Our View: Guest Workers?

Colorado Springs Gazette
January 17, 2001

We're intrigued by a proposal to, at last, acknowledge the obvious on inmigration.

Texas Republican Sen. Phil Gram's still somewhat amorphous proposal to set up a "guest worker" program for people from Mexico who are in the United States shows a certain understanding of social, economic and political reality.

We haven't seen the fine print yet; last week in Mexico City, Gramm and other U.S. legislators met with Mexican President Vicente Fox. But from what has been reported, it seems the proposal has the potential to be constructive for both countries.

The social and economic reality is that lots of Mexican nationals - 3 million, according to one recent account - are working in the United States without proper papers, and aside from the not inconsequential legal complications facing those undocumented workers, their presence is a good thing for this country's economy.

The political reality is that wholesale changes in the direction of realistic quotas or open borders in U.S. immigration laws are unlikely.

What Gramm seems to be offering, as Greg Fossedal of the Arlington. Va.-based Alexis de Tocqueville Institution put it, is something of a third way: "an intermediate option for people who want to work in the United States but not necessarily to become permanent residents."

In general terms, Gramm proposes to issue guest-worker permits good for one year to Mexicans in the United States, starting with undocumented workers already here. Those with the permit would be authorized to work, would be covered by U.S. labor laws and would be required to return to Mexico after a year.

The hope on the Mexican side of the border is that many of those workers would bring skills and capital back home to help build the Mexican economy. The hope on the American side is that some of the hypocrisy and disrespect for law entailed in the current wink-and-nod situation will be reduced.

The long-run hope for Mexico. as policy analyst Robert Moffitt of the Washington. D.C. -based Heritage Foundation contends, is that Vicente Fox will be successful in opening up and invigorating a Mexican economy dominated for decades by a corrupt form of crony capitalism.

"Mexico could be a real economic powerhouse, and that would be exciting for both countries," Moffit it said. "If that happens, illegal immigration will virtually disappear as a problem."

The details make all the difference, of course, and we'll have to wait until we see more of them before we hop aboard the proposal.

A guest worker program is short of the ideal of free flow of labor and freedom of movement among people in general, and could have the potential to be unduly paternalistic or exploitative. But this is a good way to open up the debate.

Pushing hollow reform

Let's require disclosure, then move on

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain has announced that he and Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold would introduce a bill with the label "campaign finance reform" in the Senate and push for a vote on it before President-elect Bush introduces his own legislative agenda.

Last Thursday the two met with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to work out a way to bring the matter to a vote without embarrassing the new president too much.

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said a modest Bush proposal to limit "soft money" in campaigns could be a legislative vehicle to get things started.

McCain said that would be all right so long as he could offer amendments and build support for the kind of measure he prefers.

Campaign finance "reform" has an appealing ring to citizens who want to see campaign activities cleaned up, but true reform in practice is elusive, given that interests that feel a need to influence politicians will always try to find a foothold.

Indeed, almost every problem linked to money in politics is rooted in a previous effort at "reform" by increasing government control over the political process. Inevitably, of course, enthusiasts of reform will claim that the answer is yet more such reform.

Meanwhile, a nagging constitutional issue remains: Limiting donations to politicians, as the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have ruled, can turn out to be tantamount to limiting political expression.

We would feel more comfortable if Bush would come out and acknowledge the fundamental shortcomings of heaping ever more regulations upon the current labyrinth of campaign-finance laws. Such an acknowledgment would set the stage for a veto and thus point the way to constructive alternatives, such as full and immediate donation disclosure.

Copyright 1999-2001. The Gazette, a Freedom Communications. Inc. Company. All rights reserved.