Notes on Immigration Reform
I've been listening and reading an awful lot of news about the immigration reforms being proposed in Congress, and the pros and cons of extending amnesty to the estimated 11 million immigrants already living in the US. Here in San Diego, junior high and high school students have been staging walk-outs and protests to the proposition to "round up and return" all of the illegals here and put them back in line for legal entry to the US. So, it's time to post.
On a news show Sunday, the roundtable was discussing the merits of illegal immigrant labor--"They take the jobs no one else wants." First, I don't doubt that no one else wants many of these jobs; however, there are many who would take these jobs if they paid at least minimum wage, i.e., the inner-city African-American population. A quick look at unemployment rates shows that for African-Americans, unemployment has risen dramatically--and this rise in unemployment rates coincides with the rise in illegal immigration--also, the unemployment rate of Latinos has declined dramatically--in almost perfectly inverse relationship. That is, illegals are taking "their" jobs.
Now, I don't suggest that African-Americans should be fighting illegal immigrants for these crumbs--it would be much preferable to enfranchise this segment of the population in a more empowering manner, but it does point to the fact that businesses here in the US take advantage of the illegal population to provide labor at slave wages. If you thought the minimum wage was unliveable, take a whack at living on the wages these illegals are paid. By shifting these jobs to illegal immigrants, you create a disenfranchised population--the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder gets broken. As businesses can now fill the dish-washing positions, the janitor positions, etc., for less-than-minimum wage, the group that was previously filling those positions is left without any job or any wage. Moving up to the next stratus of employment--service positions, etc--take more investment in education/skills than is currently feasible for this population to provide itself, and more than the state is willing to provide to them.
The fact is that we don't have a lot of middle-class Mexicans sneaking across the border looking for employment. We get the most desperate, poorest segment who are willing to risk their lives--quite literally--to find any job in the US. This gives a distinct advantage to the businesses here in bargaining power over wages! And it leaves the impoverished citizens at a distinct disadvantage. How are workers at Wal-Mart expected to fight for health insurance when Wal-Mart can just hire illegals--who can't fight for benefits--to take their places? (yes, I know that from time to time illegals do protest/march/strike for better living conditions but it is a rare event for obvious reasons).
I imagine the businesses here in the US who do employ illegals are desperately hoping that amnesty isn't granted; the costs of their payroll would increase dramatically!! However, it just isn't feasible that the US government is going to be able to round up enough people to fill the state of Ohio and caravan them back to Mexico. And interestingly, it is by and large the small businesses here in the US who employ illegals--it has actually allowed them to compete with the more efficient big businesses.
I, myself, cannot propose the magic solution to the problem. When you have the wealthiest nation in the world jutting up against a third world country, you're going to have people trying to come over to improve their lot in life. And the labor situation is such that this nation's poorest (legal) population is further disenfranchised as a result. Will granting amnesty to the illegals already here re-enfranchise that segment? Perhaps a tiny bit. Will it stop the flow of illegals into this country? Doubtful. Will trying to round them all up and ship 'em back home fix the problem? Are you kidding?
A mess, indeed. But rather than focus our resources on shipping illegals back to Mexico, why don't we invest in the socio-economically disadvantaged citizens? Or work on helping Mexico's economy--if their unemployment rates decline and quality of education increases, then illegal immigration to the US will most likely decline. But of course, our system has never been into addressing the root of the problem--just the symptoms of the disease.
On a news show Sunday, the roundtable was discussing the merits of illegal immigrant labor--"They take the jobs no one else wants." First, I don't doubt that no one else wants many of these jobs; however, there are many who would take these jobs if they paid at least minimum wage, i.e., the inner-city African-American population. A quick look at unemployment rates shows that for African-Americans, unemployment has risen dramatically--and this rise in unemployment rates coincides with the rise in illegal immigration--also, the unemployment rate of Latinos has declined dramatically--in almost perfectly inverse relationship. That is, illegals are taking "their" jobs.
Now, I don't suggest that African-Americans should be fighting illegal immigrants for these crumbs--it would be much preferable to enfranchise this segment of the population in a more empowering manner, but it does point to the fact that businesses here in the US take advantage of the illegal population to provide labor at slave wages. If you thought the minimum wage was unliveable, take a whack at living on the wages these illegals are paid. By shifting these jobs to illegal immigrants, you create a disenfranchised population--the lowest rung on the socio-economic ladder gets broken. As businesses can now fill the dish-washing positions, the janitor positions, etc., for less-than-minimum wage, the group that was previously filling those positions is left without any job or any wage. Moving up to the next stratus of employment--service positions, etc--take more investment in education/skills than is currently feasible for this population to provide itself, and more than the state is willing to provide to them.
The fact is that we don't have a lot of middle-class Mexicans sneaking across the border looking for employment. We get the most desperate, poorest segment who are willing to risk their lives--quite literally--to find any job in the US. This gives a distinct advantage to the businesses here in bargaining power over wages! And it leaves the impoverished citizens at a distinct disadvantage. How are workers at Wal-Mart expected to fight for health insurance when Wal-Mart can just hire illegals--who can't fight for benefits--to take their places? (yes, I know that from time to time illegals do protest/march/strike for better living conditions but it is a rare event for obvious reasons).
I imagine the businesses here in the US who do employ illegals are desperately hoping that amnesty isn't granted; the costs of their payroll would increase dramatically!! However, it just isn't feasible that the US government is going to be able to round up enough people to fill the state of Ohio and caravan them back to Mexico. And interestingly, it is by and large the small businesses here in the US who employ illegals--it has actually allowed them to compete with the more efficient big businesses.
I, myself, cannot propose the magic solution to the problem. When you have the wealthiest nation in the world jutting up against a third world country, you're going to have people trying to come over to improve their lot in life. And the labor situation is such that this nation's poorest (legal) population is further disenfranchised as a result. Will granting amnesty to the illegals already here re-enfranchise that segment? Perhaps a tiny bit. Will it stop the flow of illegals into this country? Doubtful. Will trying to round them all up and ship 'em back home fix the problem? Are you kidding?
A mess, indeed. But rather than focus our resources on shipping illegals back to Mexico, why don't we invest in the socio-economically disadvantaged citizens? Or work on helping Mexico's economy--if their unemployment rates decline and quality of education increases, then illegal immigration to the US will most likely decline. But of course, our system has never been into addressing the root of the problem--just the symptoms of the disease.
Labels: Ranting
posted by slickaphonic at 6:05 PM
2 Comments:
Why is the entire debate cast as one team against another? U.S. vs Them, Hispanic Vs Black? If I may be a hippie for just a minute or two, we're all people, man, and should all be looking out for the betterment of labor as a whole.
To me, that means reducing the number of people who are in exploitative positions and not protected by common-decency labor laws, not just deporting everybody who isn't.
The other problem with the U.S. vs Them approach is that it implies that this is a zero-sum game when it's not. I can't help but notice that you didn't give any citations backing up the one-to-one shift in unemployment for native groups as immigrants come in; I'm not sure that any such studies really exist. What efforts have been made (e.g., the Muriel boat lift paper) found that adding people to an economy actually expands the economy. Economic activity ain't a zero sum game, and having more people buying cars, eating food, renting apartments, and otherwise being members of the economy creates jobs as well.
So, in the end, I agree with you: let's stop bickering about which group of people get the spoils and go back to making sure that conditions improve and there are more spoils to go around.
for citation: NYT ran the article on Chicago which cited the employment statistics.
And yeah, I agree with you that you agree with me (heh heh). I'm ardently against deportation and I think we should be concerned with reducing the number of people in exploitative positions. The truth is that the influx of immigrants has reduced labor unions' bargaining power, etc. It's not just a problem limited to immigration, either. Outsourcing labor to countries with poor labor conditions, low wages, etc, is the same problem, with the boats going the other direction. While I don't think we should be yanking jobs away from immigrants and, with a giant grin on our liberal white faces, hand them over to urban African-Americans, the truth is that the currently immigrant-filled occupations in the US have always existed, and were at one point, filled by people who got paid, if perhaps not decent, better wages.
Finally, after t.a.-ing for the race and politics class here, there are numerous citations which depict the animosity between latinos and blacks--it's disturbing because as we all know, a united front would serve them much better rather than fighting each other for crumbs (and in the 1970's they primarily did work together). If you're actually interested in these, email me and I'll send you the syllabus.
Post a Comment
<< Home