Skip to main content

   I always understood that left wing politics stood for two basic things. First and foremost, the left stood up for the economic welfare of the working man and for the ability of workers to harvest a proper return for their contribution to the value of production rather than allowing capital to draw a disproportionate return (whether based on notions of egalitarianism or on the Henry Ford principle that the economy prospers most for all classes when the workers can afford to buy the goods they make).  Second, the left stood for equal rights and opportunities and against inherited advantage, again either as a matter of principle or for the functional reason that this allows the most efficient use of human talent, contributing to the prosperity of all. On both of these measures, the immigration policies pushed by the Democratic party are more consistent with right-wing views than with the left wing.

   I will show this with statistics and history, but first let me start with a story from another country. Any American who visited Norway in the early 1990s would have been struck by the fact that the hotel maids were blond native Norwegians who seemed to be perfectly content with their jobs. Then Norway became a destination for refugees and it entered into immigration agreements with the EU. Soon the maids shifted to being foreign-born. The hotels could now hire lower-cost labor and be less concerned with working conditions, and so the jobs that the locals had been content with degenerated into jobs that Norwegians didn’t want to do. The natives didn’t become more prosperous; the jobs became worse.

    In the immigration debate, the Democratic leadership defends free immigration and non-enforcement of the law in large part by saying that immigrants do the jobs that no American wants to do. Would Americans not want to do those jobs if they had good pay and working conditions? Isn’t the leadership really saying, “We have allowed jobs for relatively uneducated workers to become substandard, but rather than doing anything about that we’ll just bring in immigrants to do them, because who cares about immigrants?”

    Let’s review a little American history. Back in the 1800s and the first part of the 20th century, American unskilled workers had no market power. While even the worst southern slave owner would at least regret his economic loss if a slave died, if a northern worker died in a workplace accident or from poverty-related disease, his industrialist boss could just hire another poor immigrant without a second thought. This led to deplorable conditions in the northern slums. Now fast-forward a little Remember the Okies who, like the Joads in The Grapes of Wrath, had become migrant farm workers? During the 1930s, in response to the plight of the Okies who very much wanted those jobs, illegal immigrants were sent home, finally allowing farm labor to start making a reasonable living. During World War II the U.S. government had encouraged foreign bracero workers to enter and replace workers who had been soaked up by the war effort, but following the war U.S. labor and civil rights leaders began attacking that program because it was depressing wages for the American workers who wanted what had become acceptable jobs. They finally succeeded in shutting down the bracero program in 1964, and an era of relatively good times followed for farm workers. Ceasar Chavez won a 40% increase in wages for grape pickers in 1967, and farm workers (including many Hispanic Americans) began to have hope. Industry responded by opening up the immigration spigot again, and the United Farm Workers union was crushed, with workers under UFW contract declining 90% over the decade from the early 70s to the early 80s. Since then, the significance of farm work to the immigrant labor force has declined dramatically, with some 85% of immigrants now moving to urban centers and finding employment in construction and services.

    The basic law of supply and demand dictates that if the supply of unskilled labor increases without control, wages for work suitable to that pool will fall. For the manufacturing industry, this effect has been seen as globalization enabled companies to replace American manufacturing labor with much cheaper employees elsewhere. New factories were located abroad in low-wage locations, and as this trend took hold it became very difficult for companies to resist it even if they wanted to. Firms that kept using high-cost labor for low-skilled jobs either could not compete against foreign rivals (think TV manufacturing) or were acquired by companies that felt no qualms about relocating.

    Now envision Montgomery Burns in a back room somewhere conspiring against working people.  “Excellent, we have crushed the market power of the factory workers. However, there are many jobs in construction and services that we cannot move to other countries. What can we do to keep those workers from making annoying demands for bigger paychecks? We need to bring enough cheap foreign workers here to break their market power, too.”  That, of course, is exactly what happened over the same period that middle class manufacturing employees were being crushed.

    Can I prove that? Yes. Immigrants have a different education profile than U.S. natives. 32.5% of foreign-born workers in the U.S. labor pool have less than a high school education, versus 11.7% of U.S.-born workers. Slightly fewer immigrant workers have just a high school education than U.S. natives, but a relatively high proportion of the children of immigrants tend to have just high school degrees, so call that one about even. Immigrants have the same proportion of college degrees as natives. However, only 18.5% of immigrants fall in the some college/associates degree range, versus 31% of natives. So, if there is an immigration effect on pay, you would expect to see the wages of workers with less than a high school degree depressed relative to those with some college or an associates degree. You would expect to see wages at other income levels depressed a little, but a maximum effect at this level.

    It is easy to run this experiment now because immigrants have deeply penetrated all 50 states , rather than being mainly confined to a few gateway states, but they are present in varying states at varying levels. Further, because different immigrant subgroups have different education profiles, you can refine the analysis by looking at the sub-component that is most skewed towards less than a high school education. The 50 states give you 50 data points. If you compare the ratio of immigrants in the low-education group to the total workforce against the differential between the pay of workers with some college/associates degrees and that of those with less than a high school education, you get a correlation coefficient of .706 and an R Squared of .50. This means that 50% of the variation from state to state in the advantage of having some college versus having less than a high school degree is accounted for by the level of immigrants in the low-education group in that state’s workforce. I checked some obvious possible alternative explanations, such as whether immigrants are attracted to low-wage states and that the education/wage difference in those states might be higher, but the data do not support any such alternative theories. The data show that a relatively uncontrolled supply of unskilled labor depresses the market value of unskilled workers, which should not be a huge surprise.

    If the Democratic party cares about American workers, about black Americans (19% of whom have less than a high school degree) or about Hispanic Americans, then it should seek to impose real controls on the employment of immigrant labor in order to balance supply and demand at a better level.

    Would that leave U.S. employers without people to do “the jobs that Americans don’t want to do”? Yes, so those employers would need to raise wages and improve working conditions to make the jobs acceptable.  That would result in somewhat fewer, but better, jobs. With the growth in Americans’ preference for locally-grown food,  American growers could handle the strain. The construction industry and service industries could certainly adapt. Only Monty Burns would lose.

    Wealthy businesspeople own news media. They also make heavy campaign contributions to candidates from both political parties. We the people should not allow the wealthy to use these channels to fool us into thinking that what is pushed as a Democratic/left-wing position is really a position consistent with left-wing values.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not a left wing issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Truthguy

    It's either a centrist issue, just another faux progressive con to reward corporate plutocrats, or it's using identity politics to get votes.  

    I definitely do not vote on this issue.  

  •  I'm a little confused. You say the left should (11+ / 0-)

    1) stand up for the economic welfare of the working man (and woman) and

    2) stand for equal rights and opportunities and against inherited advantage.

    If I apply those two tests to immigration, don't I find that the left should 1) stand up for working immigrants to harvest a proper return, and should 2) stand for equal opportunity against the inherited advantage of birthplace?

    Now, if the left stood first and foremost for the economic welfare of the American-born worker, that'd be a different story. (I do think that the issue is more complex than this, with work visas and the like, but am trying to discuss it within your frame.)

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:10:08 PM PDT

    •  Labor must be as free to move as capital is. (9+ / 0-)

      Capital must be as restricted as labor is.

      It's really not hard.  Many people are blinded by nationalism.

      -7.75 -4.67

      "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

      There are no Christians in foxholes.

      by Odysseus on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:15:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm having a hard time even (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, pico, AoT, ivorybill

        imagining a world where capital is as restricted as labor!

        But I think I like it.

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:25:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Prior to "free trade" and "free markets" both (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, ivorybill, Odysseus

          capital and goods/services were less "flowing."

          None of the trade agreements have liberalized the flow of labor, thus creating awful distortions, pain, suffering, starvation and death in many lands.

          Immigration is a "left issue" because economic policy has caused awful situations.  Just as "the left" responded to Reagan's contra wars and dirty wars in Central America with the sanctuary movement and support for fleeing refugees, the left should support the refugees from our abusive trade policies created solely for the benefit of Wall Street.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 09:57:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Then Families and Neighborhoods Should Be Free (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, millwood, YucatanMan, wu ming

        to move too, because people are human animals who make up societies and tend to bond with and integrate into them. A global survey done by Canadian Broadcasting in the early 2000's found that at all levels of development, most people in all or almost all countries didn't want to come to the US for example.

        Societies should make it easy for people to have opportunity when they live like people, not to make opportunity contingent on people living like money.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:56:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is the crux. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re: GussieFN (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GussieFN

      I am starting from the proposition that we lack the wherewithal to waive a magic wand and cure the world. The best way to stand up for the rights of immigrants is to carefully meter further immigration to avoid destroying their market power. Then we can provide opportunity to as many as we can absorb without destroying market power. I am not saying stop immigration, I am saying that if we care about workers and immigrants, we should meter it effectively.

      I would be pleased to see any solution that would allow us to raise all of the world's poor to middle class status, but until that clever idea is presented, is it not better to actually provide opportunity to some than to instead exploit an unlimited number and keep them in poverty?

      •  The solution is simply this: reverse 'free trade' (0+ / 0-)

        and institute Fair Trade in its place.  Environmental protections or tariffs as a penalty.  Fair and decent working conditinos or tariffs as a penalty. End of massive agricultural subsidies for factory farm products like corn.

        The issue of labor is resolved through vigorous and widespread enforcement of workplace rules:  no one gets cheated out of overtime, is forced to work extended periods without days off, days without breaks or lunch, etc, etc.

        Labor distortions come about not because there are undocumented immigrants but because labor laws and regulations go unenforced.  So unscrupulous employers game the system by abusing undocumented workers.  

        In other words, rather consider that the pie is limited and "meter" (sounds pretty odious to me) immigration, consider that all boats can be raised together by enforcing the labor laws already on the books.  A good boost toward labor organizing from the apparently neutered and missing Labor Department would also help.  

        I appreciate that you are struggling for a solution, but I see the problem being rooted in different areas than "metering" ("control the border" by another name?).

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 10:03:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That may all be fair and true, (0+ / 0-)

        but it's non-responsive to the question in your diary title, which I was attempting to answer, of how the left's stance fits with what you assert are the left's principles.

        I'm just saying that, according to your definitions, they seem a fairly good match.

        (Though I'll also say that I think 'meter' is doing a lot of work in your comment--and that I suspect it's got about the same status, solution-wise, as the pipe-dream of raising all the world's poor to middle-class status. Very easy to say.)

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:34:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Um, no. (12+ / 0-)

    The current setup, with undocumented workers, favors wage depression and worker exploitation.  Allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows and become citizens works against the ability of employers to hire more cheaply, as those workers can now organize and demand fair wages, commensurate with the wages native born workers would demand.

    The left is in favour of raising standards for labor worldwide, as well, not just in the States.  Getting other countries with underpaid workers working in unsafe environments to pay those workers more and enact the same safety standards as the US creates 'fair trade', rather than 'free trade', and disincentivizes the offshoring of jobs.

    •  The Assumption Being Of Course (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, Odysseus, Truthguy

      Allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows and become citizens works against the ability of employers to hire more cheaply

      That at the same time you have stopped any future flow of cheaper labor.

      This is part of the problem, the 'coming out of the shadows' part always occurs, the 'stopping the future flow of cheaper labor' ... not so much.

      There have been seven amnesties since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:39:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is why it's important to support workers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, YucatanMan

        worldwide.  Labor can either 'race to the bottom', or 'race to the top'.  If you focus solely on the local inequality in power between labor and capital, you're always fighting the tide.  You need to lift up your fellow workers worldwide, to the point that there simply are no areas of cheaper labor, or if there still are, they're incentivized enough to remain in their home countries for reasons other than just higher pay.

        •  One Will Note That You Never Address The Fallacy (0+ / 0-)

          Of your assumption. All I get is the stock 'socialist workers of the world unite'.

          I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

          by superscalar on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:48:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is your preferred (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan

            method to stop the flow of cheap labor?

            (Setting aside, for the moment, if that's a wise goal. My grandfathers were both cheap labor, which certainly colors my thinking.)

            "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

            by GussieFN on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:58:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What fallacy? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, YucatanMan, wu ming

            We have minimum wage laws.  We have safety standards.  If people are allowed to work legally, you can't pay them less, because they can simply take you to court for exploiting them.

            The only way 'future cheaper workers' can be paid less is if they're once again 'in the shadows'.  And the solution to that is to actually make hiring under the table far more dangerous to employers.  If your company can actually be ruined by trying to pay under minimum, or trying to steal worker wages, or other abuses, you won't do it.  They do it now, simply because the fines imposed are trifling.  It's just regarded as another 'cost of doing business'.

            If employers have to pay prevailing wages, there's no incentive to hire undocumented workers, either.

            •  Re: what Fallacy? (0+ / 0-)

              Minimum wage is not a huge consolation, is it? Over the past 30 years the inflation-adjusted median income for high school graduates has fallen nearly 50%. We are creating an underclass dependent upon the kind intentions of a government controlled by rich contributors.

      •  labor that has no recourse to legal or regulatory (0+ / 0-)

        protection will always be far cheaper and easier to exploit than labor with access to those protections. it isn't numerical supply nearly so much as legal vulnerability that suppresses wages in this country.

  •  I was struck by this... (9+ / 0-)

    "Any American who visited Norway in the early 1990s would have been struck by the fact that the hotel maids were blond native Norwegians"

    I think most of the fear of immigration has to do with fear of being overwhelmed by the "other".  That's why you were careful to point out the color of the Norweigian maids.  You mention that the hotel maids in Norway, while dark, are refugees - undermining your argument about cheap labor.  Refugees are not admitted because they are cheap labor, they are admitted under the Refugee Convention because they are at risk, and UNHCR and national governments have decided that a durable solution requires moving them.  So the CT about refugees getting low wage jobs in Norway (or here) because of wanting to stiff citizens is not true.

    But beyond that, how is it not a progressive value to bring people out of the shadows and give them the same rights and protections to contest low wages?  Undocumented people can be taken advantage of.  With permanent residence or citizenship, they can organize, join unions, and tell employers who threaten then with exposure or take advantage of them to take a hike.  I think this is a good thing, and so do most unions, who support immigration reform.

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:38:27 PM PDT

    •  It's Not About Bringing Present Workers Out of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Truthguy

      shadows, it's about continuing the flow of immigration into a labor market with high unemployment.

      Personally I'd create a separate parallel citizenship process for the 12 million or whatever, and let them become citizens just as fast as anyone coming here from overseas through normal channels.

      I keep threatening to do this and as soon as we unpack from house moving I will. I'll do a photo compilation of all the crap hard labor jobs such as groundskeeping, ditch digging and roofing that are still being done mostly by the same mix of locals with the same local accents who have always done them around here.

      Sure immigration's given us quite a few new demographics but we never let them be used to break the standard of living of bluecollar labor. There aren't jobs Americans won't do, only incomes they can't survive in the middle class on.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:01:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: I was struck by this (0+ / 0-)

      Actually i was just commenting on the obvious localness of the hotel maids in the early 90s because it struck an American accustomed to the "jobs Americans don't want to do" BS as being visually weird, and thus helped to provoke serious thought as to why we accept a whole class of jobs that we think of as being crappy being the near-exclusive domain of immigrants and minorities. That is a pretty lousy thing to accept when you really dwell on it a while. We should fix it by working to make all jobs something that Americans would consider to be OK. The new Norwegians are a combination of refugees and economic migrants from the poorer new entrants to the EU, but either way the fact is that they undercut the market power of the existing workforce.

  •  This would have been a good debate to have (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Empty Vessel, FG, YucatanMan, wu ming

    15 or 20 years ago. Unfortunately, it's too late. They're here. Let's legalize 'em, find out who they are, get 'em out of the shadows so they can't be exploited as badly. Certainly, there was a good deal of internal outsourcing going on; construction (who do you think built all those McMansions for the housing boom ?) and meat processing in the Midwest (bust the unions, chop the wages, speed up the line) in particular. But what's done is done. Get them legal then try to unionize them.

    The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

    by Azazello on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:26 PM PDT

    •  Lather, Rinse, Repeat n/t (0+ / 0-)

      I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

      by superscalar on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:41:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Azazello, YucatanMan

      Anyone who thinks the border can be secured, or that businesses will stop hiring illegal aliens is clearly not facing reality.

      These people are here, its time to recognize it, and accept that any policy that says 'no mas' is destined to fail.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:59:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If we hire them they will come. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Empty Vessel

        The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

        by Azazello on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:08:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And there will always be ways to hire them. nt. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Azazello

          "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

          by Empty Vessel on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:09:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Carlos Galindo maintains that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Empty Vessel

            the quickest way to amnesty is serious employer sanctions. Threaten Tyson, Cargill or the National Hotel and Restaurant Association with higher labor costs and you'll have Comprehensive Immigration Reform in a week.

            The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

            by Azazello on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:13:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  From what I understand (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Azazello, FG

              When California passed stiffer employer sanctions, all the big farm companies shifted to hiring contractors to recruit and screen workers--thus the farms no longer needed to screen themselves.  The upshot was, thousands of little shell companies were formed, then reformed each time they got busted and their business licenses revoked.  But the big farms still got the same people, picking the same vegetables at the same wage as they always had.

              If we make stiffer employer sanctions nationwide, these tactics will likely go nationwide too.  I think people forget that for every action, (e.g., fortifying the border or instituting checks), there is always a creative countermeasure that can defeat it.

              "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

              by Empty Vessel on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:17:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well sure, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Empty Vessel

                that's how union busting is always done. The big outfits pay contractors to do the hiring. Let's put the resources we put into "border security" into labor law enforcement and see what happens. I know that South to North migration is global, or at least transatlantic, and I believe I understand the economics involved, but from a Left/Labor POV I want to help American workers. I don't want a totally borderless world. I believe in controls on international movements of capital as well.

                The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

                by Azazello on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:38:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's definitely being done to insulate "real" (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Azazello, wu ming, Empty Vessel

                employers from undocumented workers:  Contract out the work.  The same employees keep doing the same work, but now they are "contractors" for a third-party company.  These contractor companies appear and fade away as often as necessary, which keeps them ahead of the government.

                The issue isn't to penalize undocumented workers or their employers.  The issue is that employers everywhere are allowed to get away with union-destroying tactics and with labor law violations on a vast scale.

                Start enforcing the law on breaks, lunches, overtime, pay, union rights, and on down the line and the advantages of undocumented or contractors or whatever disappears.  

                Federal support for workers has been minimal to completely missing since Reagan.

                A lot of people do not realize the rising immigrant population is due exactly to efforts to "secure the border."  Prior to Clinton's border tightening (he doubled the Border Patrol), immigrants flowed across the border relatively easily.  

                The would arrive, work several months to a couple years, go back home and start their life with money earned in the USA.  Or they would work cyclically, arriving for a few months, going back for a few months, repeat.

                Once the border was toughened, immigrants began to stay longer and longer and eventually not going back because it was too dangerous -- US policy is responsible for driving people into the deserts -- and too costly.  So, now the immigrant population started rising.

                When Bush further "strengthened the border" with walls and yet more Border Patrol, the effect intensified even further.  A mortgage industry dedicated specifically to funding undocumented immigrant home purchases arose.  People moved here permanently, then sent for their families.

                And everyone wonders how this all started.  If they'd let well enough alone, people would have continued to flow back and forth as their needs and US economic conditions warranted.  Instead, harsh and restrictive policies have led to permanent increases in immigrant populations.  

                The reaction is not always what people think. The past 20 years of immigration policy have been an abject failure. Time to rethink the entire thing.

                And the Senate bill isn't anywhere close to what is really needed.  It truly is an immigrant punishment bill. Many see it as highly punitive. Of course, Senate Republicans agreed to it, so it has to be by default.

                "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                by YucatanMan on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 10:17:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Two Separate Issues: Continuing Immigration (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, YucatanMan

    and the standing millions of undocumented workers who have been here for years. It's nothing but upside to make them legal residents ASAP and citizens ASAP.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:03:57 PM PDT

  •  I have to say, I'm pro amnesty (4+ / 0-)

    Legalize them, as in pronto. The left wing stands up for the poor, the exploited, the middle class, so we gladly opened our wing to them.

    The reason our economy is suffering is because our industrial based was packed up and shipped to China, so everybody is fighting over service jobs now. Corporations didn't roll back the prices on cheaply made goods overseas, they pocketed the difference. Eventually though, without changes, there won't be enough local consumers for their products and then real problems occur.

    I've seen some hardboiled eggs in my time, but you're about twenty minutes

    by harrylimelives on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 05:34:07 PM PDT

  •  the way to beat the divide and conquer game (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    is not to attack other workers on account of their country of origin, it is to do what radical labor did back in the late 19th and early 20th century, and unionize everyone in solidarity.

    solidarity across racial lines and country of origin lines and ethnic lines is thw only way to win, by denying the capitalists the ability to use one vulnerable desperate outsider group as strikebreakers.

    since immigration papers are how the current capitalists divide labor, immigration reform + aggressive unionization is the best way to weaken that attack. buying into the false populism that demonizes immigrants helps capital, it does not weaken it.

    solidarity has always been a core issue of the left.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site