President Clinton’s labor secretary, said, “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.” In other words, a “labor shortage” simply means that the employer cannot find Americans to work at the wage he wants to pay.

Other economists agree. Dean Baker, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, says, “employers are wrong when they claim that immigrants are needed to fill jobs shunned by Americans. There are no jobs that people inherently don’t want. They just don’t want them at the pay that’s being offered.” Philip Martin, professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California and a national expert on guest worker programs, wrote, “Importing foreign workers to cope with temporary labor shortages inevitably distorts the economy and increases the dependence of employers on foreign workers. … In many countries the guest worker experience has led to the conclusion that there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers.”

According to the Maine Center for Economic Policy, almost 11 percent of Mainers with a high school education cannot find full-time employment. And unemployment exceeds 21 percent for those without a diploma. Yet Sen. Olympia Snowe’s office lists more than 170 Maine tourism employers who claim they cannot find workers. How can this be? According to the MCEP, it’s the pay. Fewer than 40 percent of tourism jobs pay a livable wage, and the average pay for certified nursing assistants and home health workers is low enough to make them eligible for food stamps. Their conclusion: “many employers are in denial about the need for attractive wages to lure attractive workers.”

The United States now has at least 39 million low-wage workers who don’t even make enough money to buy health insurance. The problem is not a shortage of low-wage workers, but a huge oversupply. We will never solve the problem of “jobs Americans won’t do” by importing even more low-wage workers. Pay American wages, and the workers will come.

Jonette Christian, of Holden, a member of Mainers for Sensible Immigration Policy, can be reached at jonette@acadia.net