A recent poll by TIME magazine confirms the ambivalence many Americans feel toward illegal immigrants.[1] While a majority of Americans want to crack down on illegal immigration, they also strongly favor guest-worker programs and temporary visas. [2] This public ambivalence has manifested itself in the two versions of immigration reform contemplated by those in the House and the Senate. The House bill which was passed in December 2005 consists of mostly draconian measures in regulating illegal immigration.[3] These measures include treating the mere presence of an illegal alien – currently a civil violation – as a felony punishable by a year and a day in fail and giving any humanitarian assistance to an illegal immigrant would be a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. [4] Fines for employer who hires illegal immigrants would increase from a low of $250 per violation to an increase of over $25,000. [5] These measures did not sit well with the American industries and led to a massive lobbying campaign by business lobbyists. The measures adopted by the Senate were so welcomed by the business lobby that they broke into applause and embraced in the Dirksen office building as the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send the bill to the Senate floor. [6]  Has the Senate bill struck the right balance between security and economic prosperity or is it just a rubber stamp on the practices that help big businesses bottom line?  This article will examine the proposed guest worker programs found in the Senate bill and will try to determine if the programs balance between the interests of big business and those of the labor unions.

In December 2005, the House passed a bill, sponsored by James Sensenbrenner and cosponsored by thirty five other members, on immigration reform that focused exclusively on security and enforcement. [7] The bill mostly consists of measures to prevent illegal immigration but does not offer any real alternatives or solutions to American industries that rely on immigrant labor. The Senate bill, on the other hand, does incorporate a guest worker program. One version of the guest worker program would make illegal immigrants leave the U.S. and then apply for a two-year visa that can be renewed twice with a one year gap between renewals that must be spent outside the U.S. and would have a cap of six years. [8] The other version of the guest worker program, would permit illegal immigrants who were in the U.S. before January 7th, 2004 to apply for a three year guest-worker visa, which could be renewed once if they paid a $1,000 fine and passed a background check. [9] After six years, if they demonstrated English proficiency and paid another $1,000 fine and back taxes, they could apply for permanent residency. Laborers abroad could apply for the same visa but numbers would be capped at 400,000 annually. [10] Out of these workers only 87,000 would be eligible annually to apply for permanent residency. [11]  Many in Congress see the later guest worker program as disguised amnesty for illegal immigrants and would prefer a more stringent program. [12] Yet, the likelihood of some compromise between complete amnesty and outright hostility will be determined by economic factors that are driving many of the policies behind guest worker programs.

In the latest Time poll, 55% percent of Americans believe that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that U.S. citizens do not want to do, and therefore 72% favor granting temporary visa to immigrants to do temporary or seasonal work. [13] However, one of the most comprehensive studies on the immigrant workers finds that “the idea that there are jobs Americans won’t do is economic gibberish, [a]ll the big occupations that immigrants are in – construction, janitorial, even agriculture – are overwhelmingly done by Americans.”  [14] This is not to say that migrants do not ever displace American workers or depress wages. George J. Borjas, a professor of economics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, argues that the influx of foreign-born laborers has shaved the incomes of U.S. high school dropouts as much as 8%--and taken their jobs in industries like food service and construction. [15] Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, states that of the 4.8 million net new workers who entered the labor force from 2000 to 2005, 4.1 million were recent immigrants. [16] So there is a real economic loss for those with a high school education or less.  However, there are opportunities that are created for others on the higher end of the job market. Daniel Griswold, an immigration expert for the Cato Institute—argues that immigrant workers, "make the economy more flexible and more dynamic” by allowing their employers more time to put into higher-paying work. [17] THE AFL-CIO has criticized the guest worker program not because of its potential displacement but because it could potentially create a class of second class workers who do not have the same rights as American workers. [18] Even with this potential for abuse, the Service Employees Union International and the farmworkers associations have thrown their support behind the guest worker program outlined by the Senate Judiciary Committee. [19]

III. Conclusion

As the debate heats up between the House and the Senate over immigration reform, there is a strong likelihood that some American workers will be displaced from their jobs. The challenge for those who are creating the guest worker programs is to ensure that big business gets the labor force it needs to maintain productivity but at the same time to help those who may be displaced by market forces by instituting programs that will enable low skilled American workers to gain employment in other sectors.  This scheme may help ease the tensions that are simmering in the immigration debate.

[1] Karen Tumulty, Should They Stay or Should They go, TIME, Apr. 10, 2006, available at 2006 WLNR 5528556.
[2] Id.
[3] Ummesh Kher, The Proposals, TIME, Apr. 10, 2006 available at 2006 WLNR 5538569.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Tumulty, supra note 1.
[7] See Holly Bailey, A Border War, NEWSWEEK, Apr. 3, 2006, available at  2006 WLNR 5150581. Congressman Tom Tancredo has emphatically stated the purpose of immigration reform should be border security and not to let criminals walk away from penalty of law. See also, Jonathan Peterson, First Aims to Prompt Senate Immigration Vote, L.A. TIMES, Apr. 3, 2006, available at 2006 WLNR 5542453.
[8] Kher, supra note 3.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] See Tumulty, supra note 1.
[13] Id.
[14] John M. Border, Immigrants and the Economics of Hard Work, Apr. 2, 2006 available at 2006 WLNR 5514699.
[15] Id.
[16] Daren Fonda, What it Means for Your Wallet, Apr. 10, 2006 available at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1179367,00.html (last visited Apr. 2, 2006).
[17] Id.
[18] Press Release, AFL-CIO,  Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney on Immigration Bill in Senate (Mar. 28, 2006) available at http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr03282006.cfm.
[19] Jim Abrams, Guest Worker Programs are a Tough Sell, Mar. 25, 2006,  available at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060325/ap_on_go_co/guest_workers.