Does America really need even more foreign workers?


By Byron Slater
San Diego Union Tribune September 7, 2000

Almost every employer seems to be clamoring for temporary foreign workers
these days. In fact, many high-tech computer and electronics firms have been
pressuring Congress to increase the quota of H1B visas that would allow
foreign workers to come to the U.S. for up to three years.

Under this arrangement, the employer pays a fee and then is allowed to hire
an engineer or programmer or some other skilled worker, from out of the
country, to work in their company for a limited time.

Here's the rub. They often replace existing workers at reduced wages, and in
many cases, do not hire older or newly graduated, prospective employees.
This practice has done wonders for the corporate bottom line and these
foreign workers are literally chained to their desk. In many cases, they are
forced to work long hours without overtime pay and usually do not receive
benefits offered to permanent employees.

In addition, they are forced to stay with one employer for up to three
years, without the ability to shop for a better-paying job. It's the nearest
thing to involuntary servitude.

Is there a dire need for these foreign high-tech workers? Not according to
Norman Matloff, professor of computer technology at University of California
at Davis. Matloff has been tracking high-tech computer jobs for years, and
he has repeatedly decried the so-called dire need for these foreign workers.

According to Matloff, there are ample qualified applicants for most of the
jobs filled by the foreign workers. He cites a bumper crop of newly
graduated engineers and many seasoned workers over 40 who are having
difficulty landing jobs in the youth-oriented computer industry. Matloff
also points to the fact that many high-tech and dot-com companies are facing
tough times in the current market and are unable to increase their work
force in a slowing market.

There are several bills before Congress that would increase the current
limit of 115,000 visas to as many as 200,000. In fact, one bill offered by
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the chairman of the immigration subcommittee, has
been approved by that committee. It would offer an unlimited number of
potential foreign workers. The industry favors another bill co-authored by
Reps. David Dreier, R-Covina and Zoe Lofrgen, D-San Jose, that would allow
nearly 200,000 workers. They prefer this bill over the open-ended Smith bill
because it does not provide the job protection for American workers,
required under Smith's bill.

On top of the hundreds of thousands of foreign workers for high-tech
industries, farmers are clamoring for more field hands under a similar plan
that is fashioned after the bracero program, which was ended in the 1960s.
It was opposed by the labor unions and many pro-immigrant groups, due to
poor treatment of the workers and barely-habitable housing conditions. The
net result of the bracero program was that huge numbers of illegal
immigrants decided to remain in the United States. This created a demand for
the amnesty of 1986, in which 3.1 million illegal immigrants received legal
status.

The law provided stiff penalties for employers who knowingly hired illegal
immigrants.

It was also supposed to beef up the border to stop more illegals from
entering the country. The problem was that the law was not enforced until
immigration reform legislation passed in 1996.

In addition to the demand for foreign workers, the Clinton administration
wants to add an amnesty for up to 500,000 illegal immigrants now living in
the United States. This amnesty would cover Central Americans who came to
this country during the war in El Salvador, Guatemala and Haiti under asylum
laws.

The problem is that once they got here, they refused to go home at the end
of the war. This is contrary to our immigration laws and would allow them to
circumvent the long wait for legal entry.

Therein lies the problem. If we give amnesty to this group, it would be a
signal to the impoverished around the world that if you can get across our
border, you're home free and will be given legal status sooner or later. It
would also penalize those who have patiently waited for legal entry. When
the U.S. government granted amnesty in 1986, it was supposed to stop illegal
immigration.

In fact, the exact opposite has resulted. Today, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service admits that 6 million illegal aliens are residing in
the country. Some say the figure is as high 10 million or more.

If the Clinton administration and pro-business Republicans get their way, we
might as well scrap any semblance of an effective immigration policy. The
H1B program must be carefully administered to prevent the fraud that has
been documented in the past, and there cannot be a general amnesty if
America is to retain any semblance of control over its borders. America must
control immigration in order to slow the runaway population explosion.

Slater is a member of the Border Solution Task Force, an immigration control
group. James O. Goldsborough is on vacation.