Well, immigration is a hot button issue in the land of immigrants this year, with the mid-term elections in November. Some say that this issue is only next to the Iraq war in terms of public concern. A new immigration bill is currently under debate in the Congress and the fate of about 12 million "undocumented" (the new name for illegal) workers is at stake. Since eight out of twelve million of undocumented workers are Latin Americans, they took the initiative to register their concern.

They are apprehensive that the current congressional debate might lead to major revision of the existing policy of periodic amnesty which, in turn, could lead to expulsion of millions of "undocumented" workers, or issuance of temporary work permits instead of usual residency cards.

The Asians were conspicuous by their absence in these demonstrations and strikes although they do have important stakes on this issue. Nearly one million undocumented workers are from Asia, and if a new and strict immigration law is enacted then the authorities would be able to vigorously crackdown on small businesses for hiring undocumented workers. In that case, the illegal workers would be deported to their home countries and this would seriously hamper all Asian restaurants, grocery stores, laundries and many other service sectors.

How does this immigration debate affect Bangladeshis? There is no exact figure of our compatriots in the US. The guess-estimate is that about 250-300 thousand Bangladeshi-origin people live in the US, mostly in the coastal areas. Some of them have acquired US citizenship and are dual citizens. The main Bangladeshi concentrations are in New York, New Jersey, Metropolitan Washington DC, California, Texas, Georgia, Florida and Michigan.

A good number of Bangladeshis living in US are professionals, with legal status. However, vast majorities are in the service sectors and some are owners of small restaurants, travel agencies, grocery stores, etc. It is estimated that nearly one fifth of these people are "illegal" workers. They had entered the US legally but their visas have expired and they have sought residency on various existing provisions. Any curtailment of these provisions would jeopardize their applications.

The immigration debate has started now because of the growing resentment against illegal workers especially in "border states" with Mexico. The Republican law makers, who have been on the defensive on Iraq war, would like to take the initiative to woo the voters to retain their majority in the Congress. Suddenly every state has become a "border state" and the new buzz word is "border security." The problem is that America needs these workers and they can not be thrown out abruptly without seriously jeopardizing the US agriculture and service sectors. This cheap labor also gives America competitive edge vis- a- vis other industrialized powers.

The three players in the immigration bill, the president, the Senate and the House of Representative are viewing the immigration issue from divergent positions. All House members face elections this November and they do not want to jeopardize their vote bank. In contrast, only one third of senators will be elected in November this year and naturally, they feel less pressured and would like to work out a more comprehensive program on the issue. President Bush wants to retain the Republican Congressional majority, but he would also like to leave behind a comprehensive immigration plan before handing over his presidency.

President Bush, taking cue from public resentments against illegal workers in the borders states, had initially called for tougher enforcement action against the "undocumented workers." He had also proposed that instead of granting usual general amnesty, a guest worker program should be introduced which would enable them to work on temporary work permits and then return to their countries once the work is completed.

The House of Representative, however, was in no mood to take any long term plan and they passed a tough bill which only focused on tighter immigration enforcement. The House bill HR 4437 is completely silent on legalization of current illegal workers or devising a guest worker program. Seeing the tough House reaction, Bush even suggested that new border fences would be erected and that thousands of troops would be dispatched to the US-Mexico border.

The Senate, however, took a balanced position and by a 62-36 vote adopted a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S 2611) last May. The CIRA called for tougher border security, the establishment of a guest workers program for new workers and a mechanism to allow millions of existing illegal immigrants a chance to resident status and eventual citizenship if they meet certain conditions.

If the CIRA is enacted, it would bring in the most dramatic change in the US immigration law in eighty years. Some experts believe that it would facilitate immigration of some 100 million people to the US over the next 20 years as compared to some 19 million by the existing law. The Senate plan would also pave the way for granting of amnesty to nearly 85% of current illegal workers.

The House Republicans, however, have been unable to reach a compromise with the Senate on this hot issue and there is growing rift between them and the Republican senators. They also tried to distance themselves from the Senate bill by calling it a "Democratic Party" bill; but the Democrats pointed out that Republican Senator McCain (a strong Republican presidential candidate for 2008) was the co-author of the bill along with Senator Kennedy, and that the bill was originally called "Kennedy-McCain" bill. President Bush supports the comprehensive Senate bill and has been urging the House to come up with a compromise deal.

There is a new move to reach a compromise to prevent any further erosion among the Republican lawmakers. Two ranking Republican lawmakers Senators Kay Hutchison (Texas) and Mike Pence (Indiana) have submitted a new plan that would allow most of the illegal immigrants to work legally but only after the government certifies that the US borders have been sufficiently secured. In that case, the illegal immigrants would be urged to leave for their home countries within two years of enactment of the new law and could apply for a new type of visa to return to their jobs. Once they are on a regular work visa, they would be eligible for US citizenship in 17 years. The co-sponsors of the bill believe they can bridge the divide but others feel that it would be a hard sale, and that in the final analysis, both sides might decide that "no deal" might be "best politics" before the November elections.

Do immigrants take away jobs from locals and does it have any effect on local wages? According to a recent study conducted by David Card of UC Berkeley, wages and unemployment of low-skilled workers were largely unaffected by the sudden influx of about 45,000 boat people in Miami. The Pew Hispanic Center has also proven that immigrant labour force has much higher work participation than locals and they constituted more than half of the labour force in the last decade.

The professional immigrants pick up the job for which there are no qualified locals. However, other immigrants go for the job which the locals won't perform. In fact, the immigrants, as the Americans say, are the "last to be hired and the first to be fired." So for their survival, they have to be innovative to create new jobs or do unwanted jobs. The burgeoning Asian restaurants, halal meat and grocery shops, and publication of ethnic news papers clearly indicate how the immigrants have been breaking into newer areas for their survival. Hard work and innovativeness of the immigrants keeps them afloat and sustain the engine of growth in this land of immigrants.

Syed Muazzem Ali is a former Foreign Secretary.