Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati‘Go Ahead, Try and Make Me Pay You’: Wage Theft and SB 1070
The Arizona Interfaith Alliance for Worker Justice, a worker center in Phoenix, has seen a "huge spike" in wage theft since SB 1070, Arizona's draconian immigration law, passed in April. Trina Zelle, the group's executive director, has seen a "noticeable shift" in the four months since the measure was signed into law.
"Employers are even more brazen in their mistreatment of workers," Zelle says. "Increasingly, "Go ahead, try and make me pay you" is the response workers hear when they confront their employers over unpaid wages.
Under S.B. 1070, scheduled to be implemented on Thursday, the police are required to question anyone they have a "reasonable suspicion" is in the country illegally, and arrest and move to deport anyone who can't prove their legal status. The law will lead to racial profiling, deter immigrants from reporting crimes, and further exacerbate racism and intolerance.
As early as May, the measure had cast an ominous shadow. A friend of Zelle's, a Latino U.S. citizen, was pulled over by police and asked for his birth certificate. Naturally incredulous - who travels with their birth certificate? - he was told by the cop, "Well, you look like an illegal." So even before its official implementation, the law has made a palpable impact. The measure's mere passage, say worker center organizers, has begun to drive immigrant workers even further underground, having a silencing effect on them in the face of rampant violations of their rights in the workplace. The Houston Interfaith Worker Justice Center has also seen more cases of wage theft recently. "Workers do frequently mention that employers verbally abuse them because of their immigration status (or assumed immigration status)," says Laura Boston, the worker center's director. "Frequently," she adds, "employers use immigration status as an excuse to justify not paying them." "We've certainly seen a marked difference," says José Oliva, Policy Coordinator for the Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC) United, which organizes restaurant workers:
Workers, on the one hand, are a lot more fearful to start workplace justice campaigns with us. What used to take our organizers a couple of weeks of house visits and one-on-one meetings is now dragging on for months.
On the other hand, high-road employers who are paying living wages and providing benefits are fearful and confused - even if they're not in Arizona, they somehow think cops anywhere can bust in and check peoples' documents. It's definitely a lot worse, and the law isn't even being enforced yet!
Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), sees the new law as a direct attack on workers.
"The first place the authorities will go is to day laborer corners," he says. On Monday, a day laborer from Guatemala fell off a roof and died in Phoenix. "The employer is nowhere to be found," says Alvarado. "When S.B. 1070 goes into effect, do you think the wife of that man is going to call the police or the Department of Labor? People are not going to be filing claims. The abuse is going to get worse. It's a human rights crisis." This is what Michelle Chen recently called, "the downward spiral of exploitation across the entire labor force." And with a broken national immigration system, legislators in more than 20 states are considering copycat measures, tapping into anti-immigrant sentiment that has only been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
But despite the media hype surrounding those measures, anti-immigrant initiatives around the country in the wake of S.B. 1070's passage seem to be failing. As the Progressive States Network points out, "the reality is that from Nevada to Arkansas to Massachusetts to Kansas and Rhode Island, anti-immigrant bills and ballot initiatives largely didn't move or failed to make this fall's ballot." We believe this is a direct result of the huge national outcry and mobilization in opposition to S.B. 1070 on the part of immigrant rights activists, worker advocates, and faith groups. Any state legislature considering passing a similar measure is confronted with the reality of the huge economic and social costs the state of Arizona has had to endure after passing SB 1070. The key to stemming the downward spiral of exploitation is tougher labor law enforcement. "If we ever hope to bring immigrant workers out of the shadows in which they've been laboring," says Kim Bobo, author of Wage Theft in America and the Executive Director of Interfaith Worker Justice, "we need to forcefully oppose anti-immigrant legislation and stand up for both comprehensive immigration reform and vigorous enforcement of the nation's labor laws." And those labor laws apply to all workers employed in the U.S. regardless of immigration status - a fact constantly underscored by U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. Another Progressive States Network report points in the same direction, underscoring that the federal government's "systematic lack of wage law enforcement has contributed to the dysfunction of our immigration system." The report adds an interesting strategic twist:
Since going after employers who violate wage laws politically unites all workers, immigrant and native alike, cracking down on those employers will actually strengthen the progressive political base. Wage enforcement campaigns, the report points out, have served to undermine anti-immigrant attacks. When the Iowa Senate, for example, approved a bill to tighten enforcement on employers who violate Iowa wage laws, it stalled movement of an anti-immigrant bill approved in the state's House and effectively put the kibosh on anti-immigrant legislation. The S.B. 1070 knife cuts both ways, observes Jacob Lesniewski, organizer with the Arise Chicago Worker Center:
[It] poses an existential threat that either pushes people further into the shadows or moves them to take action. Some people are so fearful that they won't even come forward, but some are so angry that they're willing to risk a lot to claim their rights. If you can get deported just walking around, why not put up a fight? It's Zapata's admonition that it's better to die standing than to live on your knees.
134 Comments so far
Show AllOne hundred and forty-five years after the American Civil War to 'end' slavery (yeah, I know it was about so much more than just freeing the slaves...), the practice of making a profit from the unpaid labor and brutal exploitation of human beings makes it's triumphant return to the US.
Between the despicably racist and intolerant laws deliberately targeting a visible minority in Arizona, to the lethal hazards faced by prison labor 'hired' by BP, *SLAVERY* is back, baby! And there ain't no-one gonna be having no 'Civil War' to stop it this time, 'cause the US Constitution is so much old toilet paper!
The Fourteenth Amendment, which magnanimously granted recently freed slaves of African descent the same status as human beings (sort of) has been used by Corporations to become legal 'persons' who now enjoy the *COMPLETE* protection of the US Constitution while actual living, breathing human beings are being denied the very same rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The rank hypocrisy and arrogance of AMerica stuns even as it disgusts.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
Would like some tips on how not to serve the empire....I do my best, but being on SS makes it difficult....
"deliberately targeting a visible minority in Arizona"
I have been under the impression that there is no language in the law that does this. Can you cite the part of the law that does?
There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates the Corporation shall have the same rights and protections of a Citizen.
The Constitutions "language" has been interperted that way.
In the last few months the US Supreme Court granted all rights and privileges granted to living human being to Corporations, especially freedom of speech as it pertains to campaign spending.
Just a few of the articles on the subject:
http://www.progressive.org/node/139041/3009
http://www.teachablemoment.org/high/corporatespending.html
http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2010/01/ supreme-court-says-corporations- should-decide-elections/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? context=viewArticle&code=HIR20100127&articleId=17222
jakenewton, you are correct in saying that there is no specific language that states that law enforcement officers are to "deliberate[ly] target[ing] a visible minority..."
The law does state that 'reasonable suspicion' is enough to stop some one. That person then has the burden of proving that they are legally in the USA. Because of the history of Arizona, and other parts of the Southwest, some believe there is a likelihood that the people who would most likely be stopped are those who look Hispanic. Looking like a Swede would probably not get anyone stopped. That would be my surmise as to the most likely basis for the statement of which you are inquiring.
I tend to agree with what you have written. It seems that the problem of how this law would be enforced is not unique to this law would be a concern to *any* law. As of now, the outrage is hypothetical only, and if there prove to be incidents, it would seem to stem from the implementation and execution of the law, and not any defect in the law itself.
But if this is true, the objection can apply to most any law.
"The law does state that 'reasonable suspicion' is enough to stop some one"
Actually, that's incorrect. The law says that after someone was stopped by police for another reason (made up or not), then and only then can they be asked to prove residency.
You must have actually read the law, thanks for pointing it out.
Yes, I did. Pretty boring read for a non-lawyer.
One more point that most people miss: a driver license is accepted as proof of legal residence.
so unless I'm missing something, you get stopped by cops for whatever reason, and you present a valid driver license, the question of your immigration status has been answered.
It is kind of presumptive of you to assume that cops would only stop someone driving a car. What about poeple on foot? Last I checked, in the US, one is not compelled to give any form of ID to a cop, but cops can stop someone on foot for any and all sorts of reasons, as they do drivers.
You are correct. Mostly. You are supposed to carry id (driver license) when you operate a motor vehicle tho.
That is because there is no "right" to operate a motor vehicle, it is a privlege. Lots of people where I live don't own or use motor vehicles. They rely on the bus or jitney, or they walk.
"Last I checked, in the US, one is not compelled to give any form of ID to a cop"
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
The Supreme court is full of certifiable fascists, like Scalia. Surely you don't agree with this ruling?
It went against considerable precedent before it, and in time, it will hopefully be reversed.
However, even this ruling didn't compel Hilbel to present a physical document - only that he identify himself i.e. verbally.
We are not a "show me your papers" society, thank goodness. When I was working in Venezuela in the 1980's, I had quite enough of the roadside "acabalas" and the Uzi or AK-47 armed cops ordering me to "Deme su cedula!"
"The Supreme court is full of certifiable fascists, like Scalia."
The ruling was 7-2 affirming.
"Surely you don't agree with this ruling? "
Let's just say I'll never lose sleep over it I am sure.
"It went against considerable precedent before it,"
Oh really? Like what? Actually it looks as though the opposite is true, that there have long been various dorts of stop and identify laws.
"We are not a "show me your papers" society, thank goodness."
"even this ruling didn't compel Hilbel to present a physical document "
The *Nevada* courts opinion stated it's understanding that the request for ID under the Nevada law did not go beyond stating his name. However in the Supreme Court's majority decision they understood it to mean written ID. Hiibel never raised this argument until petitioning the Supreme court. Sounds like a punk to me anyway *shrug*
"We are not a "show me your papers" society, "
There are stop and identify laws in 24 states, so it depends where you are. And what is not clear is whether there even needs to be a law to grant the authority, as with Terry vs. Ohio.
"Venezuela"
I hear it's like a paradise now.
"Venezuela"
I hear it's like a paradise now.
---------------------------------------------
The ordinary folk are miles in front of where they were before Hugo. Which is probably close to being close enough for the moment.
Maybe, but I'll bet you still have to show ID to the police if asked. Just guessing though.
"Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor
I'll piss on them
That's what the Statue of Bigotry says"
Lou Reed ---- Dirty Boulevard
It has always been about the status quo.
George Washington was about keeping his stuff too, and farmers fighting for him who wanted more were not treated kindly by him.
Those who already have and really want equality are very very few.
Love
Zero
If a person is "suspected" of a crime, the burden of proof is on the state, which must make its case "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence; the defendant enjoys the "presumption of innocence."
And that's about as fundamental to justice and what we used to call "the American way," as you can get.
Why should it be different with a suspected immigration violation? Why should the burden of proof be on the accused instead of on the state?
Hell, I was born in Chicago and have lived in the US all my life. But I'd be hard-pressed to "prove" it to some cop on the street who thinks I'm a shade too tan.
These kinds of immigration laws are anathema to "liberty and justice for all."
It's a disgrace.
sj
www.spartacusjones.com
"Hell, I was born in Chicago and have lived in the US all my life. But I'd be hard-pressed to "prove" it to some cop on the street who thinks I'm a shade too tan."
You don't have a drivers license, a library card, an insurance card, AAA card, SS card, any of which and more are all you need to show that officer and who under this law is specifically forbidden to stop you for that "tan shade" unlike the national immigration law.
If you have no identification on you, you can't tell me honestly you'd be surprised if that officer suspected you of something.
"If you have no identification on you, you can't tell me honestly you'd be surprised if that officer suspected you of something?"
Good grief! Learn your rights. Will you please read the 4th Amendment? In the United States, a person is never required to present any type of identification card or paper to a cop. OK?
I would tell you in my State you had better not be driving without a license and insurance, both of which, by law must be in your possession.
And you are quite correct, you do not have to, however if you have none, he would be a pretty poor cop if he didn't suspect you were a nogoodnik. If you are here with legal status and not a citizen you are required to have those papers on you at all times.
Racial profiling is illegal, but profiling is most of police work as you well know. A good Cop is never going to a charity auction looking for a petty criminal (yes, he might find a few BIG criminals there).
There was this place once called NAZI GERMANY.
You should look it up sometime.
Cut out the drama. There have *always* been stop and identify statuates on the books in the US, 24 states currently have them. And it's not even clear that the laws are even required to provide that power to law enforcement anyway.
I forgot my wallet. It is at home. Why did the officer detain me in the first place, just to see if I was carrying ID? What gives the officer the right to do that? Because I'm a little bit too "tan"? Because I happened to be speaking Spanish to a friend? Why?
He stopped you in the first place because you had done something...jaywalked, ran a red light, etc. He is not allowed to stop you because he heard you speaking Spanish to a friend or were a bit tan.
And if you can give an adequate explanation, even no identification is not a real problem.
And skin color has little to do with it overall. Illegal aliens are about half white and Asian.
I think I saw that episode of Leave it to Beaver too.
Now, back to the real world of racist cops, politicians, and the prison system. Back to "Driving while Brown/Black" statistics and murder on the border:
14 Examples
Rampant Racism in the Criminal Justice System
By BILL QUIGLEY
http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley07262010.html
Fantasies of persecution are not my bag. The song is fairly old and while some of the lyrics are still true, most are gone.
in your white TV world, numbers and stats = fantasies. racism is dead, institutionalized racism is a leftist invention, and cops are everyone's best friend that only enforce the laws in a fair and balanced manner, regardless of skin color.
...and Rodney King, Oscar Grant and Sean Bell were fantasy TV shows produced in Hollywood.
I do not understand why racial insults have to be thrown around, mightymight is making a good argument that needs to be taken into account. Rather then simply bashing someones ideas you should seriously engage them and try to see things from another point of view. Perception is mostly altered by strong emotions that at times have no place in such a delicate dialogue. I am a Latino and yet I completely agree with mightymight, does that make me an uncle Tom?
There were also a number of Jews that collaborated with the Nazis. Every oppressive system will find willing collaborators. Just because you are a Latino doesn't mean that your position is politically or morally sound. I am not saying you are a "collaborator" but just making the point. In fact, I am not sure what position your supporting exactly.
Do you support SB 1070?
No I do not support Arizona's law but the truth is that something has to be done. I have plenty of students that just arrived to the US legally and cant find a job because they are competing with cheaper illegal labor. These immigrant kids are here to stay and spend their money here allowing the money to get circulated thereby aiding the economy. When I think of home I think of the Bronx not some far away land that my parents came from that is foreign to me when i go visit. Please save your high and mighty crap for some one that is willing to buy it. 99% of you so called advocates of immigration rights wont step foot in an immigrant owned establishment because your friends might see you.
You will get in serious trouble with the thought police if you try to support legal immigrants rights or God forbid American citizens rights instead of placing foreign citizens interests above both.
I just don't understand people that do that. I can see they want to destroy America as a nation, but why?
Simply to be different they will go with whatever is the zeitgeist. It is unfortunate but at times some of these impressionable youth will buy whatever crap is fed to them by these so called liberal professors whom by the way never practice what they profess. Autonomous thinkers are too few and far apart.
The only thing that has to be done is revoke NAFTA, prevent the manufacturing base in the US from moving overseas, and open the borders. Your position is perfectly in line with white supremacists, and the neo-nazis backing SB 1070.
Are you aware of the connections between the politicians that passed SB 1070 and the neo-nazis that support it and are funding its defense?
How do you justify taking up a position alongside those that are vocal racists? I do not buy into or accept the language of "illegals". In my view there is no such thing. Human beings are human beings. In your world, you divide people artificially based on economics, which is reprehensible. I hope your students revolt.
I detest racists of any color. I suggest you read what you just wrote. You are living in the thirties at best.
There are some of both of what you mentioned left, but not that much. Its mostly reverse at this point.
By the way, I have yet to determine why everyone assumed I was white. Pretty sytrange assumption I would say.
I hear you. Given all the evidence of history when it comes to abuses of authority (by those in uniform or otherwise), to lend yet more liberties to these soldiers of urban fortune is like courting fascism. ANY who use the "letter of the law" to support Arizona's racial-profiling policy is morally tone-deaf to the very apt adage... that FIRST they came for. It NEVER ends there.
I don't think there is one policy being implemented in the U.S. today that I actually agree with. On just about every topic, the leaders are taking it to, as Rumsfeld put it, "the dark side." There is no moral high ground from which the lawmakers can argue given the bankrupt economy bleeding necessary resources on illegal wars, torture camps, payoffs to bankers, and tax cuts to that already way too privileged one percent... so a SCAPEGOAT is necessary. The pattern is not new. It only works because the ethnic costumes of the targets change with the times. The modus operandi remains (thus far) intact.
I'd encourage forum members to read a story that used to be part of the mandatory curricula offered at junior high English literature classes. It's entitled, "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson. Although written as dark satire, it metaphorically speaks to OUR current societal model. Perhaps it will help some to look past their righteous regard for the letter of the law to see something more powerful in the magic moral mirror that good literature (like good film) presents.
Rose, thanks for reminding us about "The Lottery". I'd totally forgotten about it, but shouldn't have --as you say, it's still just as powerful a metaphor for our society today as it was when written 62 years ago.
"There is a sound basis for assuming that by struggling to demystify our ordinary consciousness we shall improve the prospects for peace and economic and political justice. If this potential change of odds in our favor be ever so slight, I think we must regard the expansion of scientific objectivity into the domain of lifestyle riddles as a moral imperative. It's the only thing that's never been tried." (anthro Prof. Marvin Harris, closing sentences in "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches")
>>as Rumsfeld put it, "the dark side." <<
Nitpick: It was Cheney. Same difference, though.
DKSHAW: Thank you for the correction.
MAIREAD: I have mixed feelings about the quotation from your 2nd paragraph. Too much objectivity and we end up with a society that may have a high intellectual I.Q. but at what price to its collective "emotional IQ," or as some of us would put it, soul?
"14 Examples
Rampant Racism in the Criminal Justice System
By BILL QUIGLEY"
The article was posted at CD on Monday. As usual with this subject, Bill Quigley is unable to *prove* racism as a cause of those statistics, does not discuss other non race factors that could explain them, and doesn't even try to describe any specific racist mechanism at play. Typically sloppy and likely disengenuous, as I am sure he knows better. But since the numbers "seem" to support his preconceived world view around race, so no vigorous analysis is needed.
We discussed it here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/26-2
No proof of racism. Just proof of sloppy and dishonest journalism. Please join in if you wish.
only white people believe that the criminal justice system is colorblind.
the stats speak for themselves, not to mention that those who founded the "war on drugs" admit it was intended to subjugate people of color, and use the prison system to respond the civil rights movement. Nixon himself admitted this.
"only white people believe that the criminal justice system is colorblind."
Racist statement, offered without any support. No one will ever take this seriously, and it makes you appear small and simplistic.
"the stats speak for themselves,"
Utter BS. Stats *never* "speak". Only through some type of analytical process can stats be used to say anything. This idea is *rudimentary*. It is well for society that you don't do any work requiring this fundamental knowledge. Have a nice weekend!
I am in stUTpidsville here and the white guy went on a rant. First he talked about Obama giving tax breaks to Muslims. Then went on how Obama is fighting the AZ law. I told him it was racial profiling and that many innocent people would get caught up in it. Possibly lose their jobs or spend money they don't have fighting the system. And how AZ is already broke. Then I asked him if he would like to be stopped cuz he is white? He said he would carry them with him. No problem. I asked what if he didn't know about the law and didn't have them with him. Like talking to a wall. But I think I changed his ignorent mind. Then we got back to the taxes and got that debunked. Then went on to the birth certificate shit. Told him how we were paying the Taliban to protect our convoys and he finally started listening to me. Then told him about all the tax money we poured in that were given to corrupt countries and regimes and got him directed here and to democracy Now. Utah is plastered with the faces of Rush and Beck and the people are stupid enough to believe every word.
Not everyone on the LEFT is so happy about millions upon millions of people in the country illegally looking for the few jobs left. It's easy for Univ. Profs. with BIG jobs and careers to lecture the rest of us about this but the reality is the rest of us are not as happy about it. That said I undertsand why these poor folks are coming here have nothing personal against any of them but they really do need to stay home and fight to make their own countries better. Things here suck , unless you have the BIG job with a Big Corp. or the public sector. Even then these days your just holding on.
SEAGLASS
Now that's an honest statement! Heck, if you don't understand why they come you'd be a dunderhead and few have anything personal against these poor folks. Well said.
SEAGLASS, you are making assumptions about how others on the Left feel about SB 1070. Please stop.
The jobs that most undocumented people take are those which I doubt you would deign to do. Come on up to the Northwest and pick fruit for a day or two. Bet you wouldn't last. In 18 years there've been fewer than a dozen local Anglos ask to help pick our cherries or apples. And most did not make it through our very short season. None have ever showed up wanting to prune in winter. We pay well and do our best to check papers and we require people to provide us with papers. We take out taxes and send them to the government so stop your belly-aching about your personal situation and don't include me in your statements. I would guess for some reason you've been watching way too much TV news.
Not true, Americans would not do it for the price that corporations are paying these poor individuals. Give an unemployed american a fair wage and benefits and they would do just about anything they are asked. So please stop trying to guilt people with the same old rhetoric.
The days of fair wage were brief, and they are gone forever.
One way to thin out the population: Don't pay them.
Absolutely!
The U.S. has a long history of perpetuating and abusing an underclass for economic benefit.
Maintaining this underclass is an overt political ploy using the justification of being economically efficient.
In effect, corporations are debasing a group of people in order to gain wealth with this debasement. This is undemocratic and opposite to the ideals of western democracies, freedom and human rights.
Pablo, when the small farmers are paid a fair amount for the fruit they grow let me know. We, however, pay our workers well above our State's minimum wage, which is now $8.55/hour. We don't provide benefits. We hire people extremely intermittently. Come on up and work the orchards... You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Either that or you did not read what I wrote. Guess you prefer bashing the really small farmers right along with the mega-corporations.
Perhaps you should join the rest of us in asking for real trade policies, tax policies that don't reward the very things you speak of. Perhaps you might even try to find some compassion in your heart for all the Americans out of work that the illegals you advocate for put out of work?
Also, if you are interested we have more than one legal program for bringing in foreign workers, of course they will cost you more.
I think Pablo knows exactly what you are talking about. Its quite evident.
How much do you pay? What do you consider to be "well above the State's minimum wage?
Ah, lets' see now, Peggy, you benefit from illegal labor. My gosh, then, it would be insane to be opposed to it--unless, of course, your conscience started bothering you. It's damn tough, in fact damn near impossible to stop something when you're reaping rewards from it (see human nature).
Also, try to consider that it might be a little difficult to step into a job where you cannot understand most of your coworkers. Probably picking fruit does not take much training, but there may be other factors, other than just pay, at work here. If you're not breaking immigration law, where's the problem? If you are breaking the law to increase your profit then your 'righteous indignation' simply doesn't fly.
"The jobs that most undocumented people take are those which I doubt you would deign to do."
Straight out of the cheap labor handbook on talking points. That's been disproved so many times I'm surprised any one still uses it.
Your argument is that illegals show up and Americans don't so you hire them?
By the way I didn't see Seaglass mention anything about Anglo's or Latino's. He was speaking of illegal aliens. Why the mention of Anglo's in the first place? Plenty of Americans are not Anglo's.
Its illegals that are objected to, and there are plenty of people on the left that do not support business's cheap labor agenda and prefer our laws be respected.
I think again you speak from ignorance. I find the people that continue to claim "Americans will do these Jobs" have NEVER DONE the jobs in question.
Picking fruit is back breaking and tedious and most do not have the patience for it. In British Columbia farmers were offereing 12$$ and hour to pick fruit and were getting no takers. 16 million dollars worth rotted on the vine.
Had the farmers paid any more for fruit pickers they would have lost money selling their product.
Wait you say...just raise the prices to reflect the higher costs of labor!!
Not with NAFTA. It means US Grown fruit or Mexican grown fruit will be that much cheaper.
If you have never farmed or have never done farm work, please do not tell farmers how they should run their business.
How much do you pay these workers?
Your premise is bogus.
There is no left in the USA.
The only time there were even glimmers of a left, Joe McCarthy created a witch hunt to root it out and cut it off, knee by knee.
He's back in the costume of a scraggy bleached blond battle axe in Arizona.
You're seriously uninformed.
Why do you think people come here? US Foreign policy drives migration north due to support of brutal dictators all over Central America. NAFTA drove millions off the land in Mexico for corporate profits. Why do you think they militarized the border in '94 just after NAFTA passed?
Blaming illegal immigrants is a nice distraction used by the ruling class to place blame elsewhere, away from their policies that enrich corporations, like driving the manufacturing base to China and elsewhere. The easiest people for the white working class to blame are also the weakest; namely, immigrants. It is intentional. Wake the fuck up.
Listen to Chomsky explain it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBfHD2n13OA&feature=player_embedded
No one is illegal! Tear down the borders! Prey for a quick collapse of the US Empire!
You seem quite confused on the difference between immigrants and illegal aliens. They are not the same thing.
As to blaming the US for a "Foreign policy drives migration north due to support of brutal dictators all over Central America", thats hilarious. You could perhaps have made that argument in some ways back in the seveties and eighties, but now? Too funny for words.
There is no such thing as an "illegal alien". That is a term of the state, created and enforced by the use of violence and the threat of violence. Borders are created by nation states and armies, and are artificial constructs rejected by those that don't buy into patriotism and empire.
The recent Coup in Honduras, and the subsequent repression, is a perfect example of US foreign policy driving migration. Most of Central American states are police state dungeons, wrecked by a half of century of war supported and organized by the US.
Further, you fail to mention NAFTA which was designed to drive farmers off their lands in Mexico. Millions of them. The US Corporate state new exactly what it was doing, and now try to confuse people about their stagnant wages and low job prospects. You are not only a racist, but a sucker that fell for the lies of this inverted totalitarian system, to borrow from Hedges.
"There is no such thing as an "illegal alien"" Cardinal Mahone was full of it when he made up that argument.
As to Honduras, the American involvement seems to be quite unclear.
NAFTA had more that on country sign it and while its a terrible trade bill, trying to blame the US alone is hilarious. By the way, racist attacks from obvious racists don't bother me so don't waste your time. It just makes your racism more evident and weakens your arguments even more. Personal attacks of any kind usually indicate a lack of factual argument in any case.
Everything you say is straight out of business's playbook of talking points for cheap labor. Sucker indeed. Support business all you want, but don't tell us its something else.
Mala mami you make good points but for how long can we continue to enable these countries? The Zapatistas resisted and the people turned their backs on them for selfish reasons. The Sandinista also fought for the rights of the Nicaraguans and again the people turned their backs. I would get started on Che but my Cuban colleagues get upset because he was the devil to them yet he was one of the most selfless men on earth. Filiberto Ojedas Rios was killed by the FBI in Puerto Rico because his own people gave him up and he was simply fighting for the independence of the island. The same could be said for Ghandhi and countless others. Now these corrupt governments are allowed to remain in Latin America because the people allow them to stay there. The question is why? not NAFTA, WTO or any of these other conservative fascist germ organizations but because they are selfish their first choice is to leave, to be willing slaves to the Americans. If they are forced to remain in their own countries they will be forced to come up with solutions to the problems that plague their society. I understand that this may seem odd to many but we need to get our heads out of the clouds and see things for what they are.
Forgetting the typical "racist" and "open borders" demagoguery, the idea that Arizona's law is all of a sudden helping employers refuse to pay illegals is laughable. What do you think that illegal did before if an employer refused to pay?
Then we have the typical "A friend of Zelle's" story that has no basis except hearsay. Then the story of the illegal worker who fell to his death and the employer was nowhere to be found presented as if this law was to blame.
"If we ever hope to bring immigrant workers out of the shadows in which they've been laboring," says Kim Bobo,"
Then we have the typical dishonest shill for cheap labor with the usual lie trying to identify illegal aliens with legal immigrants by referring to illegal aliens as "immigrant workers" You usually lie when you are in the wrong.
The constant characterization of anti-illegal immigration laws as anti-immigrant laws is not only dis-honest its despicable in its attempt to defend criminality and exploitation under the cover of "bringing people out of the shadows"
"Since going after employers who violate wage laws politically unites all workers, immigrant and native alike, cracking down on those employers will actually strengthen the progressive political base."
This is about the only honest thing said in this piece of open border, cheap labor piece of garbage. The more dishonest you are the more people notice it.
Anyone that uses anti-immigrant when referring to anti-illegal aliens or immigrant rather than illegal alien is simply dishonest.
If you want to advocate open borders then be honest and say so, there isn't anything wrong with advocating a position. I'd be happy to see an honest conversation about that.
Or if you believe our immigration system is broken, speak up and point out exactly where its "broken", saying it doesn't make it so.
Or if you think subsidizing business labor is the right thing to do, just say so.
But for God's sake stop the dishonest underhanded rhetoric.
I agree it is a very dishonest piece. I stated this comment yesterday and ill state it again if the Progressive community does not make their agenda clear and distinct it will not be taken seriously. The big corporations are manipulating the progressives to continue their exploitation of illegal immigrants.
pablo30
As you well know, I completely agree. The Liberals and Progressives are on the wrong side of this issue and are making us look like fools with the dishonest and at this point laughable talking points.
Thanks for my side-splitter of the day, Pablo.
Progressive community?
There is no such animal on planet earth--and certainly not in Gringolandia, one of the most retrograde societies on the planet.
Get real or get out.
So what are we doing here realeasing stress or having an intellectual exercise? I consider myself a member of the progressive community and I do not pay a membership fee. Its a philosophical state of mind, a way of life, interaction with other humans and above all putting community above self. It may be an odd idea but it worked in the 60's and who knows it may work in our age.
Which only demonstrates that the "Illegal Immigrant" should have MORE protections under the law and not less.
The more protections that are removed, the more easily they can be exploited.
All you need do is look back to the depression . Tens of thousands of citizens of the United States of America who were forced off their farms went to work in California and Arizona.
They had NO protections. Life did not become "better for them". The persons doing the hiring KNEW they had no protections so continued to lower wages and make conditions even more miserable for them.
Oddly many in Arizona seem to want to return to those times. They seem to think all that is needed is to send the Mexicans home and millions of Okies will rush in to fill those positions.
How about this for a "labor law".
Be found guilty of employing an illegal immigrant and not paying his/her wage, the business in question has to pay double the wages owned.?
Your point, while well intentioned is completely misguided. This is a piece that has nothing to do with human rights but actually about maintaining slave labor. How about this for a new law " all employers caught hiring Illegal laborers will be charged with human exploitation and will be fined 10,000 per day per illegal laborer." If you really care about Illegal immigrants you would fight for their legalization and not their exploitation.
And just where am I fighting for their exploitation? Did you read what I posted?
I stated they needed MORE protections and not less. That was very clear.
Your "fine" scenario only becomes revenues for the Government. My suggestion puts that money in the pocket of the exploited.
You fight for their exploitation every time you allow yourself to be led to believe that the issue of illigal immigration is the same as a human rights issue or as a civil rights issue.
You have no idea what you I am talking about. You are the one that drew that conclusion.
Be found guilty of employing an illegal immigrant and not paying his/her wage, the business in question has to pay double the wages owned.?
------------------------------
Why be so easy on them? If they're convicted of that crime, they should not only have to pay 4x the money owed (recompense + 3x damages) to each of the victimised employees plus pay their relo expenses back to their native land. For a second offence, all that plus felony prison time (year-and-a-day, minimum).
I would argue that in the US an illegal alien has more protection and rights than in most countries right now. And this particular law adds more protection than the Federal law has.
"The more protections that are removed, the more easily they can be exploited."
Very true, but they were American citizens and did have some redress of wrongs, not many, as you are correct, the Californians shamelessly exploited them.
We cannot, must not and should not give protection's to allow illegal aliens to continue to work here, that's quite evident in the experience since 1986. However, if we allow employers to exploit and abuse people, not just the obvious big boy's, but smaller business's and even people that employ a single illegal, usually as a maid or housekeeper...where does that leave us?
The whole problem stems from the politicians, churches and cheap labor people that pay the politicians enough not to enforce our immigration laws that provide stiff penalties and fines for the employer. Its obvious to anyone that the real criminals are the Americans that are exploiting these illegals, yes by being here illegally you are a criminal, but Americans who provide the opportunity to exploit workers are the real criminals. (there have been some terrible abuses brought to light about maids and housekeeper's, but not just about wages.
"Be found guilty of employing an illegal immigrant and not paying his/her wage, the business in question has to pay double the wages owned.?"
Too nice to the scum. The wages owed, 75% of the fine paid directly to the illegal, and a minimum of 5 years probation on a sentence of 20 years for the first offense. Flat 10 years if its proved you knowingly hired them.
"Oddly many in Arizona seem to want to return to those times. They seem to think all that is needed is to send the Mexicans home and millions of Okies will rush in to fill those positions."
Its about much more than that. Remember those Okies didn't cost the taxpayers anything. Nor was there much crime or violence in comparison. Nor were they taking other American's jobs. It was the immigrant worker they displaced. There won't be much problem filling their jobs. It will impact those with business's depending on illegal aliens for their customers.
Bottom line though, we must protect all workers, even illegals. They are here because we allow them to be, and allow business to exploit them, its never been their fault, its always been ours.
I believe we should redirect our immigration policies to reflect more of the Canadian/Australian laws on immigration and also perhaps favor Latino's with legal adult family here in legal immigration? Part is easy, the rest of the solution is not.
The US has been dealing with the issues of "Illegal Immigration" since 1880. In 1920 they had one of these sweeps. In the 1930s they had another sweep for "Illegals" wherein mexicans by the tens of thousands rounded up and shipped over the border.
In the 1950s they had another such programm called operation wetback. In the 1980's an amnesty and they STILL DEAL with the issue.
The defintion of insanity is to repeat the same mistakes over and over again in the hopes the mistake will eventually "work'.
Think outside the box. Look at it differently.
How about this...?
ANY worker hired in the United States of America that does not have a legitimate green card or is not a US Citizen MUST be paid the federal minimum wage PLUS 4 dollars per hour.
Add this.
Any worker in the USA working illegaly or without a green card who is not paid minimum wage plus 4 hours per hour for the work they do HAS THE RIGHT to report this to the Government wherein on a hearing to determine the veracity of the claim the Employer will PAY THAT worker a sum of 5 TIMES the difference not paid.
Thus if an employer hires an Illegal "Under the table" and pays him 3 dollars per hour in defiance of the LAW above , that worker is going to be pretty hard to exploit. If it Juan from Sonora and he worked 500 hours at 3 bucks an hour and he should have been receiving minimum wage +2 he will have a claim of 6X500X5 or 15000 dollars against that employer.
If he goes in and reports it, the cheque is cut and handed to him as soon as he crosses the border back into mexico.
Do you not think THIS would force US employers to scour the US for a LEGAL worker before hiring an illegal?
Would it not be a heck of a lot easier to Police if the "Illegal worker" could use this abuse as a TRUMP card and be rewarded for turning the employer (and himself) in?
Would this not address the claims "US workers do not want to do the job...or we can not find any Americans willing to work" IF there a PREMIUM paid to hire an illegal rather then what they have now where the illegal can be blackmailed to agree to anything?
I am not saying this IS the solution. I am saying that whats being done now does not work.
I am also saying In Canada "Illegal Workers" have far more legal protections making them harder for an employer to exploit. This might be one reason Canada (while still having issues) does not have as great an issue.
When you CRIMINALIZE the actions of the desperate worker, all you do is drive the crime underground. See the drug war. See prostitution.
GW: I admire you. You can speak intelligently on a variety of subjects, and your humanity always shows. In addition, you have an expansive intellect that always takes the bigger picture into account. Bravo.
>>>GwNorth wrote: In Canada "Illegal Workers" have far more legal protections making them harder for an employer to exploit. This might be one reason Canada (while still having issues) does not have as great an issue.
No GwNorth, Canada does not have "as great an issue" because of geography. And the size of its economy, the nature of its agriculture sector, etc. There is no comparison with the USA.
I've read that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles off the US border (despite Canada being the world's 2nd largest country). So, any illegal immigrant will have to enter (1) from the south (2) hiding themselves in shipping containers or (3) by overstaying, after entering the country on a short-term visa. If someone enters from the south, they will have to find others to link up with - and most probably with their own ethnic group.
And then what do you do? Canada already has a temporary work-permit program that routinely gets workers from other countries to work in construction, oil industry, tourism (or "hospitality" industry), healthcare (including live-in care), etc. There are already enough farm workers in Canada - both permanent as well as seasonal. So, someone losing his auto industry job in Detroit, having relatives in Canada has no incentive to go there - because it's the same situation there too.
So, all these factors make it difficult and unattractive for people to enter Canada illegally.
And your proposal above is not logical - because why would anyone pay more for anything illegal unless there is a shortage? How could even such a law come into force? In fact, why would anyone even pay more for a **legal** alien? Look at the countries in the Middle East that employ millions of workers from South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) **legally** and look at the kind of labor exploitation behind all the fancy construction in places like Dubai. This, in a place where there is a real labor shortage.
Keep in mind that I am responding only to your points - I haven't said anything about the conditions of the migrant workers and the exploitation that goes on in the US. This is also not to say that Canada has a liberal immigration policy or that professionals from abroad are happy with their experience after immigrating.
Either there is a labor shortage in the USA for the type of work that Illegals do or there is not.
Which is it?
Are they better workers then US Born workers or are they not?
BOTH these arguements are used by employers in the USA.
Now it an established fact that for over 100 years the USA has had this as a concern and nothing so far tried has really worked. So why do EMPLOYERS in the USA keep hiring illegal workers?
If it because there a labor shortage , then they would be willing to pay them more.
If it because they are better workers then they should be willing to pay them more.
NEITHER is the case as these workers tend to make less in wages .
It would seem patently obvious they do so because it is PROFITABLE. IT is PROFITABLE in great part because these workers have far less in the way of protections from the Government. It would seem obvious to me that laws passed that remove even more protections (such as this Arizona law) would make the migrant worker even easier to exploit.
This in and of itself will feed a desire to hire even MORE of them. "Juan...I know I pay you and your family 6 bucks an hour...but you know, all I need do is call the police..I do not have to leave my name..I will just leave a message telling him where you live and that you here illegaly...Thats "reasonable suspicion" for him to stop and search you on the street. Juan I am going to pay you 4 bucks an hour"
What alternative does Juan have?
Give him MORE protections not less. If the desire indeed to see more Americans hired for that work then it should not be "cheaper and more profitable" to hire migrants. Any laws passed that further marginalize the migrant workers protections serve that exact purpose. It makes them even CHEAPER to hire.
>>And then what do you do? Canada already has a temporary work-permit program that routinely gets workers from other countries to work in construction, oil industry, tourism (or "hospitality" industry), healthcare (including live-in care), etc. There are already enough farm workers in Canada - both permanent as well as seasonal. So, someone losing his auto industry job in Detroit, having relatives in Canada has no incentive to go there - because it's the same situation there too.
The majority of the guest workers in Canada work in the Agricultural sector in LOW SKILLED jobs, contrary to what some believe. Since there a LEGAL avenue for them to get work and since in using that LEGAL avenue they get more in the way of protections against abuses, there are less abuses. They are flown in at harvest time and then flown out. They have less desire to disappear into the community because there they would be much easier to exploit.
Now that said there are a number each year that end up not going back who then become part of the underground economy. How do we fix that? Do we make the Guest Worker prorgam MORE onerous? I think not. This will just encourage them to enter illegally. Do we remove more rights? Same result.
Some suggest that these workers be given instead a road towards permanent residency.
Become part of a "Guest Worker program". Follow the rules. Work seasonaly in canada for 5 years (as example) to show you will follow the rules. At the end of the 5 years the Governmnet reviews your status and sees if there still a legitimate shortage of workers in that sector.
Juan how would you like to be a PERMANENT resident of Canada? You have never broken any of our laws. You can apply for permanent residence. Fill out this form.
Labor shortages does NOT mean there must be exploitation as in Dubai.
Lastly to your Geography. That a red herring. That strip along the border is more densely populated then most areas in the USA. Most migrants in the USA do not "hide out" In Casper Wyoming. They hide out in the larger more densely populated cities. Canada's cities are more ethnicly diverse making it just as easy to "Blend into the crowd"
GwNorth, I think you are resorting to a bit of circular logic here, unfortunately. I am talking about the workability of a law such as you are proposing - that mandates a higher pay to an undocumented worker, and penalties for failure to adhere. (I am not talking about this Arizona law - that is blatantly racist and has ominous implications for the rest of the country).
So, first of all, what would even allow such a law to pass that mandates higher pay to an undocumented worker? The law has to be made at a local level or at least in the USA - keep in mind that it cannot be made in Canada :)
The law has to be logical. Your only logic is to prevent exploitation of the undocumented worker. There is NOTHING in it for the American business owner or the American workers. As simple as that. What will happen if the undocumented worker complains under your law? He may be paid for the job he has done, but then the rest of the law will have to operate - maybe he'll have to leave the country. So it's not going to work. Moreover, this in effect is only penalizing the employer (which many are obviously calling for). It is not going to help the undocumented worker on an ongoing basis.
The business owners are fine with the situation today. They may be agreeable to some kind of amnesty too - because even then wages are not going to jump a whole lot - because of the large labor pool available. While an amnesty can be justified (to bring things above board, to stop exploitation, etc., maybe even some tax revenue), for such an amnesty (not for the first time, keep in mind) to work, once again there has to be some kind of monitoring at the borders - otherwise you will end up with a large, legal labor plus more undocumented workers. Unless things improve in Mexico, this is not going to stop, and the only beneficiaries are going to be the elite on both sides of the border.
>>>Labor shortages does NOT mean there MUST be exploitation as in Dubai.
Once again you are missing the point there. I said, ***in spite of** having a labor shortage (that is, if you consider ONLY the local citizens), due to an abundant supply of cheap labor from South Asia, there is exploitation. There is a similar kind of exploitation in Canada too - but among the educated immigrants. Many of them end up working at positions FAR below what they had in their home countries and far below their qualifications. Even though there is a shortage of doctors in many communities, the Medical Council (or Medical Association) does not increase the number of intern positions, and the only way to work as a doctor is by first working as an intern. They don't want to increase the number because they fear competition and their own salaries going down. So, many of these foreign doctors end up working as nurses or do other jobs, or move to the USA. When there is surplus labor at any level, wages go down - it's not difficult to grasp.
So there is no incentive for the businesses to support a law that mandates extra pay to the undocumented. And there is no reason for American workers to support such a law either - that's obvious. On the other hand, American workers may support an outright penalty for the employers (without mandating extra pay to the undocumented). And it is not even going to help the migrant workers - because, the moment they complain, they may get paid once, but the rest of the immigration laws may force them to leave.
>>So there is no incentive for the businesses to support a law that mandates extra pay to the undocumented. And there is no reason for American workers to support such a law either - that's obvious
What benefit to business to have a minimum wage law?
You HAVE a minimum wage law do you not? Businesses opposed such a law.
What benefit to business to have enviromental protections?
You have such do you not? Businesses opposed such regulations.
What benefit to business is there with laws that pertain to child labor?
Businesses were in the forefrontt of those opposed to the introduction of such laws,
You have such do you not? I can go on and list thousands of such laws that are benefits to US workers which businesses did not support.
Ok so lets go the the US worker.
What benefit to the US worker to have businesses forced to pay Mexican Migrant workers a higher wage.....HMmmmmmmmm. Maybe the business would then be more likely to hire an indingent American?
What benefit to have a Mexican worker have MORE labor protections as In a higher wage (or other such measures) and recourse to the law to collect the same.?
He might be more willing in reporting such wrongs to the Authorities? he might be less willing to go "underground"?
Lets look at Canadas guest worker program.
What benefit to Canada's workers to have such a program?
We have one and the majority of Canadians support it. Why? Would this not drive wages down under market theory?
What benefit is there in Mexican workers staying IN This program rather then simply slipping into Canada and going to that same farmer that is hiring under the official guest worker program and saying "Hey instead of hiring those Guest Workers from Mexico at 10 bucks an hour I will do the same work for 5 dollars an hour "under the table""
While this does happen it hardly to the extent it happens in the USA. Why is that?
Every year they WILLINGLY go back to Mexico.
Maybe it because if they are paid 10 bucks an hour rather then 5, they can earn as much money working half as long? maybe they know they can come back every year, not be worried about the law and getting caught and still send money home to families in Mexico?
Maybe they see this as a net benefit to themselves?
This a clause from the Guest worker prorgarm and what Employers are obligated to do.
>>Costs Covered by the Employer
>>The employer:
>>partially pays for round-trip airfare between the worker’s country of residence and Canada based on an agreement reached by both countries (except for British Columbia where employers pay full airfare);
pays costs of travel between the airport (or other point of arrival) in Canada and the place of employment and worksites;
supplies free housing (except in British Columbia) that meets municipal building requirements and health standards set by the province where the work is being done;
provides a proper cooking area with pots and pans if workers choose to make their own meals; employers who provide meals may deduct up to $6.50 per day from the worker’s wages to offset costs;
ensures workers are registered with the provincial health insurance plan; and
provides free, on-the-job injury and illness insurance (called Workers’ Compensation).
Wow they get FREE Housing....more then I get!!! Three meals a day at 6.50 cents..thats nice. it costs me that much to eat at Macdonalds.
Should not Canadians be up in arms over this? We have 8 percent unemployment.
Under this prorgam they can also draw unemployment insurance in Canada, can get maternity leave. parental leave, sicjk benefits and be paid a pension under the Canada Pension plan even if they retire in Mexico and never become a Canadian Citizen.
You claim none of what I suggest is "logical" yet examples already exist of the same and already seem to be working.
>>ven though there is a shortage of doctors in many communities, the Medical Council (or Medical Association) does not increase the number of intern positions, and the only way to work as a doctor is by first working as an intern. They don't want to increase the number because they fear competition and their own salaries going down
This has nothing to do with what the people of CANADA want and everything to do with what small powerful groups with a vested interest in protecting their own status want. You seem to suggest that it MUST be that way.
It does not have to BE that way anymore then the USA MUST follow the dictates of its Businesses.
Doctors and the health care industry fought Canada's National health care program tooth and nail. We prevailed in spite of that. You can not seriously suggest that we should not have even tried to pass those laws if businesses were opposed?
Now THAT all said. This is hardly the "Ultimate solution". It only a means by which the current problems caused by Capitalist exploitation of third workd countries be dealt with. At the end of the day such programs will fail.
What needs to be done is the economic system changed so that there not this vast discrepancy in wealth the world over. More of the wealth of countries like Mexico and Haiti has to flow into the pockets of their citizens rather then into the pockets of the "Financiers'
Ok, GwNorth, you've made me think - I'll give that to you :)
An amnesty will just generate a larger wave of illegal aliens to take the jobs of those that would then be legal. See 1986.
You all forget we have laws on the books to deal with this, to cover everything talked about. It was agreed in 1986, but those laws are not enforced. Money talks.
EXACTLY! Where does it end?
Answer to some...
No we do not have a labor shortage.
Employers hire illegals because they can suppress wages, avoid benefits while hiring and firing with impunity. Guy loses a hand at work, cut him losde. Falls to his death? No problem.
Also, even if they paid that illegal the same wage, they still save on taxes, unemployment, etc to the tune of 5-6 dollars an hour.
Though I will agree with you that Juan needs protections, Juan should not be here. And the fact that is becoming quite clear to even Californians is the falsehood that they do not cost the taxpayer.
"Juan how would you like to be a PERMANENT resident of Canada? You have never broken any of our laws. You can apply for permanent residence. Fill out this form."
As I understand it Juan better have a skill Canada needs or have family there?
GW - yes. More protection for labor is the answer to the immigration dilemma that has many native born unemployed angry here. If all workers had more rights, if the employers were held as responsible as the worker for violating labor laws, then we would be getting somewhere. It is the same answer that is needed to stop jobs leaving the country and going to underprotected workers in Asia, Central America, etc. Or moving from union strongholds to non-unionized regions. Car factory in India or Tennessee? Send a UAW organizer. (a very smart one). Garment factory in Bangladesh? Unite should be materially supporting organizing going on there. All construction being done by pickup workers at the corner? Construction trades should get them into the union so they are on an equal footing for hiring, and then fight against their deportation.
It is not the easiest answer, but the only one consistent with humanity and unity. Otherwise those who are already weakest will waste energy fighting each other while the employers continue to get cut-rate hourly work without benefits.
Any union that is not currently organizing the unorganized, including immigrants, is not really worth supporting. By protecting only their current members, often only their oldest, whitest current members, they are contributing to the deterioration of work and life in the US. Due to programs of intimidation and takeover by the FBI, to their own timidity, unions have shrunk in numbers, program and influence almost to a point close to irrelevancy.
[PS - I wonder why any union that exhibits corruption is put under the direction of the FBI whereas companies like Halliburton, Goldman Sachs or BP's US operations never are?? - Just wondering.]
Joe
Very good points, jclientelle. Although you likely mentioned the examples of workers in other countries at random, I want to point out - that there's a difference between Bangladeshi garment factory workers and car factory workers in India. Not just in terms of the industries or countries - but from whether their production is primarily for export or for domestic consumption, and that does make a great deal of difference in the level of exploitation. Most of the car production in India right now caters to the domestic market, although from time to time some of the car manufacturers there say that they are exporting to foreign markets. But if you look closely at the numbers of cars exported vs. sold in India, it's clear that they say this just to make the Indians feel good. So far, there is no indication that workers in the car industry in India are exploited, considering that so many young people are just happy to get a job such as this. But I'm sure if we consider the healthcare benefits, pension, etc., there should be a lot of room for improvement. In any case, it's not a good idea to be making so many cars - so there's no reason why the car companies should be allowed to get away with maximum profits. Maybe the tax susbsidies that certain industries get should be attacked as well.
"The defintion of insanity is to repeat the same mistakes over and over again in the hopes the mistake will eventually "work'."
Isn't that the truth!!
I don't know that it would work because of the obvious invitation for abuse by the worker. But its a thought, a suggestion, which is more than a lot of folks down here are making.
There isn't any choice except to criminalize someone who breaks the law.We won't just open our borders...although thats the current policy practiced by our government.
RACIST PIG.
Why CD condones this kind of garbage calls into question the politics of the site itself.
Tear down the borders! No one is illegal! Prey for an immediate collapse of the US Empire!
"RACIST PIG."
A classy way to make a "point".
"Why CD condones this kind of garbage calls into question the politics of the site itself."
Because then they would be rightly accused of squelching dissent. I thought the "left" was against that.
Classy or not, the point is made.
Liberals tolerate "dissent". Radicals (real leftists) fight fascists and white supremacists.
Great example of tolerance.
It's amazing what you you'll find when you lift up the progressive skirt.
"Classy or not, the point is made".
Mal (or Mallory), point well taken....... then I threw it in the garbage.
that's the difference between radicals and so-called "progressives" (which is the vaguest term i think i have ever heard). the left in the US was destroyed by the liberal class that conspired with the ruling class for access, for money, and for middle and upper middle class status.
i think it's why radicals have no hesitancy in being militant with fascists. it's why in Europe, fascists and white supremacists are fought in the street on a daily basis, since they refuse to "tolerate" the path down which Nazi's will go.
the danger here in the US is that liberals and some "progressives" will "tolerate" racism and the slide towards fascism way to easy.
MALA: What you describe seems to me an adjunct of American exceptionalism. When "we" do it, it's just prudent attempts at "law and order." When another society does it, then it becomes evident fascism. (I am not condoning this, just pointing out one reason that might explain the blind-spot.)
hey badger, that reminds me of a joke:
Whaddaya find when you lift up the conservative's skirt?
...a penis!
so expressing ones views is racist? people like you hinder true progress. My students always ask me is this person or that country good or bad? my response is never to label anything good or evil because that simply closes all room for analyzing and argument. When we do not understand something we should analyze it and learn from it so that it would never happen again. Please Malatesta keep the insults to yourself and use your inside voice.
expressing ones views is not racist. expressing racist views is racist. i never used the terms "good" and "evil". you sound privileged. anyone that would suggest we simply analyze things so that they don't ever happen would most likely sit by while the most atrocious racist violence occurs.
at what point would you act in the face of a lynching, nazism, neo-nazi violence, police brutality? what is your threshold for stepping into a situation to stop violence? are you aware at the level of violence that has skyrocketed against brown folks in Arizona since the passing of SB1070? what are you going to do about it? teach your students to analyze things or take action?
what is being said on these boards is the intellectual dialogue serving as a precursor to whether or not someone takes action. what is insulting is the pleasantness with which mightymight and others are discussing ideas which i find deeply racist.
Mama born and raised in the housing projects, I grew up in the mess and now I teach in the same neighborhood that i was born and raised in and yes I received an excellent education. At what point do I do something? since 10 years ago when i left my job as an aircraft mechanic to teach in my hood. I know racism first hand but just because they are white does not make them racist. In fact Latinos make white racist look pleasant, we are more racist towards one another then anyone else. I truly hate when the race card is used loosely because its insulting to those that have truly felt it by the fist of a punk ass cop or the words of a punk ass teacher. Having a difference in opinion does not justify an all out attack. The question is what are you doing "blogging angrily" about it? please pseudo intellectuals.
A fine answer to those that talk of Nazis and lynching as if they existed. Its also nice to see someone speaking the real truth about racism in America.
Progress?
Who are you kidding?
>>
Anyone that uses anti-immigrant when referring to anti-illegal aliens or immigrant rather than illegal alien is simply dishonest.
If you want to advocate open borders then be honest and say so, there isn't anything wrong with advocating a position. I'd be happy to see an honest conversation about that.
<<
The term "migrant" or "anti-migrant" is also coming into fashion. I'm sorry, but as soon as someone illegally crosses the border they have committed a crime. They have become illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens, or illegal migrants. Pick a term, they all mean the same.
To the advocates for "undocumented workers" or "undocumented migrants", I ask, do you want open borders? I agree with you, mightymite. Just say what you mean, what you want. If you want open borders just say so. To those who want open borders how do you propose to handle the undoubtedly massive migration that will follow? What happens after thirty or forty or fifty million enter the US? What about jobs, education, medical care, housing? Have you thought far enough ahead to be able to present a proposal for such matters?
Whoever is NOT a Native American is also an illegal immigrant. Or do any of you white european ancestors can show proof of having immigrated legally to this country? didn't think so. Hypocrites.
There are NO native Americans. Thats not even an argument. Its like the lie that we are a nation of immigrants. Most Americans were born here.
Your ancestors did their best to kill us all off.
We are still here.
Your sweeping attempt to erase us will not work, earmite.
Nor will your attempt to confine America to the borders of Gringolandia.
How you continue to bang away with racist statements while accusing others of being racist is pretty strange.
"Earmite" was pretty cute though!
Nothing strange about anything I post, earmite.
That would be one view my lady!
I really don't care about the term "gringo" or "gringolandia" because I understand your frustration. However, like it or not, those terms are racist. I would never use any of the common racist terms referring to Mexicans or other Hispanics or Native Americans or African Americans, whatever. But that's just me. I support your freedom of speech that allows you to use racist epithets.
Just another gringo.
Gringo and Gringolandia are not racist.
If you think they are, you have a guilty conscience.
Yes, I'm sure those pet names are meant to be kindly. ;-)
This argument is a bit out of touch with our economic realities. I am an American a Latino American and I will not pretend to be a visitor. This article is a spin of the truth Illegal Immigrants are being exploited and by allowing employers to continue this exploitation we are essentially enabling this exploitation. This is not about racism, color or ethnicity this is about the destruction of the working and middle classes.
Thanks for trying to bring this discussion back on-topic. The subject of this article is abuse and exploitation of workers. Let's keep to that subject.
Who gave you the authority to decide what folks express here?!
Off with the hydra-head of fascism!
Sabo Cat a Fascist? You are on a roll with the jokes today!
Well said!
That idea gets to be ridiculous pretty quickly, though, LB.
Were the second and third waves of migration to the Americas illegals, too, since the first-wavers were already in possession? I'd say No, because the closest the aboriginal people had to the pernicious idea of 'our land' was probably 'our customary place to live and hunt'.
And that was true when the Europeans came, too. The euros were the ones who brought and imposed the 'the king owns everything, including you' horror story.
There's also the modern problem that the people coming north over the border never did live here.
It was never their or their ancestors 'customary place'. Their 'customary places' were south of the border; that's where *their* forebears settled. They are as much foreigners up here as any Swede or Nigerian just off the boat, and have much less claim to belong here than any Swede or Nigerian born and raised here.
To claim otherwise could easily be construed as racist, since it makes the implicit assertion race characteristics are paramount (e.g., the English have the right to occupy Ireland because both the English and the Irish are White, so they're the same).
Indigenous folks are NOT lower life forms because they didn't fence the land, pave it and turn it into a toxic waste dump.
What is good to see here is the statements which have led to my banning at least 50 times on CD as well as that of othere native-perspective folks are now coming from the keyboards of white people.
Some progress is still progress.
Well said!
So here we have a simple conflict between people who want all immigrants vs those who are too strict. How come liberal nations are very strict on immigration but this "conservative" nation can't make up its own mind? Between a foreigner telling us USAns to let them all in and a native resident calling for restrictions, I don't know who to believe. You foreigners have great health care, good jobs, and a lot of other fringe benefits so why don't you let them in? As for the nativists calling for more restrictions, we're all immigrants so drop your restrictive behavior and try to find a reasonable compromise. Nobody's benefiting between the two fighting sides anyway. I'm worried about the future of this nation and neither the open border nor restrictionist factions care to help.
No, we are NOT all immigrants. Not even close to it. Most people were born here. That's an old LaRaza lie.
I meant to say immigrants or descended from immigrants.
Descended from ILLEGAL immigrants.
No native person gave your ancestors permission to invade this land mass.
Regardless of country of origin, it's illegal. No laws have made it otherwise. It's the rich coopting the "liberals", taking advantage of their humanitarianism, to do their bidding, bringing down wages, raising unemployment, services for same then paid for by the three middle quintilles.
I spent two nights last week in a men's shelter -- cheaper than hotel room. Most of the men were black. From talking to them, they intermittent work, but want more. Transportation is a big problem.
I make no apologies for caring more about people struggling who were born here, who's ancestors worked here and contributed only to see their progeny passed up for jobs because their legal and non-white according to the Census's new definition that Hispanics are actually white, that Hispanic isn't an ethnicity.
And I didn't for a second mean to imply that a child born of two non-citizens should be given citizenship. That's an antiquated law that our corporatist Senate dare not touch in their current make up. We need change. I'm all for it.
"SHANGHAI -- What can $14,750 buy you in modern China? Not a Tiffany diamond or a mini-sedan, say Robert Zhou and Daisy Chao. But for that price, they guarantee you something more lasting, with unquestioned future benefits: a U.S. passport and citizenship for your new baby.
Zhou and Chao, a husband and wife from Taiwan who now live in Shanghai, run one of China's oldest and most successful consultancies helping well-heeled expectant Chinese mothers travel to the United States to give birth.
The couple's service, outlined in a PowerPoint presentation, includes connecting the expectant mothers with one of three Chinese-owned "baby care centers" in California. For the $14,750 basic fee, Zhou and Chao will arrange for a three-month stay in a center -- two months before the birth and a month after. A room with cable TV and a wireless Internet connection, plus three meals, starts at $35 a day. The doctors and staff all speak Chinese. There are shopping and sightseeing trips. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/17/AR2010071701402.html
Excellent. Maybe some people will begin to appreciate what they have and what many people envy them for.
I've got it. Get rid of all illegal immagrants by having unemplyed people doing the jobs "Americans" won't do. Then we will get work for all that free unemplyment money and use up all the jobs illegals do. Then they will go back to Mexico.
The problem would still be the gangs and other bad illegals that would remain to get money for illegal stuff..
So I guess it wouldn't work because the percentage of illegals that work is only 27% and the bad Mexicans make up 63%. We should still try though.
how does one respond to such infantile banter such as this? it's so scientific, full of detailed description, and accurate statistics.
the level of racist nonsense in this post is evident. why does CD allow this crap?? no seriously, why do you allow this on your site?
What have you been smoking?
Gringos are waay too lazy and waaay too obese to do the jobs that Mexicans do in the USA.
Thanks, but I prefer imbibtions to inhalation. Sounds like when you inhale too much, you exhale a lot of nonsense. Of course corporate America says the same thing--wasn't that part of the reason they gave for shipping the jobs overseas (that the American worker is just not as productive)? What's Mexico's excuse for supporting NAFTA? Oh, and if we are such losers, in your humble esteem, why do you rush over here in droves?
You're just full of hot air like all the other racists which, of course, you claim not to be while accusing others of the same. We got your number here.