Financial Times Editorial - America's choice on illegal immigration

America's choice on illegal immigration
Published: April 3 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 3 2006 03:00. Copyright by The Financial Times

This week could turn out to be a moment of truth for those who have spearheaded the backlash against illegal immigration to the US.

For a nation that was - and continues to be - built on immigration, the debate has so far proved very un-American. Politicians from both parties have joined forces with talk-radio celebrities and vigilante patrol groups to demand a 700-mile fence along a large section of the Mexican border. Bill Frist, the Republican Senate leader and a 2008 presidential hopeful, has drafted a bill that would criminalise the estimated 11m illegal immigrants in the US. And Lou Dobbs, the populist CNN anchorman, frightens Americans every night with the spectre of a low-wage Hispanicised future.

The truth is much more prosaic. Most legal and illegal immigrants to the US are Hispanic. But only 5 per cent of America's workforce is estimated to be illegal. Many of them are doing jobs that Americans refuse to do, such as picking fruit in southern California. If anything, their presence tends to reduce the incidence of crime, according to recent studies. These contradict the myths circulated by some of the more xenophobic proponents of a crackdown. Yet America does have a problem that needs to be tackled. In a country of laws, it is clearly intolerable to have 500,000 people illegally crossing the borders each year. It also turns thousands of American businesses, some of them very big names, into flouters of the law. In an age of heightened concern over terrorism, it is also untenable to have 11m undocumented people living in society.

Diagnosing the problem is easy. Producing a workable solution is proving more difficult than it should. This week, the Senate will decide between two competing visions: one, brokered by Arlen Specter, chairman of the judiciary committee, would set up an annual quota of foreign guest workers and would also offer existing illegals the possibility of eventual citizenship after they had paid a fine; the other, sponsored by Mr Frist, focuses almost entirely on strengthening enforcement of existing laws. The latter is both draconian and unworkable - it would be impossible to prevent people crossing the Mexican-US border, even if you walled off all 2,000 miles of it. It would also require a war of attrition with large sections of US business. Setting up a guest worker quota would be both more humane and economically realistic. But because future guest workers would be ineligible to apply for citizenship, it would create a permanently disenfranchised underclass. America should think long and hard whether it wants to adopt central features of the Swiss or Gulf economies.

For their part, Republicans should question whether caving into Dobbs-style populism makes sense, even on political grounds. If he had not won 44 per cent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, George W. Bush might not have been re-elected. Democrats, too, should reflect more deeply about the plight of unskilled Americans whose wages have stagnated - and in some cases fallen - over the past decade, partly because of immigration. The answer is surely to invest in upgrading their skills rather than to make scapegoats of Mexico's tired and huddled opportunity-seekers. Meanwhile, everyone should reflect on what drives so many to come to the US: the chance of betterment. As the baby boomers start to retire the solution is clear, even if the politics is difficult - America should expand its legal intake of immigrants.