Really, Lawrence O'Donnell? Really?
MSNBC just hosted an interesting forum on immigration and the law, held at the University of San Diego.
Listening to the panel that Lawrence O'Donnell has convened, I have some questions, because I heard a number of specious claims that weren't challenged.
- Panel members have said "Employers in the IT sector would love to hire qualified Americans, but unfortunately there aren't any. Employers must import specialists from India and China to cover jobs."
As someone in the IT sector who, like many of my friends, went into debt getting a PhD, I've see my doctoral colleagues replaced by onshored workers without a higher degree (some have no degree). They were hired because they were cheap labor. End of story.
Is there any hard research to back up the panelist's claim that we really have an IT qualifications shortage in this country? Also, if we do have such a shortage (documentation please), is onshoring foreign labor the best response?
I also see the argument that US citizens would not be willing to do factory or Ag work for a pittance like undocumented immigrants will. That may be true. But why should ANY employer be allowed to treat workers this way? Why is the power of prevailing wage completely dead in this country?
Answer: It's due to the laissez-faire economics that cheap immigrant labor is being used to perpetuate.
- Panel members have said repeatedly: "We must compete in the global economy. Our free market demands that we import cheap labor. We should enact a guest labor law."
Yes, this is the right-wing economic position. The conservative Latino panelist who argued that cheap immigrant labor and laissez-faire economics go hand-in-hand is right. My question is:
Why is there no labor-supporting economic position on O'Donnell's panel? Why is nobody up there arguing that immigrants should not be used to bust unions?
- One panelist argued that "if the recruited illegal workers were Canadian, no American would have a problem with it. This is a race problem." Many other panelists' arguments centered around the positive contributions of immigrants, as though the only arguments against unrestricted illegal immigration are rooted in racial prejudice or xenophobia.
Why can't you conceive of the idea that a person can embrace both other races/ethnicities, and their traditions, and other nationalities, but have a problem when immigrants are being used by corporations to specifically destroy 100 years of labor reform in this country?
- A theme that keeps running through the conversation is the need for a "humane" response to illegal immigration. Border laws, or laws that harshly punish employers for hiring illegally, or that deny the ability to get social services or a drivers' license, etc. are all "inhumane."
Okay. If I went to Europe, or any other first world country (and many 2nd and 3rd world countries), and overstayed my VISA, they would not deny me medical treatment. But they sure as HELL wouldn't give me a job, or Food Stamps, or a drivers' license, and they would definitely deport me if I were caught. Are they inhumane?
Also, we bombed Iraq and Afghanistan to smithereens, destroying millions of lives. For the sake of being humane, don't we owe the people whose lives we're ruined a place to live and a job? Doesn't "humanity" demand that we open the borders completely to anyone who is suffering, from anywhere? Is it fair to penalize would-be immigrants just because they'd have to come on a boat? Or, if they came into Mexico first and crossed the border that way, should that be what determines their right to stay?
And if we do open the border, are we prepared to "humanely" care for all those immigrants and their children? If we aren't prepared to open the border, on what basis are we making the decision about what suffering people deserve to come and stay? Is our basis for deciding "humane" to those who are denied?
- The point was made that if we give the undocumented a path to citizenship, they will soon be fired and replaced by an undocumented worker, because a citizen will no longer be so exploitable.
This question was never answered. Why not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am a big believer in the value of diversity, of all of us learning many languages. I deeply value the cultural contributions of all immigrants. I speak Spanish, have fought for justice in Latin America, and strongly believe in the workers' movements in the entirety of the western hemisphere.
I am also a big believer in a sustainable balance between available jobs and available labor. I'm a believer in the power to organize, and the right to shape trade law around what creates strong labor here at home, and not what serves global corporate interests. (I think corporations and employers that hire illegally should be cripplingly fined, and the money should go to the workers they exploited. Meg Whitman included.)
I believe workers' movements should be united across borders. We should be fighting hard for justice for workers in Mexico and Latin America, and against policies that harm them. Unfortunately, it seems that many liberals are afraid to fight against right-wing economic policies where immigrants are being used to enact them.
The irony, of course, is that the great California Farm Workers' Union organizer, Cesar Chavez, was vehemently against the use of immigrants to destroy organized labor, and he challenged immigrants and citizens to take a stand against such policies, even if it meant turning down a job, for the same reason people should think twice about crossing a picket line.