An Opportunity

Immigration deserves a fresh look. This much-maligned issue was long ago defined in the minds of many policy makers and many of their constituents. The vitriolic rhetoric surrounding the issue at the federal level is now a given and, quite frankly, a disappointing reality. Fortunately, here in Utah, things are beginning to change as policy makers and concerned constituents increase their depth of understanding of this enormously complex issue.

Before delving into the new look of immigration, pinpointing the current, unproductive view of the issue is a worthy endeavor. Thus far the pervasive paradigm used to view this issue is that immigration is responsible for a myriad of social ills afflicting the United States. Ask the average Joe on the street to free-associate the word immigration and responses would range from “illegal” to “crime” or “welfare”. Positive responses would be few and far between.

Immigrant apologists have been soundly defeated when it comes to messaging. For the benefit of all involved, let’s turn the page and engage in a more productive conversation.

As a good faith concession of those determined to persist on our current path of conversation, let’s embrace the premise that policy makers should act in the best interest of their constituents and not in the best interest of those who reside in our country illegally. Utilizing a strict utilitarian paradigm, wherein policy-makers act in such a manner as to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of constituents, immigration is a particularly potent public policy force that can be used to benefit this country.

Everybody is affected by our lagging economy in one way or another. Several sectors, including construction and credit markets, are a drag on the economy. The situation has deteriorated to such depths that the U.S. Congress has actually come together to pass legislation in an election year. Thus far, these are the solutions that have been implemented to boost our sagging economy:

• Tax rebates intended to spur consumer spending
• Housing legislation providing tax incentives for first-time homebuyers and increasing FHA loan caps in the hopes of inducing more real estate transactions
• Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) reform, including new regulatory oversight and federal power to financially back Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thereby restoring market confidence
• The Federal Reserve has regularly adjusted interest rates in response to economic conditions

The toxic nature of the immigration debate prevents the mere suggestion that we leverage immigration to benefit the economy. This would work on two fronts.

Low-skilled Labor

Here, the debate rages as advocates and opponents of immigration clash with competiting economic data on the issue. Advocates say that low skilled labor fuels numerous business sectors including hospitality, agriculture, construction, manufacturing and many more. Without this labor force the U.S. economy struggles to grow or even sustain itself. Businesses and Chambers across the country weigh in solidly in support of this data. Opponents argue the social costs of immigration outweigh these economic benefits, pointing to health care, education and welfare costs, as well as crime, while contending that undocumented immigrants use more tax revenue than they generate.

Labor is the lifeblood of our economy and we are critically undersupplied. We are willing to tinker with other aspects of our economy such as tax structure and interests rates, why not with labor? We need low skilled laborers but the key is to provide it while mitigating social costs, which are the status quo and ongoing. Postponing confronting this issue simply leaves us with the negative (social costs) without the positive (low skilled labor).

What seems at first glance to be a problem is in reality an opportunity. Rather than viewing this as an untouchable issue (at least until after the elections when there exists significantly less political accountability), policy makers should see a tremendous opportunity to provide our economy with a shot in the arm while crafting policy that will mitigate future social costs and even addresses the costs we incur daily as a result of our undocumented population— as difficult as those can be to quantify.

Political dogma plagues this issue. Words—simple words—prevent action. Amnesty. Rule of law. Alien. Illegal. Undocumented. All carry politically charged connotations. Under a purely utilitarian paradigm, which suggests acting to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of constituents, dogma shouldn’t prevent policy makers from utilizing an effective arrow in the quiver.

High-skilled Labor

Disconnect this issue from the aforementioned low-skilled labor discussion. The two issues have no link. They are as separate and distinct as a hammer and a drill. Incomprehensibly, these two distinct issues—low-skilled and high-skilled labor—have been connected in the minds of many.

Highly-skilled immigrants are defined as professionals in a specialized occupation with either a bachelor’ degree or graduate degree. The U.S. policy currently caps high-skilled immigration at 85,000 annually (65,000 bachelor, 20,000 for graduate level); this cap is literally met on the first day with over 150,000 applications. This arbitrary and grossly low number does not provide the U.S. economy with the high-skilled labor necessary for technology and other industries dependent upon such a highly skilled workforce to flourish. In fact, developing immigration policy around this one interest would go a long way in keeping the type of jobs we want in the U.S.—high paying, professional jobs.

There are no ancillary social costs to allowing these highly educated and skilled laborers into the U.S. These individuals have high paying jobs and health care and don’t have a proclivity for committing crime. They pay taxes and bring a strong educational ethic to our society. Isolationist must remember these laborers make the pie bigger by keeping technology companies, which previously haven’t been able to find adequate labor, at home in the U.S. These high-skilled laborers don’t take domestic jobs; they increase domestic job opportunities.

Policy makers from both sides of the isle at the local, state and federal levels of government understand this problem and agree that the solution is to increase the cap (if not eliminate it altogether) to allow the U.S. to draw skilled labor into its economy, fueling high tech and other advanced economic sectors. The poisonous environment surrounding the larger issue of immigration has created reluctance for policy makers to address this common-sense issue.