Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« A Holiday Break | Main | Watching Wal-Mart in Maryland »
January 03, 2006
Immigrants Are Not The Enemy
Well, Happy New Year to all. Hope you're all now properly chained back to your desks doing the bidding of the bosses...
Right after the transit strike, we had a pretty intense back and forth about immigration policy and health care, set off by my post that the transit workers deal (which is causing a bit of a rumble inside the union) showed why we need to fight for Medicare For All. A few comments suggested that if we just stopped the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country, presto, the health care crisis would abate. To which I said, more or less, nonsense.
The folks at the Drum Major Institute put out a report just before the holidays that I think has some useful points:
Immigration policy should bolster—not undermine—the critical contribution that immigrants make to our economy as workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers and consumers, because:
• On average, immigrants pay more in taxes each year than they use in government services, and these taxes fund programs like Social Security that strengthen and expand the middle class.
That was a point that several people tried to make. The financial crisis facing local and state governments is not the making of illegal immigration. In health care, it's a profit-driven system that eats up 15 percent of our Gross Domestic Product--if we had Medicare For All, it would cost about 1 percent of GDP. And in other services, it's the draining away of resources by crazy tax-cutting policies and tax breaks to corporations.
The DMI report also points out this important point: "Because employers threaten undocumented immigrants with deportation, these workers cannot effectively assert their rights in the workplace by, for example, asking for raises, complaining about violations of wage and hour or workplace safety laws, or by supporting union organizing drives. As long as this cheaper and more compliant pool of immigrant labor is available, employers are all too willing to take advantage of the situation to keep their labor costs down and are less willing to hire U.S.-born workers if they demand better wages and working conditions. U.S.-born workers are left to either accept the same diminished wages and degraded working conditions as immigrants living under threat of deportation or to be shut out of whole industries where employers hire predominantly undocumented immigrants. When immigrants lack rights in the workplace, labor standards are driven down, and all working people have less opportunity to enter or remain part of the middle class. So a pro-middle-class immigration policy must guarantee immigrants full labor rights and make sure that employers cannot use deportation as a coercive tool in the labor market."
You can get the full DMI report here.
January 3, 2006 in Economy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d8349e4b8169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Immigrants Are Not The Enemy:
Comments
Excellent point. But, you didn't go far enough.
The real problem with our economy (and practically every economy in the world) is privately owned money supplies and fractional reserve lending at interest.
That is where the rubber hits the road. All other efforts to solve our problems are half-baked and will not avail us.
Posted by: qrswave | Jan 3, 2006 12:24:05 PM
umm, qrswave, I appreciate your tenacity and I will read over your website, but this is a blog primarily about unions. I'm only speaking for myself here, but every time you respond to a post with an almost identical (and off topic) message it makes me less inclined to pay attention to you.
Posted by: Ben | Jan 3, 2006 4:11:26 PM
Ben, I'm sorry that you think my posts are off topic. I keep returning to the same point, because when discussing the union, or workers anywhere, addressing the monetary system is inescapable. The longer we postpone or evade it the worse it gets for everyone.
I admit that I am not a union worker, but I think you made the point very well in this post. Whether you're a union worker or not, if you are a worker, you suffer the same plight as other workers. It's all about supply and demand. Money is a controlled and powerful supply and workers are a fragmented and increasingly desperate demand.
Take my posts for what they're worth to you. If Working Life doesn't want me at this forum, that's its perogative. I cannot help but talk about what I see is the single most important issue facing workers today- our monopolized monetary system.
Posted by: qrswave | Jan 3, 2006 5:51:23 PM
As long as this cheaper and more compliant pool of immigrant labor is available, employers are all too willing to take advantage of the situation to keep their labor costs down and are less willing to hire U.S.-born workers if they demand better wages and working conditions. U.S.-born workers are left to either accept the same diminished wages and degraded working conditions as immigrants living under threat of deportation or to be shut out of whole industries where employers hire predominantly undocumented immigrants.And increasing the supply of cheap labor, by encouraging more illegal immigration, or a guest worker program, (which doesn't nothing to stop illegal immigration and may even encourage it more) will somehow increase wages, simply because they can join a union. How is that? Your logic continues to amaze me.
Again, I will remind you of the grocery workers strike in California. There were plenty of workers willing to cross the picket lines to work.
Posted by: Marc | Jan 4, 2006 9:10:55 AM
marc,
tell me, how many workers did cross the picket line in the southern california grocery strike? actually it was very few, despite the employers' strategy of signing an illegal profit-sharing agreement amongst themselves while starving workers out. Not to mention the union leadership's failure to present a winning strategy...
anyways, i just want to save you the effort of continuing to post here. i doubt you are going to be able to convince the readers of this blog that immigrants are the problem. i'm going to spare myself the effort of reasoning with you as well. i'm sure there are plenty of other websites out there where your ideas will be more well recieved, like the National Alliance, for starters.
Posted by: from CA | Jan 4, 2006 11:28:06 AM
Marc, Our argument is that it’s the disempowerment of undocumented workers, not their presence in the country, that undermines the middle class.
There is no consensus among economists that just increasing the supply of immigrant workers decreases the wages of natives, because it’s not a zero-sum game: immigrants don’t just take existing jobs, they also create jobs by consuming and by starting their own businesses. On the other hand, it’s bad for all working people when part of the domestic labor force exists outside the protection of our labor laws.
How does pushing immigrants further into the shadows encourage them to not cross picket lines?
Immigrants are here Marc, whether you like it or not. If you give them the labor rights other Americans have (or are supposed to have and can have when we fight to defend them) employers will be less able to use them to undercut native born workers. If undocumented workers have labor rights they will be able to fight for better wages just like anyone else can.
The further you push people in to the shadows, the more likely the will cross the picket line. Playing union workers against undocumented workers only lowers the wages of both.
Posted by: Elana | Jan 4, 2006 1:14:24 PM
Marc,
I understand where you may be coming from, but I disagree with your analysis. Rather than put a band aid on the issue of immigration by making it harder for people to come to the U.S. illegally, why don't we re-evaluate our trade and foreign policy. If the U.S., with the help of the IMF, WTO and World Bank, would not destroy the economies of these countries, then maybe people would be less inclined to migrate. But the U.S. is not only to blame. The leaders of these countries must be held accountable as well.
I believe that we, as workers, should be in solidarity with, and actively working with, workers from around the globe to steadily raise the quality of life for everyone, not just workers in the U.S. As globalization continues and capital becomes international, we have to look past national boundaries and create international alliances of labor empowering workers locally. As capital goes global, so must labor.
Remember migrants are not the problem, but only a symptom of the larger problem. The problem is corporate globalization and global capitalism and we should work together to fight that.
Posted by: M~ | Jan 4, 2006 2:22:46 PM
"how many workers did cross the picket line in the southern california grocery strike?"I have no idea, I didn't count them. But what ever the amount was, it was enough to keep the stores open and working.
"i just want to save you the effort of continuing to post here. i doubt you are going to be able to convince the readers of this blog that immigrants are the problem."Oh, I don't know. Once you give up then you have lost for sure. I prefer to keep trying. I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. Besides I'm rich beyond my wildest dreams, and don't have anything better to do, other then to try and convince everyone of the need to stop illegal immigration, furthering my agenda of reducing the wages of the working class, so I will be able to buy more stuff at cheap prices. NOT!
Actually my real agenda is to promote the cause of health care for all (it's just sometimes I get side tracked) even to illegal aliens (if you can believe that).
That is the real problem facing Americans and American business, and should be addressed first before addressing illegal immigration. If you don't address the problems of health care, there won't be many jobs (good jobs that is) left for Americans to do, as more and more businesses move operations overseas, where health care is provided by the state.
So just to end here, remember I said I was a glutton for punishment, your argument that
"it’s the disempowerment of undocumented workers, not their presence in the country, that undermines the middle class"is pure hogwash.
Too many dollars chasing too few goods breeds inflation (increased prices), too many goods chasing too few dollars causes the price of those good to drop. It's a simple law of economics.
If you're telling me that's not the way it works, then maybe I am wasting my time, but I still won't give up. :)
Posted by: Marc | Jan 4, 2006 4:54:47 PM
Marc,
Although you quote Elana's statement on the disempowerment of undocumented workers, you don't respond to the argument she made: immigrants don't just represent an increase in the number of workers -- they also represent an increase in the number of consumers. How many stores in the Southland of California would like to be told that every one of their customers who's undocumented will disappear tomorrow? In fact, those small business owners would probably like those customers to have better wages -- exactly what they'd have if they enjoyed the same rights (such as they are) that American workers have.
Your argument would also be an argument for zero population growth -- by your logic, my daughter and son would be way better off if no one else had kids, because then they'd be in high demand when they entered the job market! But if that were the case, the entire economy would be smaller and there wouldn't be jobs for them, either. The primary struggle is between workers and capital -- the fight that you want to wage among workers won't serve our interests in the long run.
Posted by: bigfall | Jan 4, 2006 5:28:53 PM
As I think most of us agreed in the other posting, not too many minds are going to be changed on this issue; so some broad questions come to mind:
1) Will amnestied immigrants or guest-workers be allowed to bring family members with them? If yes, it is estimated that as many as 35 million immigrants may be legally added to the US. What is the likely result of adding so many immigrants to be on:
(A) our schools, which are already often overcrowded and struggling to educate many students who do not speak English and who have had a weak education in their own countries? How will it help our schools be more competitive internationally in math and science?
(B) our health care system whose problems we are well aware of? Most of us on this blog agree that a single-payer system would be much better than what we have; still we are unlikely to see such a system in the immediate future - if ever. Since we must deal with reality, who will pay for the newly legal immigrants, most of whom are unskilled and unlikely to work in jobs with good health care benefits? If they have jobs that grant health care benefits at all they are more likely to resemble Wal-Mart's system, which we all agree is not acceptable and which passes its cost onto the public.
(C) our already overwhelmed supply of affordable housing? The housing boom did not extend to affordable housing, which the new families would need as do many US citizens.
2) How will we process the now illegal immigrants when we are woefully behind on processing legal immigrants? Will their family members be processed ahead of those of legal immigrants who have been waiting for years? Will whichever group has to wait for family members to be processed simply bring them in illegally (come for a visit and simply not leave) and wait for the next amnesty? What plans do we have that will actually halt the influx of illegal immigrants?
3) Since guest worker or amnesty bills both tie initial legal entrance to jobs (family reunification follows that step), how will we assure that the employers do not have nearly total control over these employees? What happens if the immigrant loses the job that got him legal status? Must he leave? If so, how will we enforce his and his family's departure? If not, what social services will be available to him, what will they cost, and which level of government will be responsible for the cost? What will keep businesses from replacing US workers with cheaper foreign workers? This is already going on in the legal H-1b technical areas, where US employees are being replaced by H-1b's and also being forced to train their replacements or forego severance packages.
4) Since totalization agreements regarding Social Security will be covering a dramatically larger number of people in Mexico alone and since foreign workers will qualify for these benefits with fewer years of work than US citizens, what will be the cost of these programs and what will be the effect of them of the solvency of the SS system in general? How will this play with US workers who tend to be very protective of the SS system, as President Bush recently found out?
5) Will the newly legal immigrants and their children be covered under affirmative action? What began as a means to assist the descendants of slaves is now being used to cover diversity. If yes, what is the benefit, not to mention the effect on national cohesion, of granting preferential treatment to new arrivals over US citizens who have paid its taxes, fought its wars, and contributed to its financial success for generations?
6) What will happen when the housing boom, which has employed so many of these immigrants, slows down or when a general downturn occurs? Will they go home? Stay in the US and compete with US workers for a diminished number of jobs, thus depressing wages even further? See 3 above.
7) Sometime in 2006, the US will surpass 300 million people. The greatest increase in population recently has been from recent immigrants and their descendants. We have seen the addition of nearly 8 million immigrants to the US from January 2000 through March 2005 - about half of whom are estimated to be illegal. This is the largest 5 year growth in our history. If we continue growing as we have in the last few years, the population of the US will be around 425-450 million by mid-century. What are the likely consequences of such population growth to the environment, including the water supply that is being depleted in western states? Oil? Sprawl? Loss of farmland and open spaces? Traffic? Depletion of other natural resources? Personal liberty? Etc?
8) Aren't these questions important enough to be thoroughly discussed before we make a change that will be nearly impossible to reverse? We can raise, lower, abolish, or enact taxes realively quickly. If a ton of steel, a load of textiles, or a truckload of tomatoes enters the US, it remains a stable quantity. Only people can grow exponentially. Shouldn't we be sure that we know what we are really doing on the issue of immigration?
These are by all means not all of the questions that we need to address.
Posted by: D Flinchum | Jan 6, 2006 4:43:56 PM
As I think most of us agreed in the other posting, not too many minds are going to be changed on this issue; so some broad questions come to mind:
1) Will amnestied immigrants or guest-workers be allowed to bring family members with them? If yes, it is estimated that as many as 35 million immigrants may be legally added to the US. What is the likely result of adding so many immigrants to be on:
(A) our schools, which are already often overcrowded and struggling to educate many students who do not speak English and who have had a weak education in their own countries? How will it help our schools be more competitive internationally in math and science?
(B) our health care system whose problems we are well aware of? Most of us on this blog agree that a single-payer system would be much better than what we have; still we are unlikely to see such a system in the immediate future - if ever. Since we must deal with reality, who will pay for the newly legal immigrants, most of whom are unskilled and unlikely to work in jobs with good health care benefits? If they have jobs that grant health care benefits at all they are more likely to resemble Wal-Mart's system, which we all agree is not acceptable and which passes its cost onto the public.
(C) our already overwhelmed supply of affordable housing? The housing boom did not extend to affordable housing, which the new families would need as do many US citizens.
2) How will we process the now illegal immigrants when we are woefully behind on processing legal immigrants? Will their family members be processed ahead of those of legal immigrants who have been waiting for years? Will whichever group has to wait for family members to be processed simply bring them in illegally (come for a visit and simply not leave) and wait for the next amnesty? What plans do we have that will actually halt the influx of illegal immigrants?
3) Since guest worker or amnesty bills both tie initial legal entrance to jobs (family reunification follows that step), how will we assure that the employers do not have nearly total control over these employees? What happens if the immigrant loses the job that got him legal status? Must he leave? If so, how will we enforce his and his family's departure? If not, what social services will be available to him, what will they cost, and which level of government will be responsible for the cost? What will keep businesses from replacing US workers with cheaper foreign workers? This is already going on in the legal H-1b technical areas, where US employees are being replaced by H-1b's and also being forced to train their replacements or forego severance packages.
4) Since totalization agreements regarding Social Security will be covering a dramatically larger number of people in Mexico alone and since foreign workers will qualify for these benefits with fewer years of work than US citizens, what will be the cost of these programs and what will be the effect of them of the solvency of the SS system in general? How will this play with US workers who tend to be very protective of the SS system, as President Bush recently found out?
5) Will the newly legal immigrants and their children be covered under affirmative action? What began as a means to assist the descendants of slaves is now being used to cover diversity. If yes, what is the benefit, not to mention the effect on national cohesion, of granting preferential treatment to new arrivals over US citizens who have paid its taxes, fought its wars, and contributed to its financial success for generations?
6) What will happen when the housing boom, which has employed so many of these immigrants, slows down or when a general downturn occurs? Will they go home? Stay in the US and compete with US workers for a diminished number of jobs, thus depressing wages even further? See 3 above.
7) Sometime in 2006, the US will surpass 300 million people. The greatest increase in population recently has been from recent immigrants and their descendants. We have seen the addition of nearly 8 million immigrants to the US from January 2000 through March 2005 - about half of whom are estimated to be illegal. This is the largest 5 year growth in our history. If we continue growing as we have in the last few years, the population of the US will be around 425-450 million by mid-century. What are the likely consequences of such population growth to the environment, including the water supply that is being depleted in western states? Oil? Sprawl? Loss of farmland and open spaces? Traffic? Depletion of other natural resources? Personal liberty? Etc?
8) Aren't these questions important enough to be thoroughly discussed before we make a change that will be nearly impossible to reverse? We can raise, lower, abolish, or enact taxes realively quickly. If a ton of steel, a load of textiles, or a truckload of tomatoes enters the US, it remains a stable quantity. Only people can grow exponentially. Shouldn't we be sure that we know what we are really doing on the issue of immigration?
These are by all means not all of the questions that we need to address.
Posted by: D Flinchum | Jan 6, 2006 4:44:37 PM
