MOLLY IVINS: Immigration 101 For Beginners & Non-Texans

[kpete]

Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
03.30.06

Immigration 101
A fence isn't going to fix the problem


AUSTIN, Texas -- Immigration 101 for beginners and non-Texans.
In 1983, I was a judge at the Terlingua Chili Cookoff, and my memory of the events may not be perfect -- for example, for years I've been claiming Jimmy Carter was president at the time, but that's the kind of detail one often loses track of in Terlingua.

Anyway, it was '83 or some year right around there when we held The Fence climbing contest. See, people talked about building The Fence back then, too. The Fence along the Mexican border. To keep Them out.

At the time, the proposal was quite specific -- a 17-foot cyclone fence with bob wire at the top. So a test fence was built at Terlingua, and the First-Ever Terlingua Memorial Over, Under or Through Mexican Fence Climbing Contest took place. Prize: a case of Lone Star beer. Winning time: 30 seconds.

I tell this story to make the one single point about the border and immigration we know to be true: The Fence will not work. No fence will work. The Great darn Wall of China will not work. Do not build a fence. It will not work. They will come anyway. Over, under or through.

more at:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20578

[rodeodance]

1. well, said Mooly (and billions of $$ up in the air).

[Imalittleteapot]

2. Molly nails it again.

She is so funny and so right.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

16. Molly Ivins, Helen Thomas and John Conyers = National treasures

[Gman]

3. Pretty much sums it up

Molly's correct. This is nothing new in this part of the country. Want to build a fence around your place? Drive your pickup down to the day labor gathering point. Yell, "Quieres trabajo?" You'll have to tell some to get out because you have all the help you need. Pay 'em $20 and feed 'em lunch, maybe supper too. Bingo, you've got a fence.

[VelmaD]

4. That woman...

is brilliant.

[pat_k]

5. ". . .put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for

Go Molly!!

Numero Two-o, should you actually want to stop Mexicans and OTMs (other than Mexicans) from coming to the United States, here is how to do it: Find an illegal worker at a large corporation. This is not difficult -- brooms and mops are big tip-offs. Then put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for violating the law against hiring illegal workers. . .

And here's the label we need to start using for these criminals:

Predatory Employers

The only thing Molly is missing is giving workers a motive to blow the whistle on predatory employers (legal status and a path to citizenship). When you do that, you completely change the rules of the game.

Ultimately, this is about values. It's about making a commitment to say NO the exploitation of workers -- any workers -- within our borders. It's about enacting law that reflects our belief that all human beings have a right to be treated fairly and our knowledge that a vigorous private sector cannot exist if work is not valued.

I posted the following before, but I think it may be worth repeating.

The first step in finding a solution that serves the common good on immigration (or anything else for that matter) is to look at the problem from a new perspective -- one that is grounded in some basic truths and moral principles.

I've taken a stab at outlining such an approach and would appreciate your thoughts on it.

Controlling our borders with the stroke of a pen

Building a wall takes time. We don't need to wait. We can effectively control immigration with the stroke of a pen by passing legislation that includes two basic elements:

• Going after predatory employers.


• Offering a path to citizenship for whistleblowers and their families.

Specifically:

• Expand the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to cover every business and individual employer, whether they employ documented or undocumented workers.
  Conditions and terms of employment must meet FLSA and safety requirements for any wage earner who meets the criteria that would require reporting under IRS rules (e.g, the IRS threshold this year is $1500 for most types of work).


• Criminalize predatory employment practices.
  Predatory employers who are violating FLSA, violating OSHA standards, and evading taxes must be subject to prosecution and mandatory prison time.


• Whistleblower immigration amnesty.
  Clear processes for workers to report predatory employers and maintain anonymity throughout the course of investigation. Whistleblowers who are undocumented (whether an individual or a group) are offered a path to citizenship.


• Increase resources and create special units as required
  Affected agencies would include the Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Dept of Justice, OSHA, IRS, and INS. The Wage and Hour Division is probably the logical agency to oversee the handling of charges against predatory employers, including preliminary investigation, referral to Justice for investigation and prosecution, referral to IRS, and coordination with INS to process undocumented whistleblowers and other undocumented workers.

Controlling our borders isn't really about control; it's about values

"Controlling our borders" means more than erecting barriers or patrolling. Controlling our borders is about making a commitment to act in a manner that is consistent with our values.

When we set employment standards we are expressing our values. Those standards reflect our belief that all human beings have a right to be treated fairly and our knowledge that a vigorous private sector cannot exist if work is not valued.

As long as we allow ANY workers to be exploited within our borders, we disgrace ourselves. As long as we turn a blind eye to the violations committed by people who enter illegally or remain after their visa expires, we demonstrate hypocrisy.

Guest worker programs have a place, but too often; such programs have been used to give employers a ticket to pay substandard wages and subject workers to unsafe conditions. We cannot tolerate programs that set different standards for "guests."

To be consistent with American values, we need to "just say no" to the exploitation workers -- documented or not. Continuing to permit predatory employers to operate within our borders will only drive more and more of Us and "Them" into poverty.

Making implicit costs explicit

The harmful effects of supporting an underground economy are costly to the nation. When we "just say no" to the exploitation workers, some implicit costs will be made explicit. Americans have a choice. We can invest our tax dollars to our common benefit, or bear the costs -- both moral and monetary -- of exploiting other human beings.

If we choose make predatory employers the prime target, we can ensure the survival of vital "underground economy" sectors by providing transitional supports. We can offset increased costs of goods or services to the working class through tax credits. (Should be part of a more comprehensive effort to shift the costs of citizenship from those who benefit the least from our common infrastructure to those who benefit the most.)

Radically changing the rules of the game

If predatory employers faced serious penalties, and the undocumented workers they are exploiting benefited from blowing the whistle, we would significantly increase the risk of exploiting workers.

The threat of exposure and prosecution alone will be sufficient for many to revamp their operations. In some sectors, the predators may simply move operations offshore. In others, predators may be forced out of business. As noted above, it may serve the public interest to provide transition assistance or start up assistance for replacement businesses.

Undoubtedly, a significant percent of undocumented workers would continue to evade detection, but employers would be far less likely to exploit them. If the workers are making a fair wage, the "race to the bottom" has a lower limit and the negative effect on wages is reduced.

We have a right enforce immigration law and deport violators

There are situations in which our interests are best served by providing an alternative to deportation. Nevertheless, if it does not serve a public interest to provide an alternative we should not hesitate to deport those who violate immigration laws.

We have a right to enforce our immigration laws. When we shift our focus to predatory employers, we are not forfeiting that right.

Offering legal status to whistleblowers serves us in two vital ways -- it deters predatory employers and it gives authorities vital resources "on the ground" who are motivated to expose those who are not deterred.

Targeting predatory employers creates a new class of unemployable undocumented workers. If we don't institute a program that offers an opportunity to achieve legal (employable) status to those who are displaced, the deportation and support costs are likely to rise to intolerable levels.

If we decide that minimizing competition for jobs is worth the costs associated with deportation, the number of families who are offered legal status could be limited by entering those who qualify for legal status into a "lottery" of sorts. It may seem harsh to allow chance to determine who stays and who goes, but deportation must remain the default consequence of breaking our immigration laws.

First things first

We can't begin to make progress until we impeach Bush and Cheney and purge the new American fascists from our public institutions ((Impeachment First)). Only then can we effectively engage in the messy -- but democratic -- process of dealing with this and other critical problems.

Conclusion

Our underground economy makes the United States very attractive to people who are struggling to survive in their own countries. We can change the dynamics right now and virtually eliminate the underground economy, and in the process, minimize the incentive to enter this country unlawfully.

Saying no to the exploitation of workers is central to controlling our borders. Radically changing the rules of the game makes other aspects of controlling immigration more manageable, but it does not eliminate the need for them. We still need to do a better job of tracking the foreign nationals who come here to work, study, or visit. We still need to make our border with Mexico as impenetrable as possible, while weighing the costs against the benefits.

We cannot continue to hypocritically turn a blind eye to violations of our immigration laws or tolerate the exploitation of workers within our borders. As is often the case, committing to enacting and enforcing laws that that reflect our values is not just the right thing to do, it ultimately serves the common good.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. Great ideas, great post. but, I have to ask you something: are you,

or have you ever been a member of.....

[kpete]

6. more-

Old-fashioned anti-immigrant prejudice always brings out some old-fashioned racists. This time around, they have started claiming that Mexicans can't assimilate. A sillier idea I've never heard. Why don't they come to Texas and meet up with Lars Gonzales, Erin Rodriguez and Bubba at the bowling alley. They can drink some Lone Star, listen to some conjunto and chill.

Racists seem obsessed by the idea that illegal workers -- the hardest-working, poorest people in America -- are somehow getting away with something, sneaking goodies that should be for Americans. You can always avoid this problem by having no social services. This is the refreshing Texas model, and it works a treat.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=2057...

[kineneb]

8. assimilation argument is bogus

The same thing was said about the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, etc. in the 19th century.

As to assimilation, my family still spoke German at home until the beginning of WWI; the family "patriarch" arrived here in 1851. This does not take away from the fact that Great-great Grandpa enlisted in the Union army around age 26, and was wounded in the Battle of Shiloh. Grandpa and his brother both enlisted to fight in WWI; I have a large original photo of them posing in their uniforms.

[Lethe]

7. if they built a fence it would probably be to keep us IN

doesnt seem likely?

well after 5-10 years of international alienation, non-stop war, terrorism, bird flu, outsourcing, outrageously irresponsible fiscal spending, and a depression it may very seem likely that a fence will need to keep US citizens from leaving the country.


btw Molly rocks :P

[PATRICK]

9. A sidebar on Texas.

A Catholic teaching order maintained a mission in texas to work with immigrants. The conditions under which they were ALLOWED to do so by the patrones were as simple as any third world feudal system.

Don't advocate. Don't rock the boat. Don't get political with the awful conditions of the illegal workers. Just do your Church stuff, help their community and teach the three "Rs". That last was probably the most liberal concession they made. Or, in the land of the free, the missionaries would get kicked off the property permanently. Understood.

The problem in the area is not the drama of the restless numbers of "invaders", it is our special feudal lords in Texas. This is not the same as a druggie in the equation of the drug traffic. The real criminals, the few, the proud, the mean are un-American natives from the genes up to their aristocratic heads. The entire discussion of the "problem" would be 100% different than this oblique attack on Texas' indentured servants if Mexicans were entering without being swallowed up and sheltered in cheap labor holdings.

And of course, now these sleazes might be hiding behind the sheltering Church ministers either by making them the sole scapegoats or using them to avoid being held accountable.

A great melting pot of RW hypocrisy.

[justice1]

11. silly woman, the fence isn't supposed to keep people out

It's about the $5 billion plus contract.

[Cleita]

10. Love that Molly. She knows what she's talking about and

she's right about the Great Wall of China. It didn't keep the Mongols out. That's why they were ruled by the Kublai Kahn when Marco Polo made his historic voyage. A wall didn't keep the Greeks out of Troy. There is such a fence as she described along the California Mexico border at Tijuana that's full of holes that can be passed through.

[crispini]

12. Oh, she RAWKS!

Another snip:

Numero Two-o, should you actually want to stop Mexicans and OTMs (other than Mexicans) from coming to the United States, here is how to do it: Find an illegal worker at a large corporation. This is not difficult -- brooms and mops are big tip-offs. Then put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for violating the law against hiring illegal workers.

Got it? You can also imprison the corporate official who actually hired the illegal and, just to make sure, put some Betty Sue Billups -- housewife, preferably one with blonde hair in a flip -- in the joint for a two-year stretch for hiring a Mexican gardener. Thus Americans are reminded that the law says it is illegal to hire illegal workers and that anyone who hires one is responsible for verifying whether or not his or her papers are in order. If you get fooled and one slips by you, too bad, you go to jail anyway. When there are no jobs for illegal workers, they do not come. Got it?

[hunter]

14. Betty Sue Billups

-- housewife, preferably one with blonde hair in a flip. Airhead.

I met her once in a grocery store. Her husband had already bought her a Lexus, a nose job, a breast augmentation, and she had VERY nice clothes, but she still wanted a Mexican nanny/housekeeper. All her friends had one. She thought I had one too, and she commented on my good fortune.

I was with my wife.

[libnnc]

13. Eee-gads, I love Molly to pieces

Big 'ol kick. People need to read this.