Fence or No Fence, Why the Fuss?
Immigration critics can't recognize a good solution when they see one

It may well be that good fences make good neighbors, as the poet Robert Frost wrote. President Bush has signaled acceptance of fencing as part of his plan to deal with illegal immigration, and the Senate has complied with an 83-16 vote to construct a 370-mile fence along the Mexican border. History has shown that immigrants in search of freedom and prosperity will climb over, tunnel under or circumvent any fence. But if fencing helps pass a broad-based reform bill, so be it.

Fencing, of course, is but one part of the president’s renewed emphasis on immigration security measures. He would also end the “catch-and-release” sham, institute biometric ID cards and beef up military security on the border.

Amazingly, the Senate has passed another amendment to limit temporary workers to a mere 200,000 per year, even though numerous studies say we need at least twice that amount. The Upper Chamber is also limiting the volume of skilled H1B workers, primarily engineers and scientists. These workers are crucial to American competitiveness, and if allowed into the country at much higher levels they would throw off more than enough tax revenue to finance public services for unskilled H2B immigrants.

Wage differentials between Mexico and the U.S. are huge – largely because of Mexico’s failure to liberalize its economy. As long as American job opportunities and higher wages beckon, immigrants in search of a better life will stream into the United States – fence or no fence.

The anti-immigration crowd also gets it wrong when it points out that the Senate compromise bill would increase the number of immigrant workers in the United States by roughly 61 million over the next two decades. This Heritage Foundation analysis has the fear-mongers predicting a Mexican takeover of the United States. But we need these workers.

Due to the demographic shift being caused by the baby boomers, the ratio of working-age persons in the U.S. to retirees ages 65 and over will drop like a stone from the current 4.7:1 ratio to 3.5:1 by 2030, and 2.6:1 by 2040. With the Social Security and Medicare trust funds going bankrupt, how will we manage with so few workers per retiree? Will we let our whole economy stagnate like France, Germany, Italy or even Japan, which all suffer from shrinking workforces and top-heavy government taxation?

Well, the United States could maintain a 4:1 ratio of workers to retirees by admitting an additional 57.5 million workers over the next 19 years, according to analyst William Kucewicz. This would result in an average annual population increase of less than 1 percent and a total of only 16.4 percent more than the 350 million projected by the Census Bureau for 2025.

Let’s also not forget that immigrants come here to work, raise families and assimilate. They would, in effect, become a much-needed church-going, blue-collar middle class – an all but forgotten demographic that is crucial to a healthy America.

And, yes – they must speak English. President Bush was eloquent on the melting pot model of immigration, borrowing from Ronald Reagan’s “City on a Hill” vision: “Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America… (Immigrants) renew our spirit… and they add to the unity of America.”

As a recent Wall Street Journal editorial points out, Reagan wondered aloud about “the illegal alien fuss.” He signed a bill in the mid-1980s that legalized immigrants, and in the next 20 years the United States prospered as never before.

Bush now has a sensible new plan to solve the problem. I just don’t see what all the fuss is about.


Lawrence Kudlow is CEO of Kudlow & Co., an economic and investment research firm in New York City.
editorial@lanereport.com

Back to At Issue Index

Back to June Issue

Copyright 1996-2006, by Kentucky Business Online.  All rights reserved.

Editorial content is copyright 2006, Lane Communications Group
All editorial material is fully protected and must not be reproduced in any manner without prior permission.

The Lane Report is a trademark of Lane Communications Group.  All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.