IMMIGRATION DEBATE: Is Anyone Standing Up For American Workers?

[Robson]

What we have in Washington is a one sided debate on illegal immigration policy. Do we give amnesty and citizenship, or do we just give amnesty? All the stakeholders in the debate have something to benefit. Politicians want votes, church leaders want more members, business wants to create an endless supply of cheap “under class” labor. Even some of the service unions see something in it for them. But the bottom line is few are considering the impact to American workers in this debate. These are the people that are citizens and pay the taxes and should have ALL the say, but in reality we have little. We American worker citizens are the losers and will lose only more. This is deja vous 1986 again.

Someone in an earlier thread mentioned the "evil immigrants". I don’t consider the immigrants evil. I consider the employers who wish to get very rich using cheap subsidized labor as the evil ones. Instead of hiring an American at $15-20 per hour they'll hire an illegal immigrant at $5-7 per hour cash. No taxes deducted, no payroll taxes paid, no benefits. There are some with false IDs that get hired and some taxes that may be paid to a false account, but the laborers are treated like crap and Americans are left to fend for themselves with less pay, or find other jobs.

Most importantly why aren't Catholic and Protestant Church and Democratic leaders concerned about the humanitarian aspects to American workers, as they struggle in jobs that pay less and less with fewer benefits. If major enforcement action was taken today against employers, I'll guarantee you that Americans would be earning more tomorrow and they'd be earning more the next day. Stores such as Wal-Mart would start providing benefits and raising compensation to stay competitive, and the American economy would improve.

Corporate and business profits and CEO compensation might start to be squeezed for a change, instead of just employees. This amnesty issue is being sold to progressives and Congress by commercial interests such as the US Chamber of Commerce that are able to buy influence, and they buy it indirectly and subversively. They desperately want an unlimited supply of cheap labor in this country and many Democratic Party leaders have bought off on that.

There will be probably be an amnesty by another name. There will be no enforcement because our government doesn't have the competence, the political will, the resources, and what they are planning is logistically impossible. The first thing that needs done is a working verification program established, and punitive actions taken against those employers that will hire illegals at lower wages instead of Americans.

There are NO jobs that Americans won't do if paid a fair wage.

[brentspeak]

1. The amnesty deal is a mistake

Why should people be rewarded for breaking the law?

[OhioChick]

4. You're 100% Correct.

"Illegal" is just that.....Illegal.

[alarimer]

7. We need to punish the employers

No one is to blame for just wanting a better life for themselves. The companies that hire illegals for shit wages need to be severely punished. They need their business licenses yanked for one thing; lot of fines, confiscated equipment. Make a few examples and others will get the message.

For example, if someone hires a maid who happens to be illegal, they lose their home. Or the equivalent of a year's wages, something sufficiently severe so that they make damn sure not to hire any more. Or better yet,they can mow their own damn yard.

[pampango]

14. If they yank business licenses and confiscated equipment,

a lot of American workers would be put out of work, as well. Unless all of the workers at a particular company were illegal immigrants.

Going after employers is more politically palatable around here, but if it were to be done with total effectiveness, the effect on immigrants would be the same as preventing the immigration at the border. There would be no "better life" here, so illegal immigrants who are here would go home and those still home would stay there.

So while I understand the "go after the rich guy not the poor guy" strategy, it will have the same effect on illegal immigrants if it done effectively. (Of course, for some this declared strategy may just be a clever way to make sure that nothing really changes, since it is hard to imagine it ever being done very effectively.)

[alarimer]

19. well it might be more of a deterrent

There have got to be serious consequences for employing them. And there are none right now. None whatsoever. As far as I am concerned no human being is illegal.

[primative1]

37. Your Argument is Entirely Bogus

Businesses that hire illegals compete in the same open market with those who choose not to. By clamping down hard on those who seek unfair and unethical advantage (off the backs of their misused illegal workforce) we would see vast improvement in the prospects of those employers who attempt to treat their employees with respect.
We are not dependant on the good will of unethical business leaders. Their unethical behavior punishes businesses that play by the rules. Unethical businesses do not have a lock on innovation. Where they fail, others will be all to eager to step in and fill their market. That is called progress.
To perpetuate our current system of worker exploitation only impedes the natural course of events.

[pampango]

38. Actually, I agree with you more than you might imagine.

My reason for posting about the effect of confiscating equipment and licenses on American workers was to point out that the "crack down on the employers" is not a totally painless approach. These American workers would be at least temporarily, and possibly longer, out of work.

I agree that, if this strategy was effective in dealing with illegal immigration, it would level the playing field to the benefit those employers who hire legal employees and treat them fairly.

I intended for the substance of that post to address the point that if, and it is a big if, the "employer sanction" method of eliminating illegal immigration was ever really effective, it would have the same effect of the immigrants as would policy of strengthening border controls and removing the illegal immigrants already here.

"Going after employers is more politically palatable around here (at DU), but if it were to be done with total effectiveness, the effect on immigrants would be the same as preventing the immigration at the border. There would be no "better life" here, so illegal immigrants who are here would go home and those still home would stay there.

So while I understand the "go after the rich guy not the poor guy" strategy, it will have the same effect on illegal immigrants if it done effectively. (Of course, for some this declared strategy may just be a clever way to make sure that nothing really changes, since it is hard to imagine it ever being done very effectively.)"

If you are against illegal immigration due to its effect on American workers, then I respect your position and agree that employer sanctions, if done effectively, are consistent with your goals. (As I am sure you have seen here at DU, many also support the illegal immigrants on the basis that they are a "net positive" to the economy or that we are a "nation of immigrants" and it would be hypocritical to oppose these immigrants. Some of these folks, I suspect, give lip service support to employer sanctions assuming that they will continue to be very ineffective and the flow of immigrants into the country will continue unimpeded.)

[treestar]

9. We don't enforce it and that has been our pattern for so long

that we have set up an expectation that it will not be.

[Eurobabe]

12. Hear, hear! I so 100% agree with you

for personal reasons.

[endarkenment]

2. Well then lets enforce the labor laws and legalize guest workers.

That should end the problem. No more 'illegals' and everyone paid a fair wage.

[Robson]

3. Why not allow American workers' wages to rise?

Who says we need guest workers?

The only ones I hear telling us we need them are Bush and Chamber of Commerce. Now why would they be saying that? Could it possibly be that they don't want wages for average people that reside legally in OUR country to rise?

Yet they have no problem with CEOs getting huge golden parachute compensation packages with double digit yearly gains even as their stock sinks.

And again....there are no jobs that Americans won't do if paid a fair wage.

[PreacherCasey]

6. thank you. n/t

[endarkenment]

10. You are changing your argument.

"Someone in an earlier thread mentioned the "evil immigrants". I don’t consider the immigrants evil. I consider the employers who wish to get very rich using cheap subsidized labor as the evil ones. Instead of hiring an American at $15-20 per hour they'll hire an illegal immigrant at $5-7 per hour cash. No taxes deducted, no payroll taxes paid, no benefits. There are some with false IDs that get hired and some taxes that may be paid to a false account, but the laborers are treated like crap and Americans are left to fend for themselves with less pay, or find other jobs."

This is a reasonable argument that illegal workers can be exploited for cheap wages. OK, so legalize the workers and enforce the labor laws. End of that problem. Once guest workers are not exploitable on the wage front then they are competing on an even plane with non-guest workers.

"Who says we need guest workers"? perhaps we don't. However at the moment there seem to be a lot of jobs that are paid within the range you cite above - $15-20/hr, that are filled almost entirely by immigrants, legal or otherwise. My family recently hired an in home nurses aid to care for our mom, and despite the pay being exactly in that range, there was not one person who applied for the job who appeared to be a native english speaker. This is of course anecdotal, but despite your lofty claims that native born workers will do any job at a fair wage, it seems that within that pay range cited, perhaps that is not true.

Here is something to think about: without a steady and significant flow of immigrant workers into our economy our social security system (ss, medicare, medicaid) get into serious demographic trouble, as has happened in other nations with an aging labor force demographics. All those new young workers pay our pensions and healthcare. Without them we either have to raise taxes or cut benefits. Perhaps we do need guest workers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. We do not need more workers. We have plenty.

The labor force participation rate was 67% in 1999. It is 63% today. The jobs are not growing as fast as our population. What we need is more people who can afford to buy things, not a bigger pool of job candidates for a dwindling pool of jobs.

Shut the door until the situation equalizes.

[Telly Savalas]

22. The current labor force participation rate is 66.2% not 63%

http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Moreover "shut the door until the situation equalizes" is conservatism of the worst kind. The notion that we can build a wall along the border and hope that market forces will slowly create a new equilibrium in a decade which lifts low wages up a dollar an hour doesn't support the American worker. It's just a mix Reagan's trickle down economics with 19th Century Nativism.

[Robson]

27. Without illegal labor we wouldn't need minimum wage

<<<Moreover "shut the door until the situation equalizes" is conservatism of the worst kind. The notion that we can build a wall along the border and hope that market forces will slowly create a new equilibrium in a decade which lifts low wages up a dollar an hour doesn't support the American worker. It's just a mix Reagan's trickle down economics with 19th Century Nativism.>>>

Market forces would have lifted the minimum wage far more than a dollar an hour in a decade had this unending stream of illegal labor not been available. If not for the illegal labor there would be no need for a minimum wage law as market forces would take care it. The other factor that we should be very concerned about is the declining enrollment by US students in science and engineering programs. A major factor here is this trend to import technical labor from India and elsewhere that holds down wages in the technical sector. Combine that with college tuition that is climbing at twice inflation and it's not difficult to see why this trend is in place. The cost benefit ratio is declining along with the affordability of higher education.

The US needs to start looking out for the interests of its people first, and not multi-national business interests that have been able to pay off politicians to give up our standard of living to support both unfettered unfair trade and unlimited importation of labor.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Thanks for the correction. I meant the employment to population ratio.

It is currently 63.2%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

In February 1999 it was 64.4%, while the labor force participation rate was 67.3%

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.030599.news

The employment base is growing at a slower rate than our population.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. That would be a stopgap at best

Last time I checked a previous amnesty like that was done, and we still have illegals crossing the border.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. The subject of your post is an oxymoron.

"Well then lets enforce robbery laws and legalize getaway cars."

You don't end a problem of illegality via amnesty. That's capitulation.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Except that you're dealing with 12 million people

And having the justice department crack down on 12 million criminals at once is impractical if not impossible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. This 12 million are a nearly intractable problem. The NEXT 12 million will be. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

40. 12 million is a conservative figure.

In reality, it's more like 20 million. I can't say anymore on DU about this issue without getting into the whole racism shit and I'm so sick of that I could spit.

[Alhena]

5. There's really no alternative ...

we can't deport them, and their kids are citizens and going to our schools so we need to acknowledge their existence somehow. A plan along the lines of McCain-Kennedy is really the only realistic response. We can all bemoan the effect of globalization and illegal immigration on the American blue collar worker, but the fact remains that we have to deal with this situation in a pragmatic and realistic manner. Which means something along the lines of McCain-Kennedy.

[treestar]

8. We have to quit thinking we are so special because we are

American. We have to compete with workers from other countries too, there is no way around that.

It's better to have a lot of H-1bs here than it is for the entire company to move off to another country.

The companies can outsource and there is nothing we can do about it. We have to make it worth their while to stay here. Corporations aren't people and they have no heart and soul and no patriotism. They will do whatever it takes to make the bottom line bigger. We can't force them to hire up because of our place of birth.

We can't afford to be snotty to foreign investors, either.

[Alcibiades]

21. No, we are not powerless in the face of the almighty corporation

This isn't a matter of competition. Is it fair to have well-paid, unionized workers "compete" against slave labor? Against child labor? Against convict labor? The globalization of the labor market is a tool used by the bosses to smash every standard of decency we have, and other countries may have.

What we have here is a silly, irrational international system. Does it make sense to ship US raw materials to China, have them made into complete products, and then shipped back to the US, using a bunch of diesel in the process, only because wages in China are so much lower because modernization has created a hyper-exploited class of people fleeing poverty in rural areas?

We need to ask questions. Corporations are not people, that's for certain: they are public entities, chartered by the government, in order to accomplish some end. The bosses have defined that end to be profit, at any cost, and will favor that definition so long as we don't draw it into question.

It's not a question of "snottiness" or the "fact" that "there's nothing we can do about it." If we assume there's nothing we can do about it, pretty soon we'll have an economy that is based entirely on folks taking in other people's laundry, and I don't think such an arrangement could long endure. We need to devise policies that are pro-worker and anti-illegal immigration without being anti-immigrant. The rules of the game are not natural, but political. Today, the rules harm the many for the benefit of the few--we should at least aim for rules that don't harm the few while benefiting the many.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Even if they weren't a hyper-exploited class it would still be cheaper

A living wage for workers in China is still a lot cheaper than a living wage for workers in America and we don't even pay a living wage in America.

[mrgorth]

11. The answer to your question is

no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. K&R - It's more wealth redistribution.

The chamber of commerce is distributing working folks wealth among immigrant workers - after taking a cut for themselves, of course.

This is the logical extension of the collapse of the labor movement. The fundamental purpose of unions is to keep scabs from taking jobs at a lower wage. Now that unions are largely impotent, we have an influx of "scabs" on a much larger scale.

Collective self interest is not an immoral concept.

Very good post K&R

[Robson]

18. Nail hit on head

You hit the nail on the head.

Our collective self interest in the betterment of our country is not an immoral concept. What we should find immoral are the actions of our collective leadership willing to sell our collective self interest down the tubes for only their benefit.

[AZBlue]

20. You're exactly right. Thanks for the post.

And a belated welcome to DU!

[ComerPerro]

25. Americans will never be paid fair wages for certain jobs, Illegals or not

and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

I think you will be suprised to find that, given no other opportunity or job prospects, with a family to feed and bills to pay, you WILL clean toilets and God knows what else, for $4 an hour, ten hours a day, seven days a week. And if you don't someone else will. Some other American.

Saying that these positions would pay more if there were no illegals is about as naive as saying that if all government regulations and restrictions and rulings were done away with, the free market would make sure businesses acted in a fair and honest and transparent manner.

[Robson]

26. Maybe

Maybe because some jobs just wouldn't be created if the compensation were to climb. That's the elasticity of wages. Some Americans hire illegals at cheap wages for convenience purposes to cut their grass, be their nanny and clean their house. Many are jobs that Americans wouldn't pay or couldn't afford to have done if it weren't for illegal immigrants. Americans won't do them for $4 per hour, first because they couldn't afford to work for such low wages, and two because they would have far more job opportunities and big raises from those such as Wal-Mart, as they would be competing for legal workers at construction jobs and food processing jobs. Illegal immigration costs Americans plenty, and business owners are the only benefactor.

[ComerPerro]

28. you're dreaming.

[Robson]

29. You are correct

I'm dreaming of a government that works to the benefit of its common citizens for a change. It's been a government that looks after big business ever since Reagan fired the FAA controllers.

[madfloridian]

30. Never fear...ICE is on the job.

http://hosted.ap.org:80/dynamic/stories/D/DIVIDED_FAMILIES?SITE=ILKAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Pretty soon all those private camps will be filled and they will be shipping them all back, minus their children.

:shrug:

Another side of DU is showing now.

[Bridget Burke]

31. The OP wants a whole Forum for this topic....

We need a forum to discuss ILLEGAL immigration. We could also use another forum to discuss legal immigration but that is not as much of an issue.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=355148

(Why do they always capitalize ILLEGAL?)

[Robson]

32. You're biased but heart is in the right place

Brigit....Your heart may be in the right place, but I think your bias is showing. ;-) Now how about some bias towards US citizens who have a right to live and work here in their own country without competing with unfettered competition from illegal labor. Many are forced to live in substandard comnditions and low pay only because illegal workers are illegally employed by greedy scumbag employers.

[madfloridian]

33. You need to blame the right people, though.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1183

[Bridget Burke]

36. For such a fervent advocate of labor...

It's odd that you oppose Minimum Wage. And think Unions should be "redone." Where are your posts about other labor problems? What about Universal Health Care? What about Childcare costs that hurt women in the work force?

PS: We've got plenty of legal, good workers here who are NOT "US Citizens." But--many of those who rail against ILLEGAL immigration are against immigration in general.

(If you're going to use my name--at least spell it right.)

[pampango]

39. "On Point" on WBUR is doing a show at 10a ET on immigration

and the proposed guest worker program.

http://www.onpointradio.org/

"Guest Worker Program

As President Bush talk immigration reform in Latin America, a new report calls the current US guest worker program "close to slavery." We'll take a closer look."