[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16547-16548]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         RAISE WAGES, NOT WALLS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 28, 2006

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit to the Record an 
opinion editorial from the July 25, New York Times entitled ``Raise 
Wages, Not Walls'' by former Governor and Democratic Presidential 
candidate Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J.B. Mitchell in which the 
columnists openly criticize the current two primary policy approaches 
to illegal immigration, one being the erection of a wall along the 
Mexican border and the other being a temporary workers program. The 
apparent inefficiencies and problems inherent in both approaches have 
helped confirm that the raising of the minimum wage is the best and 
most efficient alternative.
  It is a mistake to assume that the erection and maintenance of a wall 
will ever stop the

[[Page 16548]]

influx of immigrants across American borders. Walls rarely work. 
Spending billions to erect something akin to the Berlin Wall is simply 
unnecessary, especially at a time when millions of Americans are 
unemployed. The approach by the Senate is also not very realistic. It 
created the temporary workers program, but requires employers first to 
attempt to recruit Americans to fill job openings. Also, its success is 
dependent on the creation and distribution of a costly national 
identification card. The cost for producing such a card for the 150 
million people currently in the labor force-- and the millions more who 
will seek work in the near future--extends to billions of dollars.
  The time to raise the minimum wage is now. More States are raising 
their minimum wages, pushing hourly rates above $8 in some and 
shrinking the role of the Federal minimum wage, which hasn't gone up 
since 1997. It is difficult for Americans to work and sustain 
themselves with this wage. For full-time work, it doesn't even come 
close to the poverty line for an individual, let alone provide a family 
with a living wage. As a result, many immigrants are filling in the 
gaps left over by Americans, often working for minimum and sub-minimum 
earnings.
  The minimum wage has already proven helpful to former welfare 
recipients who are entering the workforce. A study of a 1999 State 
minimum wage increase in Oregon found that as many as one-half of the 
welfare recipients entering the workforce in 1998 were likely to have 
received a raise due to the increase. After the increase, the real 
hourly starting wages for former welfare recipients rose to $7.23.
  If we want to reduce illegal immigration, we must reduce the number 
of low paying jobs that fuels it. By raising the minimum wage, more 
Americans would be more willing to work in what is currently considered 
low paying jobs, denying them to people who aren't supposed to be here 
in the first place.
  I enter into the Record the New York Times opinion editorial written 
by Governor Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J.B. Mitchell and commend 
them for including raising minimum wage to the contentious debate 
concerning how to approach illegal immigration. I believe raising the 
minimum wage is by far a more effective way to deal with illegal 
immigration.

                [From the New York Times, July 25, 2006]

                         Raise Wages, Not Walls

           (By Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J. B. Mitchell)

       There are two approaches to illegal immigration currently 
     being debated in Congress. One, supported by the House, 
     emphasizes border control and law enforcement, including a 
     wall along the Mexican border and increased border patrols. 
     The other, which is supported by the Bush administration and 
     has been passed by the Senate, relies on employers to police 
     the workplace. Both proposals have serious flaws.
       As opponents of the House plan have rightly pointed out, 
     walls rarely work; illegal immigrants will get around them 
     one way or another. Unless we erect something akin to the 
     Berlin Wall, which would cost billions to build and police, a 
     barrier on the border would be monitored by largely symbolic 
     patrols and easily evaded.
       The Senate approach is more realistic but it, too, has 
     problems. It creates a temporary worker program but requires 
     employers first to attempt to recruit American workers to 
     fill job openings. It allows for more border fencing, but 
     makes no effort to disguise the basic futility of the 
     enterprise. Instead, it calls on employers to enforce 
     immigration laws in the workplace, a plan that can only 
     succeed through the creation and distribution of a costly 
     national identification card.
       A national ID card raises serious questions about civil 
     liberties, but they are not the sole concern. The cost 
     estimates for producing and distributing a counterfeit-proof 
     card for the roughly 150 million people currently in the 
     labor force--and the millions more who will seek work in the 
     near future--extend into the billions of dollars. Employers 
     would have to verify the identity of every American worker, 
     otherwise the program would be as unreliable as the one in 
     place now. Anyone erroneously denied a card in this 
     bureaucratic labyrinth would be unemployable.
       There is a simpler alternative. If we are really serious 
     about turning back the tide of illegal immigration, we should 
     start by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to 
     something closer to $8. The Massachusetts legislature 
     recently voted to raise the state minimum to $8 and 
     California may soon set its minimum even higher. Once the 
     minimum wage has been significantly increased, we can begin 
     vigorously enforcing the wage law and other basic labor 
     standards.
       Millions of illegal immigrants work for minimum and even 
     sub-minimum wages in workplaces that don't come close to 
     meeting health and safety standards. It is nonsense to say, 
     as President Bush did recently, that these jobs are filled by 
     illegal immigrants because Americans won't do them. Before we 
     had mass illegal immigration in this country, hotel beds were 
     made, office floors were cleaned, restaurant dishes were 
     washed and crops were picked--by Americans.
       Americans will work at jobs that are risky, dirty or 
     unpleasant so long as they provide decent wages and working 
     conditions, especially if employers also provide health 
     insurance. Plenty of Americans now work in such jobs, from 
     mining coal to picking up garbage. The difference is they are 
     paid a decent wage and provided benefits for their labor.
       However, Americans won't work for peanuts, and these days 
     the national minimum wage is less than peanuts. For full-time 
     work, it doesn't even come close to the poverty line for an 
     individual, let alone provide a family with a living wage. It 
     hasn't been raised since 1997 and isn't enforced even at its 
     currently ridiculous level.
       Yet enforcing the minimum wage doesn't require walling off 
     a porous border or trying to distinguish yesterday's illegal 
     immigrant from tomorrow's ``guest worker.'' All it takes is a 
     willingness by the federal government to inspect workplaces 
     to determine which employers obey the law.
       Curiously, most members of Congress who take a hard line on 
     immigration also strongly oppose increasing the minimum wage, 
     claiming it will hurt businesses and reduce jobs. For some 
     reason, they don't seem eager to acknowledge that many of the 
     jobs they claim to hold dear are held by the same illegal 
     immigrants they are trying to deport.
       But if we want to reduce illegal immigration, it makes 
     sense to reduce the abundance of extremely low-paying jobs 
     that fuels it. If we raise the minimum wage, it's possible 
     some low-end jobs may be lost; but more Americans would also 
     be willing to work in such jobs, thereby denying them to 
     people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. And 
     tough enforcement of wage rules would curtail the growth of 
     an underground economy in which both illegal immigration and 
     employer abuses thrive.
       Raising the minimum wage and increasing enforcement would 
     prove far more effective and less costly than either proposal 
     currently under consideration in Congress. If Congress would 
     only remove its blinders about the minimum wage, it may see a 
     plan to deal effectively with illegal immigration, too.

                          ____________________