Yes to Immigrants, No to Quick Fixes : Immigration: The bill should pass on its merits, not under the delusion that it will solve America’s problems.

Historically, the country has accepted increased immigration when the economy is robust and squeezed it when growth slackens. So why is Congress likely to enact legislation now that allows one-third more immigrants than are coming today?

The answer challenges the conventional wisdom. Business and a spectrum of employers argue that the United States is gripped by labor shortages. They have persuaded lawmakers that national competitiveness and growth are at a risk unless we import more highly skilled workers, especially in math and science fields.

This contention is backed by extravagant broader claims. We are told that opening immigration would substantially lower the deficit by adding billions to tax coffers, and even that it would ease the S&L; crisis by supplying buyers for confiscated houses and buildings.

More immigration will not and cannot deliver on such “save America” promises. But it doesn’t need to. The reasons for an updated immigration policy are rooted in common sense and it deserves Congress’ nod on its merits.

U.S. immigration policy has traditionally had three objectives: uniting families, offering safety to refugees and meeting labor market needs. In practice, labor market considerations have been shortchanged. Less than 10% of today’s immigrant slots are allocated on the basis of skills and training.

The proposed legislation triples this number. Broadening access so that people who do not already have family ties here and who can usefully contribute their talents gives needed balance and makes for a fairer system. Immigrants can provide specialized skills, targeted for particular jobs, when those skills are scarce. This is good.

Similarly, the proposal improves family immigration policy by doubling the annual number of spouses and minor children who can join their immigrant relatives already here. Immigrants adapt more quickly and prosper faster, often through entrepreneurial activity or pooling resources, when family and household structures are intact. This, too, is good.

Immigrant success is further bolstered by provisions that simplify application deadlines for amnesty recipients who are now applying for permanent residence. Their direct relatives, where ineligible for legalization, would be protected from deportation.

On other fronts, the legislation strikes outdated, anti-democratic requirements that keep communists, homosexuals and AIDS victims, for example, from visiting the United States. It also opens the door for a limited number of investors from abroad whose activities produce jobs, a realistic step in today’s global marketplace.

These changes are all constructive. Of course, the legislation is burdened by an ample share of unsettled provisions, too. There are the 40,000 transitional visas, an artifice designed for Irish illegal immigrants whose astute lobbying succeeded in moving politicians to act as though the Irish suffer uniquely from current law.

There is the “McDonald’s amendment,” license for businesses to employ foreign students half-time after the freshman year, though an express requirement for student visas is demonstrating the ability to finance an education.

And most worrisome, there is the notion of “adversely affected” countries. An unfathomable formula allots visas to nations with low representation among today’s immigrants, presumably to bring more diversity to our immigration. With Asians and Latin Americans constituting about 85% of immigrants, it is difficult to see this as anything but a veiled tilt away from current immigrant source regions. Access to immigration is addressed by opening labor market-based admissions, which could be increased even more. Manipulating outcomes is a business we shouldn’t be in.

Such items notwithstanding, the legislation provides major, needed improvements. Congress has not grappled with these issues since 1965, despite historic highs in immigration since the mid-1970s. Even so, this would be only the fourth time in history that fundamental changes in the immigrant selection system would be made. The proposal has the added attraction of authorizing a commission to prod Congress in the future with recommendations for adjustments, so another 25 years of inaction do not elapse.

But the “save America” crowd will be disappointed and chagrined. We suffer not from a shortage of workers but from damaging gaps between the skills we need and the education and training of U.S. workers, especially where math and sciences are required. Immigrationwill not cure the neglect. It is too widespread.

Nor will immigration balance the budget. Small percentage changes in defense spending, trade deficits or inflation have a far greater impact on the economy and public welfare than any changes currently on the table in the numbers and characteristics of immigrants.

Congress may well do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But selling immigration as the way to save ourselves is a particularly dangerous delusion. It is not a quick fix and should not serve to sidestep the hard choices we must still make.