Most of H.R. 4437, the “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005” discussed in Abhi’s post, looks like the trainwreck that he deems it. Still, I think that the part that amends Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a) to increase penalties on employers for hiring undocumented workers is a step in the right direction. The United States needs a more honest immigration policy, one that includes neither support for law-breaking nor animus toward immigrants, and as long as employers win on the cost benefit analysis — F x P < S, where F= cost of fines, P= probability of getting caught, and S= saved money from using undocumented labor — we never will have such reforms. Supporting illegal immigration is at best a short term help to such aliens, as they deal with the longterm problems of having to remain invisible and lack access to the safety net for the elderly, i.e. Social Security and Medicare. Whose sympathy for the undocumented cab driver extends far enough to pay for his prescriptions when he’s too old to drive anymore?
Another problem is that rampant illegal immigration, especially of the type more likely to be practiced by desis, makes the U.S. government paranoid about letting anyone into the country. Unlike immigrants from Latin America, South Asians are unable simply to go over a border to get into the U.S. and thus are more likely to overstay visas. The frequency of this evasion of immigration law gives Congress an excuse to withhold business visas that would enable people back in the motherland to do work for the U.S. without actually immigrating.
To me, outsourcing is preferable to immigration. It raises the standard of living in South Asia; increases the tax base (at least when people pay their taxes); provides some trickle down to the poorest people who never would have a chance to immigrate; keeps human resources in developing countries instead of continuing the “brain drain”; allows families to stay together without the disruptions and delays of the immigration process. This is not to say that immigration shouldn’t occur at all. Some people simply were born in societies for which their personalities are incompatible, and they ought to be able to move to more congenial ones. But we should not fall into the trap of assuming that merely because economic necessity drives people out of South Asia, that they are happy to be leaving.
The ability to maintain the outsourcing boom, however, is dependent on the free movement of service workers. If a Bangalore company builds a new system for an American corporation, people from the former need to be able to visit the latter for training, testing and other work that cannot be done wholly through telecommunications. This means that business contracts that otherwise would go to South Asians who could perform them most efficiently will be withheld, for fear that visa trouble will slow down the process.
If we are interested in the successful future of India and Indians, we should be lobbying the U.S. government to loosen its restrictions on the non-immigrant movement of people. This is currently under discussion at the World Trade Organization talks, but as with many aspects of international trade, under the radar of front-page politics. South Asian Americans should become an interest group supporting India’s position on ending the trade barrier to the continued growth of India’s economy.
