The Case for Reforming U.S. Guest Worker Programs⁠54%

By AJ Fluehr⁠65%

12/4/2008, 4:41:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 227 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (7,297 of 15,662 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.40% of the article peer group.

Guest worker programs, which bring foreign workers into a country temporarily in order to fill labor shortages,exist in various forms in various countries. All over the world, workers migrate from less developed countries to more developed ones looking for work—which may or may not turn out to be temporary. Meanwhile, as the movement of guest workers increases across nations, guest workers’ remittances, which support their families— and their home countries’ economies—continue to grow as a source of hard currency for developing countries.

For all the talk about immigration reform, the United States still lacks a workable guest worker program. In fact, no one can agree on what such a program should look like. America’s current guest worker programs may as well not exist for most workers and employers—and past attempts at reform have gone nowhere.

This paper points out some of the problems that beset America’s existing guest worker programs. It also proposes ways to improve these programs in order to advance the goals of protecting U.S. borders, providing a flexible workforce for employers who cannot find qualified American applicants, and protecting the guest workers themselves against abuse. It also looks at a potential reform model now being tried in a small part of the United States that lies far away from the rest of the country—the Mariana Islands.

Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

227 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.