Obama and Romney must link economy, immigration

Last week, Obama and Romney gave dueling speeches on the economy. This week, it was immigration. The two topics are very much related. The candidates should focus on that.

Larry Downing/REUTERS
Unemployed Latino immigrants line up on a winter day for jobs at a parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia.

In recent days, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have played to “the Hispanic vote,” each offering plans on how to deal with illegal immigration. Largely unsaid is how their ideas would affect jobs and create economic growth.

Immigration is closely linked to the economy, especially when the jobless rate is 8.2 percent. Many employers, for example, cut costs by hiring illegal migrants at below minimum wage. Some high-tech industries are short of skilled workers that they could find overseas.

And President Obama’s move to grant work permits to many young illegal migrants will provide more competition for scarce jobs sought by less-educated Americans.

Yet with the retirement of baby boomers in coming years, there will be a huge demographic gap in the labor force. That will require more immigrants, not fewer.

Then there are the intangibles, such as how migrants create jobs by being entrepreneurial or how they bring ideas to science and technology or to fashion and food, creating investment. Between 1995 and 2005, immigrants were key founders in more than a quarter of all new engineering and technology firms in the US.

Up to now, the campaign debate has largely kept immigration and the economy as separate issues. And the political clash over immigration focuses too narrowly on border security and possible leniency for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. In speeches this week to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the two candidates made competing promises on how to solve the difficult immigration issues.

It’s time to bring the two topics together for a more rounded view. It will help voters who are concerned about both. In fact, if lawmakers focus on the economics of immigration, then the politics of immigration – playing to ethnic groups or security fears – might lessen.

“As long as immigration is a political issue used by both sides against each other we will never reach the kind of reasonable and balanced approach to it that it needs and deserves,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R) at a breakfast with journalists hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.

Immigration is not just about Hispanics. Asians have recently surpassed Hispanics as the most rapidly growing demographic group in the US. And legal Hispanic migrants are likely more affected by illegal immigrants than other ethnic groups in losing out on low-wage jobs. The Hispanic jobless rate is 11 percent, up from 9.7 percent in 2009.

To grow the economy, Washington must reform US immigration policy, mainly by improving the rules and quotas for legal immigrants.

Visas, for example, should be better adjusted to bring in people with needed skills but not for the purpose of undercutting wages in a particular industry. Temporary legal migrants, mainly under agricultural programs, must not take work from American workers. And the US must increase the number of visas for countries that are also a high source of illegal migration, such as Mexico.

Just as the 9/11 attacks focused attention on the relation between border security and illegal migration, the Great Recession has put a spotlight on economics and immigration. The presidential campaign should reflect that.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.