Is a Cheap Housekeeper Worth Your Principles?


By Noam Neusner

Published March 06, 2008, issue of March 14, 2008.
  • Print
  • Share Share

While the presidential contest between the eventual Democratic nominee and John McCain promises a political debate rich in contrasts, we will hear not one meaningful word of debate over what may be the most interesting and pervasive domestic policy challenge of our time: immigration.

In a nation of roughly 300 million, close to 40 million of us are immigrants. Of those, somewhere between a third and half are here illegally, though estimates vary greatly.

For the sake of this discussion, however, the difference between legal and illegal matters not one iota. Because when it comes to immigration, legal status has much more relevance to the immigrant than it does to everyone else.

On the issue of immigration, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and McCain are virtual clones. All three support liberalizing our already liberal immigration rules. All three support some kind of easy-to-achieve legal status for people who are in the country illegally. All three would impose some modest increases in spending on border security and employment status verification, measures that are regarded as sops to national security hawks.

But for the most part, no matter who wins this election, immigrants and would-be immigrants will celebrate — and rightly so.

Is this rare example of bipartisanship a good thing? Many readers of this newspaper, rooted deeply in the aspirational culture of immigrant Jewry, will likely think so. Jews are commanded by Torah to welcome the stranger, and we know from painful experience what it means to be turned away at an hour of desperation.

These principles are not irrational or ill-conceived. The problem is, they are utterly inconsistent with the other elements of our aspirational culture — especially the one that says that the immigrant should move up the ladder of opportunity.

If you believe the gap between the wealthy and the poor is an outrage, that there should be far more opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities, that Americans should not exit the workforce because jobs pay too little — if you believe all this, you cannot at the same time support further immigration to this country. These problems are all symptoms of the same disease: an oversupply of cheap, uneducated workers.

It is not xenophobic or nativist to point this out. It’s simple economics.

Consider: Economic conservatives embrace liberal immigration precisely because it provides cheap and easily available labor. They may declare some sentimental regard for the pluck of immigrants. But economic conservatives are no fools; they love any market mechanism that stands on the side of greater efficiency in pricing. In this case, if American workers get too uppity, bring in the foreigners to make goods and services cheaper.

Today’s labor Zionists may be surprised to find themselves in the same ideological bed with the kind of people who used to exploit their grandparents — but that’s where things stand.

Immigration can’t be simultaneously good for both the employer and the immigrant. Someone is paying the bill. And as it turns out, the bill is being paid by the people liberals say they are defending: the poor, the uneducated, the weak and the defenseless.

We receive roughly 2.5 million immigrants each year to this country. Except for a few thousand, virtually all of these immigrants are here for economic reasons. They need to earn more money than they would in their home countries.

And that they do. They have entered our workforce in massive numbers. From 2000 to 2005, virtually nine out of every 10 new workers in the American labor force were immigrants in that period, according to the government’s population survey.

But this influx has had another impact. The number of American-born workers who don’t even look for a job jumped by 10 million from 2000 to 2007, according to the Labor Department. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that favors a more restrictive immigration policy, the workforce dropout rate has risen among a number of major demographic groups: young American-born men, American-born black men, American-born Hispanic men, American-born adults who didn’t graduate from high school, and American-born adults with only a high school degree.

Who can blame them? Wages have indeed suffered, in real terms, because of immigration — by about $1,700, or 4%, between 1980 and 2000, according to Harvard economist George Borjas.

And here’s the thing: No matter what people tell you about immigrants doing work “Americans won’t do,” most of the jobs immigrants are now entering are in fact still dominated by American-born workers: maids, construction laborers, dishwashers, janitors, painters, cabbies, grounds keepers, and meat and poultry workers.

If we continue to keep up our immigration policies, we will begin to see a massive shift in the workforce — in fact, one that has already begun — where those who are educated enjoy the twin luxuries of high relative wages and low relative prices. Those not so lucky or blessed or motivated, depending on your theology, will suffer grinding subsistence.

Those who come to this country eager to improve their lot, in short, will move exactly one rung on the economic ladder before being pulled back by those who follow behind them. Meanwhile, millions of able-bodied adults now sit on the sidelines of our economy, preferring the stable though not prosperous lifestyle of disability payments and other social welfare to the rough-and-tumble of the low-wage, low-skilled working world.

I don’t blame them for their choice. It is rational. It is also sad — and it speaks poorly of a country that prides itself on opportunity that the only leg up we give is to those willing to work here for cheap, and preferably, off-the-books.

Today’s suburban liberals, grandchildren of immigrants themselves, should be howling in protest. They should call out immigration as an unnatural drag on the well-being of ordinary, hard-working Americans. Forget Big Oil, Big Pharma and any other Bigs. The true enemy of the working man is Big Immigration.

The awareness of this problem won’t come in the national debate about our next White House occupant. Those candidates have already staked their positions, and they are indistinguishable. But the lover of labor cannot hide from the truth that the solution begins with a wall — and a polite policy that says no more new immigrants, not until we restore opportunity for all at home.

Noam Neusner served as President Bush’s principal economic and domestic policy speechwriter from 2002 to 2004.

The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.

Find us on Facebook!
  • The rose petals have settled, and Andi has made her (Jewish?) choice. We look back on the #Bachelorette finale:
  • "Despite the great pain and sadness surrounding a captured soldier, this should not shape the face of this particular conflict – not in making concessions and not in negotiations, not in sobering assessments of this operation’s achievements or the need to either retreat or move forward." Do you agree?
  • Why genocide is always wrong, period. And the fact that some are talking about it shows just how much damage the war in Gaza has already done.
  • Construction workers found a 75-year-old deli sign behind a closing Harlem bodega earlier this month. Should it be preserved?
  • "The painful irony in Israel’s current dilemma is that it has been here before." Read J.J. Goldberg's latest analysis of the conflict:
  • Law professor Dan Markel waited a shocking 19 minutes for an ambulance as he lay dying after being ambushed in his driveway. Read the stunning 911 transcript as neighbor pleaded for help.
  • Happy birthday to the Boy Who Lived! July 31 marks the day that Harry Potter — and his creator, J.K. Rowling — first entered the world. Harry is a loyal Gryffindorian, a matchless wizard, a native Parseltongue speaker, and…a Jew?
  • "Orwell would side with Israel for building a flourishing democracy, rather than Hamas, which imposed a floundering dictatorship. He would applaud the IDF, which warns civilians before bombing them in a justified war, not Hamas terrorists who cower behind their own civilians, target neighboring civilians, and planned to swarm civilian settlements on the Jewish New Year." Read Gil Troy's response to Daniel May's opinion piece:
  • "My dear Penelope, when you accuse Israel of committing 'genocide,' do you actually know what you are talking about?"
  • What's for #Shabbat dinner? Try Molly Yeh's coconut quinoa with dates and nuts. Recipe here:
  • Can animals suffer from PTSD?
  • Is anti-Zionism the new anti-Semitism?
  • "I thought I was the only Jew on a Harley Davidson, but I was wrong." — Gil Paul, member of the Hillel's Angels.
  • “This is a dangerous region, even for people who don’t live there and say, merely express the mildest of concern about the humanitarian tragedy of civilians who have nothing to do with the warring factions, only to catch a rash of *** (bleeped) from everyone who went to your bar mitzvah! Statute of limitations! Look, a $50 savings bond does not buy you a lifetime of criticism.”
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?

We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.