Is "Guest Worker Amnesty" a solution or a problem?

The Iconoclast has long advocated the free, unregulated flow of goods, supplies and services across all borders as the surest way to eliminate economic disparity, bring the wondrous fruits of free-market capitalism to the oppressed masses across the globe, and fully harness the engine of human capital. This philosophy has always extended to the supply of labour, but as the issue of immigration has heated up in this country, and as it has begun to cause major social unrest in Europe, the Iconoclast must confess to hearing some intriguing viewpoints that counter all previous thinking on the subject. Chief among these is the issue of immigration amnesty.

As you already know, business leaders and some in Washington are pushing for changes in immigration policy that would institute some sort of amnesty for illegal aliens already in this country as well as a "guest worker program" that would permit the easy flow of a low cost work force across our borders. This would signal a paradigm shift in the way this nation has historically handled immigration, but the times, as they say, are a-changing. Our lives have become permeated by a culture of constant good-for-cheap, more-for-less consumption. The self-fulfilling economic prophecy that we must all continually buy more with the money we have in order to expand the economy so that we can make more money to buy more and keep the party rolling is now central to our national psyche (a personal lament that the Iconoclast will take up in greater length at another time). Unbridled consumption is the god of the new millenium, and all there is left to do is to inscribe it in Latin on our currency. The upshot is that the economics of low price consumption now frame the discussion of issues as disparate as immigration, corporate pensions and the location of Wal-Mart's next store. But few national subjects are as plainly driven by the low-cost economics (or stir opposing passions) as the issue of illegal immigration and the current movement to codify in principle what has already been occurring in fact on our southern border.

On the face of it, establishing an organized and orderly supply of cheap labor makes obvious sense to cost conscious corporate managers (like the Iconoclast) that wish to support ever shrinking margins in the face of global competition from lower wage economies. But Phyllis Schlafly makes the compelling argument that any immigration policy that includes massive importation of low wage, unskilled labor only serves to perpetuate the corruption, social and economic bankruptcy, and other adverse conditions that pervade Latin America and drive the masses to chase "El Norte". Institutionalizing the problem with a new government program will do nothing to solve the underlying circumstances that are driving the mass migration north and all the adverse effects on American society that this rapid, massive influx creates, according to Schlafly. And while the short term goal of lower costs for services to consumers may seem laudable, she claims, the longer term impact on, and costs to, our society (and to our economy) are being overlooked in the rush to make a fast buck off this cheap labor. At the same time we may be creating a permanent new underclass of serfs indentured to our need for cheap labor - people with no skills or education, little civic attachment to our society other than that three dollar per hour landscaping job, and scant hope of getting a better job in a skills-based economy. In her view, "Guest Worker Amnesty" is just spinspeak for economic serfdom, and we've recently seen the results of a similar dynamic in Europe.

Chris Adamo goes further in supporting Schlafly's point. Rather than holding up the corporate community as knights in shining armor rushing to the aid of huddled immigrant masses yearning to breath free, Adamo convicts the business leaders clamoring for ever-cheaper labor of being "morally rudderless entrepreneurs". While that kind of vitriol does little to advance a rational discussion of the underlying issues, Adamo does put the lie to the fallacy that illegals fill jobs Americans won't. Instead, he argues, they fill jobs Americans won't fill at third world wages, and our unwillingness to pay a higher price today only blinds us to the reality that we still incur the added cost tomorrow. In the end, Adamo says, these low cost workers aren't as low cost as we think since massive immigration is burdening the system in terms of added services, not to mention declining quality of life for the rest of us. These hidden costs aren't passed on through the illegal worker's employer, nor are they noticed by the price conscious consumer when he/she buys produce at the supermarket. But they are paid by all of us nonetheless in increased taxes and other significant costs incurred to support the public healthcare, schools, transportation and all the other infrastructure impacted by this massive influx of new people.

Was getting your house painted by Jose really as cheap as the $100 a day, tax free deal you thought you were getting? It may seem so after he leaves. Out of sight, out of mind. But who pays when he gets sick and goes to Jackson Memorial for treatment, or when your child's class size increases with his kids' admission to the local public school, or when business at your store is affected by the 150 day laborers congregating in the parking lot every morning waiting for someone to offer them $100 a day to paint a house? Its not Jose's fault that we encouraged him to come because we want cheap labor. He just wants to work and there is nothing wrong with that.

The Iconoclast is no bleeding heart liberal, but the image of the destitute immigrant arriving at our shores possessed of nothing more than a desperate desire to work hard and better himself (and contribute to our economy) is held sacred and stirs the heart of this and every other American patriot. On that count alone I say, "Let Jose in!" Yet, is perpetually importing a low-wage, low-skill mass of new people the answer, and if so where does it end? How did our economy get along so well for so long before this supply of dirt cheap labor became so readily available? Does it serve the short term economic goals of a society increasingly focused on the immediate need to get more for less, but at greater long term cost? Or is this just an inevitable part of the same globalization we are taking to the rest of the world? And finally, what will historians write about this, the pre-emminent population dynamic of our time, in two hundred years? These are questions I hope you will all ponder with me.