Immigration Idea, part 2

In my last post I began discussing immigration reform. I think I did a decent job of laying out the need for granting amnesty and providing legal status and identification to the millions of foreign workers already in this country and that may yet come to this country. I also mentioned that I had an idea for protecting Americans from losing their jobs to foreign workers. This is what I'd like to discuss in this post.

To begin with, the very act of legalizing and documenting the foreign workers will help with protecting jobs. One of the reasons why foreign workers can accept lower wages is that they are being paid under the table. Since the payments are undocumented, these salaries aren't taxed, which allows the foreign worker to net more than an American worker, even though they gross less. Here, of course, is an argument for documenting. The country will raise more money in tax revenue and foreign workers will have to demand higher wages. This is a start, but I don't feel that this alone will protect American workers.

In order to protect American workers, I think we need to take a lesson from our past and use a time-honored American political tradition. I feel the answer to the problem lies in ratios. I was convinced of this idea as I came to the realization that, on the one hand we need foreign workers, but on the other hand a lot of lower class Americans need these jobs too. A classic case of can't live with them, can't live without them. My solution is that we establish a set or sets of ratios to govern the employment of foreign workers. The ratio would be foreign workers per American worker. Different areas of the economy could have different ratios set up. For instance, in agriculture, where we are heavily dependent on foreign labor, the ratio may be something like a hundred foreign workers for every American worker, or perhaps higher, or even uncapped. In a more competitive industry the ratio would be much tighter. An example might be landscaping, where the ratio might be ten foreigners to every American. I feel these ratios could be set to govern foreign workers from the lowliest field laborer to highest company executives, scientists and engineers.

The obvious problem or difficulty to this system is how to set the ratios, and by whom will they be set. I think there will have to be collaboration between the Government, business leaders, unions, guilds and workers rights organizations. This is the area where the compromises will be made. I think we'll need to be flexible in this area and allow for changes to be made over time. Needs may change and so ratios should be adjustable. My thinking is that the government, perhaps the department of labor, will set and govern the ratios. This might be the simplest way of doing it, but I'm sure Congress will want and should have some say and/or oversight in the matter.

I think this plan offers some nice benefits. The first is that it allows for foreign workers while guaranteeing jobs for Americans. A construction company may want to hire fifty foreign workers, but to do so they may also be forced to hire ten Americans. Therefore the value of a U.S. citizen grows because he allows an employer to hire a set number of foreign employees. You may have to pay the American more, but that's off set by the value he brings in potential foreign labor. I think I should point out here a caveat to this plan. The ratios should apply to similar or near similar job levels. That means that if you have ten Americans in the corporate office, you can't apply them to the ratio. It's a laborer for a laborer, not an executive for a laborer. This is very important. Otherwise we really don't change anything. The reason I said "near similar" job levels is that perhaps we'd want to count supervisors at the lower level. For instance, a foreman over a small group of workers. This might work out so that the American is given the better job, over the foreign workers he allows the company to hire, though not necessarily. The main point is that you don't want a company of American executives and foreign laborers. You want a company that's hiring American and foreign workers to get the job done at the production level.

Another benefit of this program is that it helps to keep businesses in America. By lowering the cost of doing business here, it will be easier to keep businesses from outsourcing to other countries. That keeps Americans employed, which helps the overall economy. It also helps the tax base for local governments. If businesses are located here, they pay property taxes here (supposedly), which will help fund improvements in infrastructure. Along this same line, the foreign workers will also be paying taxes here, instead of in their home countries. They may send a portion of their earnings home, but they'll now be subjected to income taxes, as well as the sales taxes that they already pay for purchases made in the U.S. We may decide to exempt some workers from income tax, such as field laborers, but construction and tradesmen will have to pay the same as their American counterparts.

Another aspect of this plan is that with the legalization and inclusion of these laborers, they'll be able to join and be part of labor unions and work for improvements in working conditions and workers rights. At this time, there is some animosity between American and foreign laborers. With the implementation of this plan, they'll be able to work together. Instead of "stealing" jobs from Americans, the foreigner can work with the American for improvements and growth.

One last point I would like to make is that if we legalize these foreign workers we would have a theoretical cap on immigration, in the sense that American business would only be able to hire a finite number of foreign workers. Granted that number should be pretty large. We would need to decide whether the foreigners need to find a job before coming to America, or if they only need their identification card before crossing into the country in search of work. We may need to apply some limiting factors in this regard so that our social services aren't overrun. For instance, if we do allow anyone to come, with or without a job, we may let them use the social services, but then charge their home country for their use. Another idea would be to set up recruiting offices in the foreign countries. Businesses could match foreign workers with employers. The problem with this is what happens if they get here, work two weeks and then quit? Do we give them a certain amount of time to find a new job before kicking them out or can they sit here doing nothing indefinitely? Either way, who's going to enforce that? That's why I tend to lean more to allowing freer movement for workers. Once they're registered, using biometrics, they can come and go as they please. If they lose their job, let them go home for a couple of months to see their family, before coming back and getting a new job. I think something that we might want to do in order to limit the number of workers and for safety reasons is to make applicants for documentation pass a test. I don't think it should be a difficult test. Just something to make sure they can get around in America. It could be something like a basic English test covering things like the names of basic foods and colors. We may also want to include safety and warning words that commonly appear at work sights. The basic numbers and perhaps traffic signals and signs might also be important. I think the main point of the test is to make sure they won't be a hazard to the people around them once they get here and that they'll be able to function in a predominantly English speaking society.

I know this plan has a lot of holes in it, but I think it's a start. Once implemented it would definitely evolve over time. Part of this would be with our ratios and there governance and part of it would be with our relations with the foreign countries that supply these workers. The main point of this plan is that it protects Americans while offering a legal solution that is acceptable to foreign workers while supplying them with a voice our country. I think in the long run this plan offers a fair compromise to all the parties involved and creates a framework for future discussion and compromise.

I hope I've been clear in the outline of my plan, but I probably forgot to add in many points and ideas. I've probably overlooked many objections as well. I never intended this to be a finalized plan. I see this more as a starting place. Hopefully these ideas will grow into a workable solution and the gaps and objections can be worked out.