Financial Times Editorial - US migrant headache

Financial Times Editorial - US migrant headache
Published: March 9 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 9 2006 02:00. Copyright by the Financial Times

The US Congress is in a twitchy mood. Unless something drastic happens it is likely on security grounds to legislate to deny Dubai Ports World permission to operate container terminals at five US ports. Since the planned move is motivated by concern over the company's Arab ownership, it would send a powerful signal that America is prepared to override its commitment to an open economy when that principle clashes with popular sentiment.

A large chunk of public opinion is also behind a series of proposals before Capitol Hill that would send an even more protectionist signal by imposing draconian controls on illegal immigrants. Yesterday the US Senate's judiciary committee began writing legislation that would crack down on the country's estimated 11m illegal immigrants but offer new ways for them to work legally in the US.

It follows the passage in December of a far harsher bill in the House of Representatives that focused on tightening enforcement measures to deter illegal immigrants and banish existing ones. That bill, which must still be reconciled with whatever the Senate produces, ignored President George W. Bush's proposal to create a guest worker visa for unskilled immigrants that would match the H1B visa for skilled workers. It also provided for a large expansion in detention centres, border patrol forces and punitive measures against employers with illegal immigrants on their payrolls.

Much of the momentum behind the anti-immigrant backlash stems from very legitimate concerns about terrorist infiltration into the US highlighted by September 11 2001. But building a fence along America's 2,000-mile border with Mexico - as some Congressmen are suggesting - would do little or nothing to reduce that threat. As with the plan to shut out Dubai, such a move would visit unnecessary damage on the US economy, in which sectors such as services, agriculture, food processing and construction rely on the labour provided by illegal immigrants.

More than 400,000 illegal immigrants enter the US each year and most of them find employers who connive in the process by accepting easily forged documents as proof of identity. Clearly it would be preferable for the US to adopt a system that gave legitimacy to this annual labour flow and which also protected the rights of these workers.

Unrealistic as it might seem in the existing climate, it would make sense to give illegals an incentive to exit the underground economy by offering the possibility of eventual US citizenship - as has been proposed by senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain. Congress is right to explore new ways to tackle illegal immigration because the existing system is unenforceable. But a cure that expelled hundreds of thousands of people, incarcerated thousands of new ones and imposed an expensive compliance cost on US businesses would be far worse than the disease.