Financial Times Editorial Comment: Small steps needed on US immigration
Financial Times Editorial Comment: Small steps needed on US immigration
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: June 11 2007 20:00 | Last updated: June 11 2007 20:00
Last week’s collapse of the Senate’s “grand bargain” on American immigration was not, as one might think, a case of pragmatic centrism defeated by extremist refusal to compromise. To be sure, the measure mixed punitive and liberal elements, so anti-immigrant and pro-immigrant lobbies both disliked it. But moderates were not much more impressed, nor was the country at large. Even the bill’s main sponsors – Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain – seemed doubtful. It was a compromise that offended almost everybody.
The law may yet be revived but do not bet on it. The status quo is bad but not intolerable: “better no reform than this reform” is something many of the law’s critics could agree to. The US has at least 12m illegal immigrants and the number continues to surge. At the same time critical skills are in short supply, a deficit that employers are in effect forbidden to remedy by recruiting abroad. In social and econ omic terms, the current system has failed. But the problems are chronic not acute and sadly the line of least resistance is to let things be.
Rather than trying to revive the grand bargain, a wiser course may now be to dismantle it and strive for a series of smaller ones. The failed bill hinged on a promise to police illegal immigration more effectively; with that in place, the status of most existing illegal workers was to have been regularised (and a long path to citizenship opened up) and there would have been new opportunities for lawful temporary workers and immigrants with skills. That first assurance, however, was not believed. The country had reason to be sceptical because it has been promised a secure border many times before. This needs to be addressed.
In curbing illegal immigration, border measures are probably less important than supervision of employers. If this can be achieved at moderate cost through electronic verification of workers’ status, as the bill promised, then let that measure move forward on its own. When the country sees signs that it is working, resistance to the more liberal elements of the failed law will soften. One of those signs will be labour shortages and worsening economic disruption. This, it seems, is the price that must be paid for Washington’s lack of credibility.
Another candidate for immediate action is easier entry of highly skilled workers. America’s present reluctance to hire the world’s best and brightest is self-defeating and absurd. Fixing this is politically feasible. These useful steps should not await a resurrected grand bargain.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: June 11 2007 20:00 | Last updated: June 11 2007 20:00
Last week’s collapse of the Senate’s “grand bargain” on American immigration was not, as one might think, a case of pragmatic centrism defeated by extremist refusal to compromise. To be sure, the measure mixed punitive and liberal elements, so anti-immigrant and pro-immigrant lobbies both disliked it. But moderates were not much more impressed, nor was the country at large. Even the bill’s main sponsors – Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain – seemed doubtful. It was a compromise that offended almost everybody.
The law may yet be revived but do not bet on it. The status quo is bad but not intolerable: “better no reform than this reform” is something many of the law’s critics could agree to. The US has at least 12m illegal immigrants and the number continues to surge. At the same time critical skills are in short supply, a deficit that employers are in effect forbidden to remedy by recruiting abroad. In social and econ omic terms, the current system has failed. But the problems are chronic not acute and sadly the line of least resistance is to let things be.
Rather than trying to revive the grand bargain, a wiser course may now be to dismantle it and strive for a series of smaller ones. The failed bill hinged on a promise to police illegal immigration more effectively; with that in place, the status of most existing illegal workers was to have been regularised (and a long path to citizenship opened up) and there would have been new opportunities for lawful temporary workers and immigrants with skills. That first assurance, however, was not believed. The country had reason to be sceptical because it has been promised a secure border many times before. This needs to be addressed.
In curbing illegal immigration, border measures are probably less important than supervision of employers. If this can be achieved at moderate cost through electronic verification of workers’ status, as the bill promised, then let that measure move forward on its own. When the country sees signs that it is working, resistance to the more liberal elements of the failed law will soften. One of those signs will be labour shortages and worsening economic disruption. This, it seems, is the price that must be paid for Washington’s lack of credibility.
Another candidate for immediate action is easier entry of highly skilled workers. America’s present reluctance to hire the world’s best and brightest is self-defeating and absurd. Fixing this is politically feasible. These useful steps should not await a resurrected grand bargain.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 6:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home