Rich ‘Starburst’ Lowry, writing in Politico, continues the emerging convention of referring to the Gang of Eight’s immigration outline as “Rubio’s Plan.” And he doesn’t like it. What’s interesting is that he isn’t really very straightforward about why he doesn’t like it. While he makes clear that his objection is mainly about creating a “legal status” for undocumented workers and not their potential full citizenship, can he really be that hung up on the letter of the law? Is Lowry’s problem that folks who violated our immigration laws are getting a pass on it? That’s it? He wants justice?
The word is ‘amnesty,’ and it seems to have a special power over the conservative mind. Is this some relic of the amnesty that Jimmy Carter granted to the Vietnam-era draft dodgers? How did this word come to have such a negative connotation in Republican circles? Ordinary people understand that people came here to work because there was a demand for their work. Countless employers were completely complicit in this arrangement, and only political resistance to overtly allowing this immigration made it necessary for people to break the law. Does Lowry demand justice for Tyson Chicken executives or countless agricultural outfits?
There are those who oppose the browning of America on racial terms. Others oppose it on purely political terms (those Latinos are liberal). That’s self-serving and understandable. But opposing immigration reform as a matter of fairness? That’s just juvenile. If Lowry were serious, he be advocating provisions in the bill that he felt would prevent the same thing from happening all over again. He’d be promoting legal immigration of farm workers sufficient to meet demand for their labor, rather than the continuation of a racist immigration policy that won’t openly admit our need for Latino labor. But he doesn’t have any positive suggestions.
He just wants to say ‘no.’
Maybe that’s what his National Review audience demands.
There is an alternative that would deal without amnesty. Upping the immigration quotas from Latin America to handle these folks returning to their home country and applying legally for citizenship. The perversity in the immigration quotas is how we got into this mess to begin with.
Alternatively, there could be the same system of higher quotas and letting the person apply legally for citizenship in the US. But because they are here illegally, that would require amnesty not to be self-incriminating. But the Fifth Amendment demands that the government not create a system of self-incrimination. Therefore amnesty.
“weird opposition”
Well, we all know that the primary reason for “conservative” opposition to immigration reform is racism—our noble conservative white people dislike brown people, and those are the immigrants that they see “reform” affecting.
So what is a “conservative” pundit’s job in such circumstances? To create some sort of arguable and defensible fig leaf for the racism of the “conservative” base, to somehow legitimize their blind hatred. Hence the absolute, inflexible demand that the current “illegals” cannot be permitted to have had the effrontery to “break the law!!” Worse–to be REWARDED for BREAKING THE LAW!!! Inconceivable! We ALWAYS demand fidelity to the law in Murica, just ask the Wizrdz of Wall Street!
This absolutist view on immigration reform can be held and that becomes their defense to (accurate) charges of racism. It also explains why the “conservative” pundits can’t really write anything coherent or “positive” on the issue. The base won’t accept anything other than (race-based) absolutism, so their pundits can’t offer any compromises.
That “fidelity to the noble law” is a fig leaf for racism is demonstrated by the fact that absolutely no other solution other than return and removal of “illegals” to Brown-People Land can be contemplated. No other penalties, however harsh onerous, are acceptable. Only non-presence in Murica can be contenanced.
So Lowry is just trying to use room fresher to mask to stench of the “conservative” hogs that he entertains and enables. It’s a living, I guess. Beats picking fruit in summertime Georgia, haha…
There are also economic reasons to oppose illegal immigration that have nothing to do with politics or racism. You know this Boo, but ignore it.
If you are an American in a profession like construction, or the hotel industry, you are directly competing for work with illegal immigrants who are willing to do the work for peanuts.
If you are an emergency room doctor in a poor neigborhood, you know the strain that illegal immigrants are putting on the resources of your hospital.
If you are a parent with a child in a border-city school, you have seen the huge influx of spanish-speaking kids and the strain that has put on school resources.
Painting these people as racist or even anti-immigrant is unfair, Boo. They are simply seeing the downside of our failed immigration policies. Please admit, at least, that there is a downside. The upside — cheap labor that helps the economy grow — is all you focus on. Maybe that does outweigh the negatives on the whole, maybe not. Depends on where you sit. If you are CEO of a big company that relies on cheap labor, yeah, amnesty for all. That American roofer — maybe not.
The economic situation you describe is IMO made worse, not better by our flawed immigration policy.
The lack of transparency makes it all too easy to exploit undocumented workers and too hard to solve the problems in the border towns.
I would not disagree with that, Andrew. But are we going to make things worse or better by “fixing” the system? If the fix includes an amnesty for current illegal workers, that may do more harm than good to the classes of workers and the school and hospital systems that I described. I don’t have any good ideas for what to do. We’ve let things degenerate into a real mess.
My point is that Boo is pushing the immigration bill hard, as if it’s going to help everyone, without really discussing the downsides. Yes, the bill is good politics for the democrats, its good for business, its good for the illegal workers. But it isn’t good for everybody.
There was a downside to Irish immigration, too. It’s the nature of bringing in people to clean toilets and unload ships and mine for coal. I understand that there are roofers out there who are losing work. My contention is that a less racist, more honest immigration policy over the last 20 years would have done a better job of putting immigrants where they were urgently needed and therefore would not have displaced as many Americans from jobs they wanted.
You are totally deluded. I worked with many skilled trades folks when we were fixing our house to move here. We never hired illegals. We hired the many underemployed American workers, who were VERY clear about the situation. They were being displaced by the thousands willing to work for peanuts. This creates also EXTREMELY unfair bidding practices in many areas.
And, no, regularizing status will not fix this. We have created a huge glut of workers. You used to be able to live as a skilled trades person. It’s much harder now.
I want to draw everyone’s attention to something:
And, no, regularizing status will not fix this. We have created a huge glut of workers. You used to be able to live as a skilled trades person. It’s much harder now.
This is not an argument against illegal immigration. It is an argument against immigration.
You should have a discussion with someone who does tile work or drywall. It would be quite edifying. Many progressives live in this white-collar ghetto. Discuss matters occasionally with someone who does tile or roofing. It’d help your clarity on this issue.
That’s non-responsive to Joe’s point.
Setting aside you issue you raise on high-skilled visas, the reason you have a lot of undocumented people in the construction industry is because there is no logic to a system that allows illegal immigration rather than legal immigration. The workers go wherever there is work.
Put it this way. If you are a Mexican who can enter the country legally to work for an orange juice company in Florida, would you prefer to do that than to sneak into the country and try to hook up with a construction crew? Of course you would.
What you want to do is marry people up to jobs, so they have one when they get here, and it’s a job where the company specifically requested them, and they get decent pay.
If you are against that kind of immigration, that’s fine, but it is less of a problem that what we have been experiencing.
What we are talking about at that level is 13-14 million undocumented, mostly low skilled folks. If we do regularize them, we will have 13-14 million documented, mostly low skilled folks. Changing them from undocumented to documented does nothing for their skill level. What that will do is pretty much destroy the labor sector at that end of the wage scale. Everyone seems to have this wonderful idea that the prevailing wage will then kick in and all the roofers will make $25/hour. Wrong. We will then have a huge labor glut, and all those jobs will be minimum wage jobs that no one can survive on. The only thing that is preserving some jobs with decent wages is the need for documentation.
Basically Obama is kicking the low-wage sector of the economy in the teeth. It’s called the Law of Supply and Demand. Increase the supply, and the demand goes way down. Increase the supply of documented workers, and no one will make a living wage.
How is anyone supposed to make a living at that end of the wage scale?
And as to the opposition to immigration, we currently legally admit about 1 million per year. You want more? Get Congress to up the quota.
We will then have a huge labor glut
“Then?” You just acknowledged that those workers are here.
BTW, the number is 11 million, and that is the entire undocumented population, including grandmas, babies, school kids, and homemakers.
Increase the supply,
Given the same number of people documents doesn’t increase the supply.
He’s not necessarily wrong that the requirement for documentation for many projects keeps the wage scale up (for those projects). The question is more whether or not he is correct about the likely effect of an increase in the labor supply of documented workers.
I think the more important question is whether that effect is greater than the wage-raising effect of not having an undocumented “reserve army.”
While that may not be the only consequence of amnesty on the labor situation, it would appear to be the most significant one.
That’s non-responsive to Joe’s point.
And even worse, it’s poorly done.
I need a high-tech worker to tell me I need to talk to blue-collar workers more like a need a Muslim to tell me I should have a beer every once in a while.
You mean, of course, that I should have a discussion with some white, English-speaking person who does tile and drywall.
But you know what? I’m quite certain, “dataguy,” that I have discussion with working-class people a hell of a lot more than you do, and for you to attempt to out-prole me in this regard is laughable.
How’z about you do a little googling on Lowell, “dataguy,” and get back to me about who lives in a bubble.
Many progressives live in this white-collar ghetto.
Were you and the other software designers just talking about this over lunch at Panera?
And finally, speaking about bubbles, the guy who pipes up during a conversation about Republican opposition to immigration reform to insist that race has nothing to do with it really needs to get out more.
And another one is the other part of the “immigration reform” bill – the vast increase in the STEM visas included here. We do not need to double the number of STEM visas. We need to cut these visas. We have a glut of those able and willing to do this work.
The well-known positions of NSF and Alan Greenspan on H-1Bs and other visas is that they would work to effectively reduce the labor costs of high-tech workers. These predictions were made back in the 90s and have been very accurate.
So, the idea is quite clear – H-1Bs are to come here to undercut and displace US workers. UNDERCUT AND DISPLACE.
People who used to be able to make a living consulting on IT cannot anymore. There is vast credentials fraud in the H-1B industry. Andy many disasters recently in large-scale IT projects can be directly attributed to incompetent H-1Bs.
Not only are there too many H-1Bs, there are also an UNLIMITED number of J-1s. Your kid many want a summer job, but often that summer job is going to go to some kid from Kazachstan. Why would a person come here from Kazachstan to flip burgers? Because there is a tax cut to hire such kids – businesses do not pay unemployment tax, SS, or other taxes. By flying in some person, they can save thousands over the summer. Sometimes you can get the J-1 to pay for their own flight.
We have seen thousands and thousands of layoffs since 1995. People who used to work in IT drive cabs. People HAVE HAD to train their own replacement, or in many cases, the several replacements.
This part of the bill is unacceptable. I’m gonna fight the hell out of this bill. What is amazing is that a huge part of the Obama coalition is college students. THIS BILL WILL ENSURE THAT MANY OF THEM DO NOT GET JOBS. He used them to get re-elected.
When is the last time you heard a Demoratic politician say “Our American college graduates need jobs, and should be given first priority”. That is what happens in Canada, Germany, UK, and every other country, including China and India. Why don’t we do that here?
There are also economic reasons to oppose illegal immigration
But this isn’t about opposing illegal immigration – it’s about opposing legal immigration, and keeping it illegal.
I am in agreement with your concerns about the problems generated for Americans by having a “reserve army” of poor, easily-exploitable workers. Providing these people with “amnesty” is an effort to address these problems, by making those workers less easy to exploit, more powerful, and more a part of the American mainstream. To oppose amnesty is to support keeping that population in its current condition.
So, no, the opposition of people like Rubio cannot be explained as a desire to protect Americans from the problems you mention. Quite the opposition, anti-amnesty politics demonstrate a desire to continue inflicting those problems on our society, in order to have cheap labor.
…because they mistake absolutism for principles.
…. Because they aren’t really interested in actually governing or implementing solutions, perfect or otherwise.
… Because they aren’t very smart.
… And because they don’t want spicks taking over their racist country.
It’s a simple calculation that it won’t improve their electoral prospects in the short term, might in fact, cost them the house if this passes. Same with gun control. Rubio gets tossed under the bus for trying to break in line.
It looks like an obvious pretext to me. They poll-tested the various anti-immigration reform talking points, and “amnesty” got the best numbers.
Catering to the various degrees of American racism is a good bet for wingnut pols and their sponsors. For the sponsors, though there’s a motive that’s much more important: reducing the flow of “illegals” means fewer under-the-radar workers with no rights, no security, and no bargaining power. The American “economic miracle” has been fueled by slave labor of one kind or another from its birth right up to the present. Changing that threatens the very existence of the oligarchy that Lowry and his kind work for.
How’s this for a theory: focusing on amnesty is a consequence of internal Republican politics. There is a list of immigration policies the business conservatives want, but the cultural conservatives hate most of them. There is a list of immigration policies the cultural conservatives want, but business conservatives hate most of those.
Once you cross off everything that the other faction hates from each side’s list, you’re left with “No Amnesty!” as the main point they can rally around.
If I had my way, we’d open up the borders, lower the retirement age, bring in foreign doctors, give undocumented immigrants amnesty, and call it a day.
You might up the minimum wage.
What the issue really comes down to is the free flow of labor cannot create prosperity in a world where there is a race to the bottom on labor standards. If the ILO was as powerful setting labor standards as the WTO is at removing them as “non-tariff restraints on trade”, immigration would be less vexing a problem and there could be an evolution toward open borders. (Which incidentally was the norm until about the time of the Civil War.
I prefer a 85-90% unionized workforce to the minimum wage, and I prefer expanding the EITC to the minimum wage, but one of the three obviously needs to happen.
I’d like to try and work some sort of free movement of labor between industrialized countries, but I’m not sure how that would work.