Elect Barack Obama
Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Vote Early-Absentee-Nov4
Visit the Democratic Party
Should Democrats Get Tough on Employers of Illegal Immigrants?
The problem of illegal immigration is a difficult one and so are the solutions, which is why I don't write about it often.
Just like my own great-grandparents, today's immigrants are coming here to find a job that pays enough to raise a family on, because they can't find such jobs in the countries they are leaving.
But of course they drive down wages for workers who were born here or went through the nightmare of legal immigration.
George Bush and the Republicans have done nothing to control illegal immigration for the past seven years. But that didn't stop them from running vicious anti-immigrant ads to beat Democrats in this week's elections.
Election results show those immigration ads did not kill Democrats, and some bloggers think Democrats can safely ignore the issue, or deflect it by focusing on trade.
I'm not sure I would agree. Just because immigration didn't kill Democrats in 2007, we can't say they didn't cause a lot of pain.
And with every poll showing our presidential candidates in a virtual dead heat with their candidates, why should we wait for Republicans to figure out how to perfect their use of immigration to beat us in 2008 - just as they did with gay marriage in 2004?
I'd like to see Democrats stop playing defense on immigration, and start playing offense. And I think the best way to play offense is to get tough on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
How exactly? I'm not an expert on the details, but the comprehensive immigration reform bill supported by Democrats (and George Bush) includes tamper-proof SS# verification of new employees, backed by tough penalties for employers who fail to perform the verification.
So why don't Democrats separate that piece from the omnibus bill and push it through Congress now?
Republicans will oppose such a bill for one simple reason: it hurts the greediest business owners, who are one of the GOP's most important constituencies.
But that's a fight Democrats should relish.
What would happen to the 12 million illegal immigrants who are looking for work? Law-abiding companies would turn them away, so they would have to find non-corporate cash-paying jobs with small businesses (i.e. construction) or individuals (i.e. housekeeping). Of course many of them already have such jobs.
Are there any Democratic constituencies that would oppose such a bill? Perhaps the unions that organize low-income workers, whether they are here legally or not - the United Farm Workers, SEIU, and Unite/Here come to mind. But if they have legitimate concerns, I'm sure the legislation could be tailored to address them.
Is this a workable plan? I don't know. What do you think?
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
I think you have to start
by ceasing to contribute to the conditions that make it impossible for people to earn a living at home, and that starts with ending NAFTA
going after immigrants by going after their employers would divide the progressive base and certainly be opposed by the unions named above
David Swanson
david@davidswanson.org
http://www.davidswanson.org
there was plenty of illegal immigration
before NAFTA, so that's not the beginning and end of the story.
I don't know what % of undocumented immigrants work in the corporate sector who would be affected by stricter corporate enforcement - I'm sure some experts do.
How would it divide the progressive base?
Americans have a right to decide, via a Democratic process, what our Nation's immigration policy should be. This includes folks of liberal and conservative dispositions.
Illegal immigration circumvents that.
Removing the bait of illegal jobs is THE Progressive solution. My formulation:
Liberalism is for BOTH those with Liberal hearts AND Conservative outlooks. (Not of course for lunatic black hearted Right Wingers). Most divisions on this subject and others can be quelled by offering mightily bold PROGRESSIVE policies.
I would not, for example, recommend speaking of only Immigration Reform. I would always couple it to tax reform (zero Income Tax on the first $65,000 made by all Americans), Military Salary reform (a retention of the Estate Tax so as to fund a doubling of ALL military personal salaries), etc.
In other words, Democratic Proposals which markedly return capital to the vast majority who perform the labor and provide innovation.
Jim
but you're
taking away the bait from people dying of thirst in a desert, and throwing people out of work by "going after employers." Surely you don't think the employers wil keep employing people while being prosecuted and punished for it.
Sorry, I'm on the side of workers whatever political lines they were born inside.
See how we're divided?
David Swanson
david@davidswanson.org
http://www.davidswanson.org
David
There is no division in our Liberal hearts.
The division you are emphasizing is not the one I am speaking to. I'm referring to a long term strategy of changing the conversation in America. One that embodies a broad enough spectrum of sound changes that folks might consider sacrificing specifics.
People all over the world need food and water. Tens of thousands of kids die each day because of it. I can help. So can you. It is immoral however to force fellow Americans to decide on immigration policy and then see it broken via a mass of illegal immigrants.
Is there no point at which you would finally say "I can no longer sacrifice anything more?" Would you give up all but rice and water if a hundred million wished to enter?
Might it be true that you have given up less to help those in the desert, than some Republican folks who have lost out to them? It's true of me, and so I can't in good conscience belittle folks for deciding on immigration policy via the voting booth and THEN wanting it adhered to. When buying a yogurt, or a once a week fast food lunch instead of brown bagging it, is big doings for many folks, can you really blame them for worrying about losing out?
--------------------------------------------------
But to put this in perspective, if you track my posts you'll see that I advance that Illegal Immigration is NOT a problem in the least (at its present level) COMPARED to massive drains on our economy from the relatively unproductive upper class.
And of course, any measure to help those in the desert, without taking the shirt off other Americans' backs, should be advanced.
Salaries are a zero sum game (except for "invention"). A dollar gotten by one is lost to another. You can't be for one worker without being against another.
No division in our liberal hearts?
what? Shouldn't we be talking about over population, worker rights, enviornmental solutions, a better society for all, etc. We can be anything we want.
No man should give up his shirt to another except if he has ten and the other worker doing the same job has none (CEOs with billions at the expense of the workers is just plain robbery).
Will whole populations migrate to one part of the world for jobs because the evil Empire (Rome) has ruined and stolen theirs? Will they storm the city like the barbarians did to Rome? It took over 400 years for the world\civilization to recover from the damage and pillaging of the Roman Empire. They ruined whole cultures, knowledge, and lands.
It has been said the Irish monks saved much of the history and knowledge destroyed by Rome (they were too far from Rome to control). We can substitute the word Rome with US. History to repeat itself don't you think if we don't change direction?
With nuclear weapons and Depleted Uranium will humans survive to come back after the fall of the Empire and their crazy leaders?
If you read the polls most Americans are united on goals for the future. It's their representatives and party leaders who ignore them (and religious leaders looking for power and wealth).
Dove, Swanson, Jim
Dove,
David Swanson is saying that we should NOT stop illegal immigrants by cracking down on employers because those illegal immigrants need those jobs.
I'm saying we should for three reasons:
David is saying that we should NOT stop illegal immigration out of humanitarian reasons.
I'm saying it's fine to take the shirt off of one's own back to help others but wrong to forcibly take it off someone else's to do so.
Further, unlike Lou Dobbs (who has helped the Left of late), but pisses me off because of his incessant harping about illegal immigration in relative isolation from other concerns, I'm happy to ALWAYS tie these discussions to broader concerns:
------------------------------------------------------
This whole thing reeks of elitism:
I want to help the folks in the "desert" as much as David does (that is where our "Liberal hearts are not divided"). Doing so, as is implicit in David's stance however, robs Americans of work. The elitism comes when the Left makes demands for the downtrodden on the backs of the semi downtrodden (read blue collar workers).
David's stand on NAFTA however, brings us back again to a place where our Liberal hearts are not divided. I hope people will take the time to think a second time. I can imagine a way to gain agreement but I do not see the will to do it yet.
Jim
Illegal immigration
does benefit the elite Jim. I agree. They are the only ones who benefit (until society collapes altogether from their greed and misguided agenda).
The Mexican government is promishing them something in America which they can not have in their own country so they die coming here. It's that or starve. The elite in Mexcio get rid of the poor. Why aren't we going after the division of rich and poor in Mexico? Their bad policy is flowing into ours and our money flowing back into theirs. Mexico is lending us money (and we take their poor into our society). Why are the poor from Mexico our responsiblity alone? Americans are saying,it's my job and money they want.
I'm not for "illegals" from any country. Obviously criminals, sick, etc. flee here. The rest of the world has rules\borders\nationhood we have to obey. Why is ours different? One man on a liberal talk show was making fun or our "invisible borders" on the radio this morning.
It is Congress' duty to protect our borders. It's in the Constitution. We citizens have not changed that Constitution by ratification which is a contract or of how our government should function. Until that time, it is the law of the land. It served us well until the Neo Cons came to power. This is a democracy not a oligarchy.
We should stop our bad trade policy. Enforce our corporate laws. These policies are destroying other countries (except for China and even then I see illegals from there in my small subruban town). We as the leader of the "free world" have failed to do that but instead support "corporate rule and plundering" above all else. We do war for profit and power. We don't fight "tryanny" in China since the few profit (and they loan us money). We do talk about tryanny in Cuba because we want them in the Americas Union.
We have become what we hated most...an Empire oppressing the many for the benefit of the few. Go back in time over 200 years ago.
Most Americans liberal or not agree that the direction is wrong. They want immigration laws enforced and employers to be punished. The polls are there for all to see. The 2006 election was also a mandate on immigration enforcement.
Ideal Staffing's
Ideal Staffing's owners, [an employment co.] are about to be indicted for aquiring jobs for 27 illegal immigrants who used fake documents to gain access to sensitive areas at O'Hare ap.
I heard a conservative pundit/economist last night saying that we need Mexican workers in large numbers to work in this country, because Americans aren't having enough children to fill the work force. I find that about as close to honest as the republicans are likely to get. Could this be why they are so hot to over turn Roe v Wade? Just a thought.
I just don't see how bush can continue to cry "the terrorist are coming, be very, very afraid", when he encourages illegal immigration to fill the under class work force. I guess repugs don't have a nose for hypocrisy.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis
"I'm just pissed off that not enough other people are pissed off."~Bill Maher
Until there are enough jobs paying livable wages
in the countries of origin, many will continue to immigrate to US in search of work.
Mexico, among other countries, should be making efforts to produce jobs with
livable wages for their people.
We know they don't as the slave wages earned in Mexican factories and production plants
are the No. 1 reason American jobs are outsourced to Mexico.
Now even Hershey's chocolate is moving their plant to Mexico.
The " great American treat" is no longer made in the US.
I teach the children of immigrants from Mexico( and other Latin American countries) who relate stories of how their parents,friends and relatives earn( earned) $4-$8. a day working in their homeland.
There is an gross imbalance and distribution of wealth in many of these countries.
This is beginning to change, but not fast enough.