U.S. immigration policy is once again at the center of a debate over whether immigration helps or hurts the economy. The heated debate between the end of March and beginning of April, ’06, saw proposals such as criminalizing illegal and undocumented immigrants and building a wall along the 2,000 mile border between the U.S.A. and Mexico. With immigration of foreign-born population between 1990–2000 touching 57.4%, the American population does feel the need for better and stringent controls.

One side of the argument is that undocumented immigrants rob Americans of jobs, which in turn leads to increases in health care and education costs. The other side is that they help the economy by taking low-wage and lower-skilled jobs that Americans shun, thereby providing a vital source of labor supply.

In a larger context, immigration is a part of a broad range of issues, including globalization, internationalism and economic value creation.

Those favoring an internationalist course are by definition antiprotectionist, and welcome lowering barriers to free trade — both of goods and services — while giving due diligence to laws protecting intellectual property. In their view, any attempts to artificially raise barriers, such as tariffs, punitive taxes or placing undue restrictions on immigration will constrict the economy and lead to a loss of jobs and capital to other countries.

Those in the protectionist camp, who make up a small but highly vocal minority, claim that tightening the borders against both illegal immigrants and jobs leaving the country (e.g., via offshoring) is the only way to uplift the economy and protect American jobs.

Offshoring and immigration would appear at first glance to be two sides of the same coin, but the issue is more complicated. For one, immigration policy, including the guest worker program that’s now stalled in the Senate, is largely about unskilled and semiskilled workers.

While issues surrounding higher-skilled workers, including the issuance of H1B visas, are of paramount concern to offshore companies looking to penetrate the U.S. market, they generate neither the controversy nor the headlines like the guest worker proposal.

Interestingly, while conventional wisdom would dictate that public views about immigration and offshoring would tend to run in parallel, reality is far from that.

According to a survey this spring by Time magazine, 79% of those polled favor a guest worker program that would allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S.A. for a fixed period of time. At the same time, 71% favor cracking down on companies that hire illegal immigrants and 75% worry about health care and other costs incurred by the immigrants.

No poll numbers were taken on the question of offshoring, but if the rhetoric of labor officials and conservative commentators is any guide, then Americans remain skeptical to arguments that offshoring can benefit them.

Thus, whether or not a bill eventually gets passed by the Congress, the economic debate over immigration and free trade is likely to intensify in the months ahead.