Justice for Undocumented Workers

The Bush administration's recent proposal for a temporary worker program is a disingenuous attempt to exploit undocumented workers, although it has been artfully dressed up as a real solution to the "immigration problem." Some of the proposal's opponents argue that it would encourage undocumented workers to reside "illegally" in the U.S. by granting them a legal recourse to remain in the country. Supporters of the proposal argue that it would not reward "illegal" residence, but would merely give legal recognition to an immigrant group that forms the backbone of the U.S. economy.

Both of these arguments fail to do justice to the diverse group of people subsumed under the unfortunate category of "undocumented workers." The rightist opposition to Bush's proposal argues that the creation of a guest worker program is tantamount to granting amnesty to undocumented workers. This line of thought contends that the "immigration problem" is not the result of broader social and economic forces, but rather a product of the criminal decision by undocumented workers to attempt to live and work in the U.S.

Appealing to the worst aspects of contemporary U.S. society, rightist opposition to Bush's proposal is profoundly disturbing. From this viewpoint, perception of foreigners is inherently suspicious, humans are viewed as deportable, and amnesty is seen as weakness. But what about the supposedly just alternative--Bush's call for a temporary worker program?

There are two main arguments that support Bush's proposal. One view attempts to show that Bush's proposal explicitly rules out amnesty, or even blocks a path to permanent residence, for undocumented workers. Sharing the rightist opposition's conception of amnesty as something undesirable, subscribers to this argument say that it simply makes economic sense to allow undocumented workers to apply for temporary worker status. By the logic of this morally bankrupt argument, if undocumented workers did not make up the "backbone" of the economy, they might as well all be deported en masse out of the country--or at least all those "unfit for work."

But what about the "good faith" argument for Bush's proposal, the one that views amnesty favorably, but thinks that the new proposal as better than no proposal at all? Several aspects of Bush's proposal ought to be of concern to those who support the granting of amnesty to undocumented workers. The proposal requires sponsorship by an employer in order for an undocumented worker to participate in the guest worker program, thus forcing the guest workers into an exploitable state of dependency on their employer for work and for residence in the country.

Furthermore, Bush's promise to provide "financial incentives" to temporary workers who return to their countries of origin when their employment period is finished smacks of the rampant exploitation of the infamous "Bracero" program. In this earlier guest worker program, Mexican nationals, after being grossly abused by their U.S. employers, were offered similar financial incentives to return to Mexico; lawsuits are still being persued by workers who were never paid.

It is not at all evident how documentation is synonymous with justice. Systematically documenting undocumented workers--without giving them a path to permanent residence or a vote--is an unsettling notion. What does it mean to "document" a person, and is it something nice? The only just solution to the "immigration problem," which is best understood as the exploitation of labor by capital disguised as an immigration issue, is to grant full amnesty to undocumented workers. Documentation alone sounds less like a "solution" to the U.S. government's continued denial of rights to undocumented workers, and more like a corporate strategy for yielding greater profits.

Many of those who argue for granting amnesty to undocumented workers couple their support for amnesty with a reassurance that they oppose "opening the borders." As if the borders were theirs to close, apologists for increased border control conveniently forget the dirty little secret that the borders have been wide open for years--in particular for oppressive corporations and neo-liberal free trade policies. In truth, there are no broken borders to be sealed, but only an exploitable labor source to be more efficiently documented and managed.

Simply put, I have no interest in investigating whether or not the Bush administration's proposal will reward or deter the residence of undocumented workers in this country. What should be investigated are the sorts of conditions in U.S. society that allow for some people to assume the right to reward--and implicitly, to punish--undocumented workers. At what point did "undocumented workers" stop being human beings, and start becoming an "immigration problem" to be documented and done away with?

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in religion.