US Controversies and Big Ideas 2008 and Beyond

The Logjam on Immigration: False assumptions and lost opportunities

American immigration seems immune to reform. False assumptions have been deeply ingrained over many decades and blithely parroted by the large majority of citizens. Employers protest before Congress but have not invested in research and communication with the purpose of presenting the facts which would help to verify the assumptions. Their strategy for dealing with immigration is just so inept. This despite the fact that the urban legends about immigration are just plain silly.

The refrain is that H1 employees displace locals. This is a half-truth. More often than not, H1 employees do technical work that Americans prefer not to do and choose management and marketing jobs. I have heard terms like programming monkey widely used to belittle such functions.

The other story is that as immigrants H1 employees are more likely to turn into entrepreneurs. Their chances of upward mobility are lower in the American corporate world due to cultural barriers. As entrepreneurs, they create jobs for Americans.

The current legal system in the USA is horribly dysfunctional. If companies need technical talent and don't get in the USA, they have the option of setting up an office in Vancouver where immigrants are easily available. The Canadian system is a transparent system which lowers the uncertainty and the costs of hiring foreign labor both for the employer and the employee. I made an application for the Canadian permanent card and had to do nothing after the initial application was filed. Also, the attorney was expected to return my fee if my application was not accepted. By contrast, the American application cost a huge amount, I had to make two attempts and all the time there was no way of knowing whether I would be accepted. The Canadian system takes an economic approach and matches the country's needs for workers with supply by using a point system. The system clearly works as indicated by the fact that you don't have intense controversies as in the USA.

I have worked previously on an H1 visa and always found that employers took this option as a last resort. Employers don't like the hassle of the legal process involved in H1 or the harassment of explaining to immigration officials why they chose a foreigner over a local American. Also, foreigners take a more than a while to adapt to the culture and the processes which is an added cost. The only time H1 candidates are employed are when the economy is in a midst of a boom and immigration is more relaxed.

I have heard a lot of people say that foreign labor is hired because it is cheap. Never have seen a single piece of evidence cited to support the assertion. The only thing that stops H1 visa holders from rising is the lack of mobility that comes with the byzantine immigration processes. Really, Americans with conscience will not support this banana Republic variety capricious legislation.

I might add and ask why the detractors don't ever mention the jobs that are created when foreigners turn into entrepreneurs or facilitate the global expansion of American multinationals. The tax rules for Americans overseas are just not attractive for them to go work abroad. American companies have to rely on local workers and American trained employees help in bridging the cultural gap.

Conservative Obduracy on Immigration

Conservatives have relentlessly and insanely opposed any reform of the immigration policy. The erosion of their support across the USA, major losses in former bastions of support and recent warning from Newt Gingrich of a possible disaster has not led them to be more introspective. A recent poll published by Wall Street Journal shows that John McCain is running even with his Democratic challengers even though support for the Republican party has touched rock-bottom. Even a person as astute as Newt Gingrich expressed only surprise but had no explanation for this stark contrast.

The pièce de résistance was the interview Bill O' Reilly had with a representative of the Roman Catholic Church who stood up for the human rights of illegal immigrants. Bill was, as usual, was not listening. He went as far as to criticize the Pope for supporting immigration reform! Over again, Bill used the opportunity to  continue his propaganda against immigration.  Maybe, Bill ought to know that America lectures the rest of the world about human rights.

Clearly, the electorate has drifted away from a party that annoyed them with its intolerance of immigration, gay and lesbian rights and and an overzealous faith in religion. America needs immigrants as much as immigrants need America. The departure of "illegal" immigrants has created labor shortages across the USA. Skilled engineers are returning to their prospering countries and will surely undermine America's competitive edge over the longer run.

John McCain was willing to listen to the conservatives on border protection while he consistently reaffirmed his commitment to legal entry for unskilled immigrants. The conservatives did not return the favor and are expressing displeasure at his "disrespectful" attitude reflected in his support for a comprehensive reform of immigration. The only way John can protect conservatives from themselves is to ignore them on immigration issues. That and gay marriage--it appears that freedom is for only some people.

American citizens are turning to somebody as dishonest as Barack Obama out of disillusionment with the second term of the Bush administration. The man is a phoney but could well win given the mood of the electorate. John McCain has in his program for health reform a very innovative initiative which could significantly change the political landscape in the USA. If only conservatives shut up for now--especially on immigration.

Newt Gingrich: going the way of pygmies?

Overall, I think Newt Gingrich has the best proposed program for reform in these turbulent times in the USA. His program for health transformation, with its focus on improving information flows, is brilliant and its implementation will make America hugely more competitive. The devil, however, is in the details; he is harping almost entirely on government "reform" for tracking "illegal" immigrants. I made my first financial contribution sometime back to American Solutions but I have decided not to donate anymore till I see more effort to promote his more positive agenda.

Lately, Gingrich has drawn a disingenuous analogy to convince people of his stand on immigration. He takes the example of Federal Express which is able to keep track of millions of packages. By contrast, the US government, according to him, makes excuses about tracing millions of undocumented immigrants. That amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants is not justified. To see the faux-naïf, you have to only realize that customers voluntarily provide their information to Federal Express for their mutual economic benefit. Undocumented immigrants would disclose their information if they saw a benefit for themselves; an amnesty would do just that.

The administration of immigration is broken. This law is as unenforceable as the prohibition was in the past. The inspiration of the law is entirely political, a piece out of the third world. It does not take into consideration economics of employment. American farmers in California, for example, are finding it difficult to pick fruit from their fields and are switching to other crops that can be grown with less labor.

Newt Gingrich's analogy can be extended to bring into relief the pathologies of the current administration of immigration. If Federal Express decided not to accept packages from its French customers because they are anti-American, it is very likely that the French will hide their identity. The French customers will probably find a way to work around this restriction in Fedex policy; they will send packages to their friends in Britain who will in turn will help out by mailing the packages to the USA. It would then be hard for Fedex to know who is actually sending the packages.

Newt Gingrich is clearly pandering to his base. The far right has, historically, been averse to immigration. In the past, the motivation for opposing immigration from non-European countries was overtly racist. Not much has changed. Ann Coulter, the demagogue of the far right, laments increase in immigration from the third world. The world has changed and most countries in the former third world are now booming emerging economies. Large numbers of American companies want to locate in countries like India, Brazil and China to tap into their skilled labor force. You can't expect parochial minds from the back-of-beyond farm lands of mid-America, where Ann Coulter lives, to be aware of global transformations.

The current political controversies in America are reminiscent of the last days of Governor Pete Wilson in California. Far right rhetoric on immigration alienated the minorities who decided to become citizens and voted against him. Well, it did not help. The alternative was worse, an incompetent Gray Davis could not even hold on to power. Politics in California is so polarized that not much progress has been achieved even under Arnold.

Newt Gingrich will probably go the same way as Pete Wilson if he does not tone down the rhetoric on immigration. He will join the league of pygmies who are now bidding for the Presidency. The consequences will be dreadful.