Inaction or Bad Action?

The U.S. Senate has approved a new version of an immigration-reform bill with so many weaknesses that doing nothing would be better.

This marks the third consecutive year in which Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) has won Senate approval for legislation aimed at stemming the flow of undocumented aliens into the United States. The key element of Simpson’s bill, as in the past, is sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants as workers. The intention is to dry up many of the jobs that lure foreigners.

Foremost among its faults are the restrictions on an amnesty for immigrants living in the United States. Legal status is proposed for those who have lived here since 1980, but only after a study commission has determined that the employer sanctions provided by the legislation have worked to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Since employer sanctions have not proved adequate in 20 other nations that have tried them, according to a study by the General Accounting Office, it is possible that amnesty would never be granted to the otherwise honest, hard-working immigrants who have established themselves in this country. That in turn would drive them further underground and increase their exposure to exploitation.

Another defect of the bill is a guest-worker amendment attached to it by Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) at the behest of Western growers. Arguing that farmers cannot harvest perishable crops without a steady supply of migrant laborers, Wilson persuaded the Senate to create a temporary-worker program that would allow up to 350,000 foreign workers at any one time to enter the United States as seasonal farm workers. Simpson argues that this provision would all but negate the intended effect of his bill by opening U.S. borders wider. He also warns that the Wilson workers would be treated no better than Mexican migrants were under the old discredited bracero program. Simpson’s misgivings are well founded.

The counterpoint in the House to Simpson’s Senate proposal is the immigration bill written by Rep. Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D-N.J.) that would balance employer sanctions with an immediate amnesty for immigrants who have lived in the United States since 1982. Rodino also includes provisions that would protect Latinos and other minority citizens from job discrimination by overcautious employers who might decide not to hire anybody who looks or sounds “foreign.” The Rodino bill is far better than the Senate bill.

Unfortunately, even if Rodino’s bill gets through the House intact, it would go up against Simpson’s bill in a conference committee. There both bills would likely be mangled beyond recognition, or simply die, as happened with two rival immigration bills at the end of the last Congress. This is a scenario for more political inaction and frustration over immigration.

But bad action can be worse than inaction. And there is new research suggesting that the effect of massive illegal immigration is not as serious a problem as those in Congress, pushing for reform legislation, have thought.

A new study by the Urban Institute in Washington concluded that the influx of Mexican workers into Southern California is beneficial to the region. The undocumented aliens help keep marginal industries viable, help keep inflation down and do not have any appreciable effect on local unemployment rates, the researchers concluded.

At the very least, the new research underscores the importance of avoiding quick-fix remedies that ignore long-term demographic trends and economic complications. No immigration reform can be acceptable unless it assures generous amnesty for illegal immigrants already established in the United States while avoiding procedures that will in any way encourage discrimination in hiring.