you can’t support the labor movement and illegal immigration
Erik’s post on protectionism has me thinking about another kind of protectionism, the one about illegal immigration and its consequences for our labor force.
I still run around with a pretty radical crew, often enough, and I dig them. One place where I fear many of them aren’t necessarily thinking things through is both support for the worker’s movement and unquestioning sympathy for illegal immigrants. Like many I find those flatly incompatible– but not in a way that implies too much condemnation of either.
The American labor movement, as vilified as it has come to be, is still something to be proud of. And many of the protections and regulations that this movement is responsible for remain popular, even with those who are not generally disposed to appreciate unions– some sort of minimum wage, occupational safety and health regulations, limits on the amount of hours that people can be compelled to work, access to sanitary bathrooms, minimum ages for working, etc. Each of these is challenged by illegal immigration. People tend to focus on the fact that illegal immigrant labor drives down the wages of unskilled workers, and for good reason. But it’s not just there that illegal immigrant workers damage the benefits of a robust system of worker protections. Not only do illegal immigrant workers damage the minimum wage, as they are undocumented– secret– they often work without the necessary safety precautions that we expect for any worker; without the necessary minimum of healthy and sanitary work conditions that we expect for any worker; often work when they are too young, legally, to be working full time; often work much longer hours than we considered healthy and appropriate for a worker to work; and work without drawing the benefits of Social Security and Medicare for which their wages are often taxed. In other words, illegal immigration undercuts almost all of the major victories of the American labor movement.
The difference between myself and many illegal immigration restrictionists is that I believe the best way to change this is to make the barriers to entry into this country significantly lower, and for the labor movement to make a massive effort to invite these new unskilled immigrants into the labor movement. To me, this makes a great deal of sense for both unskilled immigrant laborers and the labor movement. (Sadly, I know that the odds of any of this happening are strikingly low.) For the labor movement, you could reverse the trend in collapsing unionism rates. You could gain a large influx of workers eager to improve their lives and ready to work hard to do so– and you wouldn’t just be gaining them as a workers, but as voters as well. For those new immigrants, they would gain the usual union advantage: despite the right wing’s insistence that it isn’t true, people join unions for a reason, as union member enjoy higher wages and better benefits, generally, than those who don’t join unions. And perhaps this new alliance between recent unskilled immigrants and labor unions would have the happy coincidence of coming together at a time when this country desperately needs to return to an economy that actually produces things, that generates goods that people want to purchase, rather than relying on the artful transfer of dollars into ever-more esoteric forms of financing in order to produce wealth. And maybe this alliance could actually happen in the context of a country that has passed card check, allowing labor unions access to far more industries, where they could increase their influence as they demonstrate the simple benefits of workers organizing. I don’t think this is going to happen. But I wish it would.
But, look, whether they join unions or not, when immigrant workers come here, they have to play by our rules and follow our laws. It is incredible to me that asserting even that has become part and parcel with bigotry in certain circles. Laws and social rules work, really work, only when the large majority of people follow them. This is particularly true of laws regulating economic behavior, where those actors who don’t have to follow the rules that every other factory or business or corporation does have an immediate and unfair advantage over those who do follow the rules. I want Mexican workers to come to the United States and pursue American abundance, because we have the space, we need the workers and they’re coming anyway. But you follow the rules when you get here. You need to have a Social Security number. You need to have taxes withheld. You need to make a minimum wage and you need to work in a work environment that adheres to legal minimums of safety, health and cleanliness. That’s not discrimination, it’s not bigotry, it’s asking people to adhere to the social contract. One of the perverse parts of this discussion is that people who say they support illegal immigrants end up endorsing a situation where many illegal immigrants make dollars a day in terrible conditions and with no recourse against exploitation. That is no victory for these immigrants, and it’s a disaster for those of us who think that workers should be subject to legally enforced protections and regulation. Come here, work here, but do so in a way that preserves the benefits of what so many fought so hard for.
And, yes, some of this has to be made possible by actual border enforcement. Many people see support for border enforcement as being ipso facto an endorsement of harsh treatment towards illegal immigrants or just of anti-immigrant sentiment in general. There’s a part of me that wishes that there were no such thing as borders. But as long as we have separate laws and regulations from other countries, and as long as we value those laws and regulations, borders are necessary. And if they are to mean anything at all, they have to be policed, although the investment in this policing is certainly a matter open to debate. Like I said, I think the best way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to drastically lower the barriers to entry and to demonstrate the clear benefits of entering the system legally. But if there are people who continue to come in illegally, we’ve got to have a meaningful system of enforcement that preserves our rules.
That, ultimately, is a better deal for almost everyone: better pay and working conditions for recent immigrants; more unionized members, more power and influence for unions; and a new dedication to creating useful commodities that people want to buy, for the benefit of our economy. This won’t come without cost. Goods and services, if produced here and for living wages, will certainly be more expensive. It will continue to be a struggle for these companies to compete with the dirt cheap labor available in foreign countries. These price increases, meanwhile, will certainly be passed on to consumers. But we have to ask if that is a worthy bargain. I certainly question whether the ability to buy clock radios for $9 or four and a half ounces of California blueberries for a dollar is really worth the shelled out economy we’ve created, where wealth has to be generated by shuffling paper rather than through the classic, tried and true system of people paying for goods and services that improve their lives. Would the American consumer be willing to pay more than they are used to for the things they need? I don’t know. I do know that the system of dirt cheap commodities, constant consumption and a almost nonexistent manufacturing base has left us with a financial crisis the likes of which we never thought we’d have to endure. At this point, I think any option is on the table.
One of the most compelling nativist arguments I’ve heard, and one to which I for the most part subscribe (though you make some good points as well) is that in every period of immigration into the United States there was a time when the spigot was finally turned off – whether the immigrants in question were Italian, Irish, or Chinese. The spigot was closed and the immigration stopped, and the various immigrant populations were given time to integrate both culturally and economically to some degree. Then it was opened again. There was a pacing to it that was regulated and to a degree, at least, healthy.
The immigration we see now from Mexico and Latin America is basically unchecked. There is no settling period, no time for the populations who have arrived to become Americans and integrate to one degree or another.
Likewise, the system has trouble weaving them into itself. So yes, I believe that part of the answer is to have a better system to welcome workers in; part of it is to be better at enforcing existing laws (not building fences, just enforcing our laws that we already have); and part of this probably lies in curbing the drug wars.
Then, too, there needs to be something done about the state of our neighbor to the south, because that country is literally falling apart. It’s certainly not an easy question to answer.Report
And yet there are models more recent than Chavez.
The Mt. Olive pickle boycott led to unionization of labor on a number of North Carolina cucumber and pepper farms, an incredible achievement in the most labor-unfriendly state in the union, and in agriculture, where historically the labor movement has been an utter failure. It was achieved without government action or litigation, just pressure from the state’s Presbyterian Church and longhaired hippie customers.
(The end of the boycott was a relief, as Mt. Olive makes some of the finest pickles you’ll ever taste.)Report
I’m sorry. I just see this as supply and demand. As long as you run with a high supply of labor, domestic labor has no foundation and is forced to run to unions and questionable governmental programs. It would be much better to limit immigration until the domestic labor force achieved a living wage. Even then, I would prefer to see market forces encourage greater automation and a financial incentive for maintaining a robust domestic supply of labor (kids).Report
Patrick is right, there have been efforts to recruit workers regardless of their immigration status – SEIU has been active, I think. The thinking is that employers hold the threat of deportation over worker’s heads, but informed workers can hold a threat of tips to ICE about “knowing hire” and harboring over an employer’s head. Actually the thinking really is that equal work deserves equal pay.
Strikes in agriculture have a huge advantage that other types of striles don’t have – they don’t have to last very long to spell disaster for an employer. It’s even more difficult in other sectors.Report
The following is an interesting sentiment, coming from you:
I find very little to separate your sentiment—and the complaint of unjustified charges of bigotry that goes with it—from the
discourse of Geert Wilders:
Why is Wilders a “weirdo bigoted dunce [Chris Dierkes dixit]” and you are a progressive and open-minded thinker, if you express the same sentiment towards immigrants?
Please explain.Report
Because there’s a big difference, to me, in enforcing laws that regulate economic behavior, and passing laws that require recent immigrants to assimilate culturally.
Now, do I want recent Mexican immigrants to learn English? Sure do. I’m not interested in enforcing that legally and don’t know how you would begin to do that. But I want them to, just like I would expect myself to learn French if I moved to France. How for exactly should we take that kind of expectation of assimilation? It’s a dicey, complicated issue. But I know that things like outlawing the hijab simply go to far in the direction of violating individual rights.Report
Islamic immigration into Europe is a very tricky dilemma, and the fact is, Europe has historically been much worse at integration than the States. It is very easy for an immigrant in the US to claim to be American and be taken seriously, whereas even second generation Algerians in France are not really considered French. I’m not sure exactly what the difficulty or difference is. For some reason, in the States second-generation immigrants move out into the wider society much more easily than in Europe….Report
That’s a crucial point, Erik. Many Americans just casually believe that, because Europe is more left-wing than the States, Europeans are more accepting of other cultures and recent immigrants. That is most certainly not the case. Americans are much more accommodating and accepting of Muslim and other immigrants than the people in many European countries. Places like Germany, France and (to a lesser extent) the UK have a much less inviting nature towards Muslim immigrants. Not unconnected, I suspect, is the fact these place also have a far bigger problem with home-grown radicalism than the United States does.Report
The problem is the idea of citizenship. Nations in Europe, like Germany, have an idea of citizenship linked to “blood.” One can be born and raised in Germany, and one’s grandparents can be born and raised in Germany, and still be denied German citizenship.
The main problem, though, is related to Europe’s more socialist world view: in the States, everyone is expected to earn their own living. This will generate assimilation, whether one wants it or not. Muslims in Europe are free riding on the welfare state so they are free to establish their own enclaves, which become no-go areas for the state and which are really part of the Islamic world, not Europe.
The point is, Wilders is only saying that Europe needs to adopt policies more in line with ours. He’s saying that Muslims must become Europeans if they want to live in Europe. I simply fail to see the difference between this and Freddie’s sentiment. Economic behavior, as you know, covers such a wide area that it’s really a useless quibble to separate it from other cultural areas.Report
How can people “earn their own living” when they are systematically denied the ability to do so because of their ethnicity and religion? You’re confusing cause and effect. And, look– Wilders is most certainly not just asking for an end to a European welfare state. He is asking for systematic cultural repressions that would be flatly unconstitutional in America. Check his record outside of that quote.Report
And in the end much of this can only be achieved culturally, not politically. Europeans need to discover ways to, as a culture, reinvent their notion of citizenship. I’m surprised the EU hasn’t had more luck with this, since borders have become much less relevant there than before. In other words, immigrants and natural born citizens need to find ways to meet each other half way. There are certainly ways to preserve one’s heritage, muslim culture, etc. while adopting Western values and beliefs. It works here. It can work there.Report
1. Of course, the standard righty response to the issues Europe has with immigrants is that it is a natural problem that arises when you have a large welfare state, since immigrants tend to be less skilled and thus more likely to be able to take advantage of the welfare state. This causes resentment amongst the native population. As such, the argument goes, you need to have tight restrictions on immigration if you are going to have a large welfare state.
1a. The other standard righty argument is that European immigrants are typically Muslim, whereas US immigrants are typically Latino Catholics, so the cultural differences are far more problematic. This is deployed less often, perhaps because it undermines the basis for the other argument by implying that Latino immigrants can assimilate relatively easily. A variation on this theme is that there is something peculiar to Muslim immigrants that results in greater strife.
2. I’m not a big believer in the standard righty response (by which I mean point 1, not 1a, though I’m not a big believer in that either); even if you take the premise behind the argument seriously, then it means that either: a) the US welfare state is not nearly as great a threat as it is made out to be (since we really don’t have the problems Europe does with immigrants and since the most anti-immigrant groups in the US tend to be utterly opposed to any welfare state, which I don’t think is true of anti-immigrant groups in Europe); or b) the issues can largely be solved by a liberal guest worker program, which the right typically finds anathema.
3. I think the real answer tends to reside in the fact that most Americans are fully cognizant of the fact that they are descended in some way from immigrants. Even those who are most strongly anti-immigration in the US are usually very careful to couch their arguments as being a function of changed circumstances of some form or another.
4. The labor movement actually has become pretty friendly to immigrants over the last several years. Their more or less official policy on immigration reform is here: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/upload/UnityBlueprint.pdf
I can say from a certain amount of personal experience that the leadership of the labor movement is actually pretty sincere in their beliefs on this issue, whatever problems I may have with them on other issues, and despite the fact that I disagree with them on the merits of a guest worker program.Report
I’ll just add that this, to my mind, has nothing whatsoever to do with welfare states. This has much more to do with customs and the fact that Europe has not been much of a center of immigration until recently, whereas the US has always been a nation of immigrants. We’ve had practice…Report
Freddie says,
Freddie has a point here. I won’t try to establish any cause/effect relationship at all with any of this. It’s more productive to see it as some kind of destructive system—a vicious cycle at work. European citizenship laws discriminate against immigrants, which hampers their ability to work. Their inability to work is supported by multi cultural and welfare-state policies. It’s all part of a destructive package.
I’m not really interested in Wilders’s political program outside of its considerations for Muslims in Europe. He says that Islam must be Europeanized and not the other way around if this war is to ever end. This means that Muslims must give the same respect for Western culture as we give them. It means that Muslims must recognize tolerance for pluralism as a political value. This is where I see Freddie’s opinion as to Mexican immigrants to the US intersecting with Wilders’s opinions about European Muslims. He’s demanding that Mexican immigrants play by our rules; Wilders is demanding nothing less of Muslims in Europe.
This is from the Wekipedia article on Wilders’s program:
Again, I don’t see any radical difference between this and what Freddie has to say about immigration to the US. For example,
Freddie surely knows that banning illegal immigration will ban just about all immigration from Mexico, i.e., it will constitute an “immigration ban” on Mexicans. More than anything, it’s Freddie’s insistence on “when immigrant workers come here, they have to play by our rules and follow our laws.” This is the basic idea that Wilders promotes, and it’s why he’s called “far-right” and a “weirdo bigoted dunce” by the likes of Chris Dierkes. Chris was not talking about his record outside of the speech I quoted.Report
Europeans are not going to change their concept of citizenship anytime soon. If the 20th century didn’t teach them the folly of ethnic-based citizenship, nothing will. Being a German and a Gwedish citizen is a lot more like being a registered member of the Yakama tribe than it is like being an American citizen and an American.
In fact if you are an Americna citizen living in say, Milwaukee, and can show German ancestry, you will get German citizenship long before a Turk born and raised in Frankfurt.
This sense of blood and shared culture is foundational to their form of socialism, just as many tribes here have very plush safety nets and social problems if their finances allow.Report
In 1979, Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers union, bitterly testified to Congress:
"… when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. … The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking…"
In 1969, Chavez led a march to the Mexican border to protest illegal immigration. Joining him were Sen. Walter Mondale and Martin Luther King’s successor as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Ralph Abernathy.
The UFW picketed INS offices to demand closure of the border. Chavez also finked on illegal alien scabs to la migra. Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. reported in the Arizona Republic, “Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize.”
Like today’s Minutemen, UFW staffers under the command of Chavez’s brother Manuel patrolled the Arizona-Mexico border to keep out illegal aliens. Unlike the well-behaved Minutemen, however, Chavez’s boys sometimes beat up intruders. Report