For educational purposes only

http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/story.pl/opinion/04994171.htm

2.21.2001 00:17 'Boon' of low wages isn't cost-free FROMA HARROP

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS TAKEN to calling Mexicans who cross into the United States for work "migrants" rather than "immigrants." What we are hearing is the politically correct language of the cheap-labor conservative.

The traditional definition of a migrant is someone who moves from one region of a country to another. The Oklahoman who escaped the Dust Bowl for California was a migrant. So was the African-American who left Mississippi for factory work in Michigan.

This new use of "migrant" is designed to blur the distinction between American and foreign workers. Mexican? New Mexican? What's the difference?

What we see here is a slow abandonment of our nation's immigration laws. Whether that individual is here legally or not seems to no longer matter. They're just guys and gals wanting to do their jobs.

This is not a comparison of different ethnic or racial characteristics. Today's immigrants are every bit as good as the ones who came before.

Actually, low-skilled immigrants working here legally suffer disproportionately at the hands of lax labor policies. They know full well that demands for improved pay or working conditions will lead to their replacement with a fresh arrival.

Remember how Linda Chavez praised herself as a great humanitarian as she tried to become Bush's labor secretary? Some wondered how anyone could simultaneously employ an illegal immigrant and oppose a minimum wage. Actually, these views are quite consistent with the cheap-labor point of view.

During the President's visit to Mexico, the mistreatment of Mexican laborers in the United States became a point of discussion. Mexico's foreign minister, Jorge G. Castaneda, spoke of the need to clean up conditions for Mexicans working illegally in the United States.

"The best way to ensure this is for them to have papers," Castaneda said. "There is no better way for Mexicans to defend themselves than for them to be legal." An estimated 3 million Mexican nationals now live in the United States without legal residency status.

Castaneda's solution has several flaws. One is that American employers don't want these workers to be legal and able to defend themselves. That would make them considerably more expensive.

Another problem is that the world of desperate workers is bigger than Mexico. The United States now houses about half a million refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti and Liberia who also want legal status. And that does not touch the enormous number of simply poor people in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and other parts of Latin America that would do most anything to secure the lowliest American job. What about them?

Globalization is upon us. It can be a force for both good and evil. The North American Free Trade Agreement could spread new prosperity throughout the continent. By removing trade restrictions on Mexican products, NAFTA is helping Mexico build up its economy. Some day, Mexico will become a very big market for American goods.

The benefits, however, do come with a price. And that price is not shared by all Americans. Manufacturers use foreign labor (either here or abroad) to keep down their labor costs. That is good for the employers but not necessarily for the American work force. That the United States has plenty of available jobs only masks the reality that the rewards for working are becoming ever more unequal.

The least Americans can do is reduce the gaps by expanding government help to our low-skilled workers. This could mean better controls on the supply of foreign labor within our borders. It could mean more income support for the poorest workers, or even health coverage for the uninsured.

That's not going to happen during this Bush administration. His tax cut proposal is almost perversely designed to favor the global economy's winners. And it will leave little, if any, of the surplus for easing the lives of globalization's losers.

Bush is now opening U.S. roads to Mexican truckers. Under pressure from the Teamsters union, former President Clinton had restricted Mexican drivers to a narrow strip along the border. With American truckers earning about four times as much as their Mexican counterparts, guess who will now get the driving jobs.

Supporters of free movement for Mexican truckers argue that it will reduce the prices of products coming into the United States. Indeed it will, but not exactly for free.

Froma Harrop is a Journal editorial writer and syndicated columnist. She may be reached by e-mail at: fharrop@projo.com.

-- K. (infosurf@yahoo.com), February 27, 2001