A former assistant and deputy chief of staff to President Clinton challenged the notion of a guest worker policy for America during her speech at the JFK Forum last night, advocating that immigrant workers should be able to choose whether or not to stay.

Maria Echaveste was invited to the Institute of Politics as the keynote speaker for the 2006 Latino Law and Public Policy Conference.

“We knew she was a dynamic speaker with a solid background in both law and politics,” said Celina Y. Moreno, one of the organizers of the conference and a first-year in the Masters in Public Policy Program at the Kennedy School of Government.

Echaveste claimed that the immigration debate currently taking place is just another example of a historic conflict between America’s economic interest for foreign workers and its reluctance to admit them as citizens. She pointed out that the US initially encouraged Chinese immigration in order to help build the railways, but then passed the Chinese Exclusion Act during the 1890’s in response to fears of the cultural impact of the migration. “For centuries,” she said, “Americans have been asking themselves ‘who gets to be an American?’”

She argued that the proposed guest-worker policy is another manifestation of this exclusion. Echaveste criticized President Bush’s January 2004 speech in which he claimed his guest worker policy would “match a willing employee with a willing employer.” She said that there will always be a willing employee, and Americans have to question the morality of allowing foreigners into the country to do low-wage work, while denying them a permanent place to stay. Instead, immigrant workers should be able to choose whether to stay in America after their term of employment expires.

She supported her argument by citing the failure of guest worker programs in Germany and Saudi Arabia, and the excluded minorities—Turks and Filipinos, respectively—they produced.

Asked about the effectiveness of protests for immigrant rights in the last few weeks, Echaveste applauded the efforts of grassroots organizations pressing for reform, saying that the widespread demonstrations have had a strong impact on the legislative debate. But she cautioned the implementation of further measures such as a walkout staged by high school students. Echaveste said that, as a mother, she would worry about students’ safety if things spiraled out of control, and their propensity for skipping class.

Echaveste received resounding applause from an audience largely made up of Kennedy School students. “It was great,” said Brandon A. Hudspeth, a second year in the Masters in Public Policy Program. “Her speech tied in everything we’ve been discussing here [at the Kennedy School]—economics, security, ethics—all of these considerations are part of the immigration debate.”