Is it exploitation if illegal immigrants make more in the US than in Mex?

[SujiwanKenobee]

On CNN there was a group of women loosely associated with the "Minutemen" group who stake out areas in their communities where Hispanics hang out in groups waiting for potential work. They target those businesses doing the hiring and take down license plates of those company reps coming to hire at those locations. This group also informs the IRS of the activity of said companies. Their message: Enforcement of the laws already on the books.

Second point they made was that they were against the exploitation of those workers by the businesses doing the hiring. The CNN host framed a question like: So, you're basically on the side of these parking lot job seekers to protect them... A moment of discomfort followed with complaints about the effects on their individual communities (drugs, crime, schools getting failing grades, etc. etc.)

Isn't it more true that the people who claim that they are against illegal immigration because "illegals are being exploited" are primarily American citizens and *not* the illegals themselves? In their opinion, are they doing better in these low wage jobs than they were on the other side of the border? Are they happy to get these opportunities? If they were unhappy, wouldn't word spread so no one would continually be coming over the border to the US for jobs?

I was thinking of CHina with the mass exodus from the countryside to the cities to work in the factories. Now there are so many other opportunities available that the Chinese companies are having to change their more inhumane practices to keep workers, who are otherwise refusing to leave the hinterlands for the city or just going elsewhere to work.

It seems that there are now many other opportunities in the US available to our south of the border neighbors OTHER than picking vegetables and fruits or doing lawn work. For every person who comes in to work in the grunge jobs, there are other types of jobs opening to take them out of the "field" and up bit by bit. Then there's suddenly a new vacancy in the grunge work and hey! businesses are screaming that they have to have more immigrants!

My point is that wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Americans want businesses to choose from the legal citizen employee pool at wages more in line with what the lowest paid of American workers can live on? Not any true concern about "exploitation"?

[NNN0LHI]

1. Those women normally wear sheets to their hometown functions

They ain't kidding nobody.

Don

[Cleita]

8. Buwahahaha.

The way the law is written, it's unenforcible, which is why the INS doesn't try very hard. It gives the employer a big pass, really. If you want the links it's on one of the articles in my journal.

[mzteris]

2. naw . . .

if they're willing to work for below minimum wage and work in unsafe conditions and not have things like worker's comp or safety measures or insurance or fair labor standards .....

I mean, what's to worry about working in a sweatshop if it means you can send $$ home so your kids can actually EAT?

Ooops, Dad lost his hand or an eye? Oh well, don't have to report it cause he's not even legal. Too bad. So sad.

Naw. Not exploitation at all.

Kinda like all those black folks back in the 50's. If Massa wanted to pay you less because of your skin color - well - so what? Least it was a JOB, right? Better than not having a job at all, now wasn't it?

[SujiwanKenobee]

5. Right but I wouldn't paint such a broad brush given new job options

I get your point and I agree that there are definitely many people with a conscience who are concerned about workers of any kind and with punishing the businesses that skirt the worker protection laws this way, But, more and more businesses of varying types are hiring illegal immigrants, not just dangerous ones. Many are regular old jobs with no danger involved at all. I don't beleive for a minute that most illegal immigrants are stuck with the types of jobs you are describing. Some, certainly, but jobs offered depends on the part of the country. Many of the Mom and Pa outfits hiring to save themselves $, are just regular tedious jobs or varying levels of work that the owner would otherwise be doing himself and needs a helper.

[Bridget Burke]

3. Immigration--legal & illegal--is worth serious discussion.

As are workers' rights--for ALL workers--in this country & others.

But I wouldn't waste a moment on the opinions of Minuteman Groupies.

[Cleita]

9. Revoking the Taft Hartley Act would be a big boost for labor.

This way unions can be closed and they can accomplish more than open shops that bring in non-union labor and lower paid scabs during strikes. I think you would see a dramatic turn around in better wages and benefits if this happened.

[IsItJustMe]

4. I see a point and time in the future of this country where this is going

to become an ugly situation.

I see the precursors for this everyday on the news. Schools banning flags because students are tuanting each other with them. I am seeing people, that I have known most of life, that never had a strong opinion about much of anything, all of the sudden becoming rather extreme on this issue.

Don't think this sort of thing can't happen in America.

[Avalux]

6. Don't know. I am concerned about exploitation.

It's a basic human rights issue for me. Doesn't matter if illegal immigrants make a little bit more than they did in Mexico; they are treated subhuman and have absolutely no rights or recourse when they are abused. Because they are desperate, the people who cross the border are willing to endure whatever the are given.

The minimum wage must be increased, and people should be paid for the job they do, not whether they're white, brown, legal or illegal. Companies who choose to hire illegal immigrants and pay them penalties need to be slapped hard with fines and consequences.

Until all people are treated equally and fairly and paid a living wage for a hard day's work, the problem will not be solved.

[BiggJawn]

7. Depends.

If the Anglo employers are paying less than they can get an Anglo to do the job for ($6 an hour is NOT a fair wage for unclogging sewers!) then it's STILL exploitation.

And suppose we started having native-born Murkans living 30 to a house and pooling resources and sharing one piece of ID to bank with and agreeing to work for $3 an hour, no bennies, would that be exploitation, or just "proof" that there's NOTHING good ol' yankee ingenuitiy can't overcome?

Because that's where it'd wind up. I can't imagine what kind of "standard of living" you'd have to lower yourself to in order to become "competitive" with Illegal Immigrants, but I got a sick feeling Capital would DEARLY love for us to find out.

Sounds a little like Hanoi John's claim that "Americans wouldn't pick lettuce if you offered 'em FIFTY bucks an hour!" if you ask me...

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Simply put, yes.

But of course, nothing is simple.

If they are working in sub-par conditions for sub-par pay, they are being exploited. Even if they are making more, considerably more, than they would at home. And it needs to be fought, not only for their protection, but also because the practice depresses wages for all workers. Even employers who don't hire illegals have to pay lower wages to their legal workers to remain competative with those who do use illegal labor.

So if pay and conditions were equalized, it would level the playing field for all employers which could only boost the general economy, instead of rewarding only those who break the law.