 |
Immigration: Give Us Your Shortstop . . . But Keep Your Poor? |
 |
The Political Motivations for the “Sort Of†Debate
Immigration is an issue I truly dislike discussing. Personally I agree with Dick Cheney, who during the VP debates in 2000 stated, “Freedom means freedom for everybody.†America is the “land of the free,” so shouldn’t it follow that anyone who wants our freedom can obtain it? But freedom, of course, doesn’t mean there are no limits - but that’s the really tricky part. I’m going to try to avoid talking about that as much as possible. Instead, I’ll lend you my opinions from my area of expertise, which is why some politicians even talk about the issue in the first place, and why others refuse to touch it.
The heart of the immigration (or anti-immigration) issue rests within the Republican Party’s feelings towards non-white potential voters. On the one hand they need to rally their base, especially in the south, and there they use the idea that Mexicans are crossing the border illegally in order to specifically take John Q/Jane Q Public’s job. On the other hand, they’re actively courting the Latino Vote as the new “soccer mom†demographic. Let’s look at this politically, shall we?
Americans of Latin descent overwhelmingly make their homes along the border of the United States and Mexico. This is not to say that this is the only place Latin-Americans live, but just that it’s the most common, especially when we’re discussing the issue of immigration. President Bush, I believe, truly does not care about this issue, for I actually feel (yes, and I think he’s right on the issue) that he’s more sympathetic towards Latinos than he gets credit for, hence his weak-ass immigration platform that really didn’t get him any votes either way in the 2004 election. ‘Guest Worker’ doesn’t rally the faithful or piss off Latinos…it’s a “here you go†solution to a question that is raised by activists on both sides of the aisle.
Latino voters are interesting, though, because they blend with the ideals from both parties on different levels. Latino Voters (by this I mean, overwhelmingly, Cubans and Mexicans) are, for the most part, socially conservative when it comes to issues of homosexuality and abortion, but on the flip side they’re incredibly liberal on issues of overall equality, freedom, and workers’ rights. Illegal immigrants work shit jobs, whereas legalized immigrants tend to own small businesses and just want their shot at the “American Dream.â€
Immigration, amongst the Latino group, becomes even more complex when discussing who really benefits: The majority of illegal immigrants within the United States work low-paying jobs without health care at ridiculous hours per week. A naturally born American citizen would not work these hours, but illegal immigrants do. Who does this benefit? It doesn’t benefit the worker, but rather the consumer (low product prices) and the business owner (higher revenues at a lower cost). So, follow the money: Business Owners, for the most part, vote Republican because the Republican Party gives more tax breaks to business owners at all levels, but the Republican Party faithful (the larger percentage of voters within the Party) wants no immigrants for, more or less, racial reasons. So what does the Republican Party do? How do they keep the faithful in tow yet also keep Big Business owners happy (and contributing and voting)? Here’s how!
Republicans make immigration a wedge issue! The immigration issue in America is almost equal to the abortion issue, meaning that it’s brought up just enough to piss people off, yet nothing is really going to change. Some in politics have proposed building a wall spanning the entirety of the America/Mexico border. Not to sound racist, but who do you think is actually going to end up building that wall? I’ve been to those parts of America, and the thought of an entire white-male/female crew building a wall from south Texas to southern California is just, well, unbelievable. It’s also unbelievable that this sort of endeavor will actually happen, but it’s brought up for one reason and that reason is to divide one argument from the other. Other ideas that have been proposed include finding and tossing out all illegal immigrants, as well as some 2-year work-here agreement that was honestly so ridiculous I stopped listening. A paid internship for freedom? Give me a break!
Speaking of big business, perhaps if America invested in the Mexican economy rather than exploiting it then people wouldn’t have to come to America in the first place. Maybe if companies like GM didn’t close down plants in Michigan and move the business to Mexico only to pay workers there next to nothing we wouldn’t have this problem. If GM opened a plant in Mexico and paid a salary equal to what they paid here they could create a spark…the only problem is GM won’t go to Mexico and do that when they can stay here and do it. In the end they just want to increase the size of their own wallets. The idea that Mexican workers are “taking our jobs†seems ridiculous when in reality the CEOs of America are giving our jobs away just to make, or save, a few bucks.
In order to not sound completely racist, Republicans tend to blend the immigration issue with National Security. This argument almost works for a small fraction of white voters, but it’s still ludicrous. The hijackers on 9.11 trained, through legal means, in flight schools here in America, not Canada or Mexico. Also, the idea of a border being completely closed off is kind of insane unless you want something similar to Berlin…and then we’d be living in a Communist regime…and the Wall obviously didn’t work out too well the first time, so why try it again?
In the end it comes down to money and then, to a somewhat lesser extent, voting. Both Democrats and Republicans view the ever increasing Latino population in America as the next great swing voter group due to their diverse beliefs in both social and political landscapes, and it appears to me at least that each political party is just trying their best to do what they do without pissing off Latinos too much. However, the immigration dilemma, if it truly is a dilemma, isn’t going to be solved through the political process but rather through social understanding that everyone does deserve their piece of the American pie, and that Freedom does mean freedom for everyone…not just who we think deserves and who we think does not.
Also, if you think Democrats have a better “solution,†you’re dead wrong. Democrats basically don’t talk about it and let Republicans dig themselves further into a hole by creating more in-house turmoil for the base and the moderates. Politically it’s not an issue any white person wants to campaign on. African-American candidates don’t really want to talk about it either when it comes to Latino voters because polling data suggests that the only group Latino voters distrust more than white politicians is black politicians. That being said, no one really wants to talk about this unless their constituency demands it…and if the constituents demand discussion chances are it’s in an area of the country where a strong position either way will get you elected so you can go to Washington and resume not talking about it.
It’s a tough issue that won’t be solved on a national level for quite some time. It’s an issue mostly sparked by fear and division, and that’s why it won’t be solved even IF there is some sort of solution. But for a country that talks up Freedom as though the world will eventually run out of it, it’s ridiculous to say “these people can live here†and “these people can’t.†Either change your tune, or give the statue of Liberty back to France, which is ironically a country that appears to have more racist attitudes towards immigration than we do. But what do I know? I was accused of being Xenophobic because I don’t like burritos. I enjoy salsa dancing, just not salsa…so it goes.
Well said. The racial issues embedded in immigration are huge, right at the core of the issue, and yet people refuse to see it that way. Instead, its about amnesty, or criminals, or jobs, or security. Once this is recognized, or once the Latino vote gets powerful enough, I don’t think it will be hard to come to some sort of agreement on a rational immigratin policy. As lots of other immigration articles here have pointed out, there are ways. Right now, supply is not meeting demand. We need to change that.
The WSJ had an interesting article on immigrants and the financial future of baby boomers. (Unfortunately, it’s only available to online subscribers.) The article basically argued that the well-being of ageing baby boomers and of retired seniors is directly related to the success of immigrants. When boomers try to sell their houses at retirement, for example, they will only get the price the rising middle class can afford to pay and that middle class will be primarily immigrants based on current trends in reproduction rates. Old-age health care and social security will also rely on the income/tax-base supplied by younger workers.
Unfortunately, the people who need immigrants to have job security, fair wages/income and legal status tend to vote against measures that serve and protect immigrant rights. If we separated the economic issues from the racial issues, we might be able to come up with a solution, but in America, we don’t seem to have the foresight to realize that our success is tied to the success of others.
Question: Would businesses who make gains by cutting worker rights/wages be more willing to find a reasonable solution if repercussions for hiring undocumented laborers were harsher?
Question: Would businesses who make gains by cutting worker rights/wages be more willing to find a reasonable solution if repercussions for hiring undocumented laborers were harsher?
Undoubtedly so. Yet these same employers–ie large manafacturing plants–seem to be paying their way out of any repercussions. However, TIME in an article several months ago, mentioned this as the SINGLE point that all sides agree on.
What about people coming into the country? Work Visas and a smoother path to citizenship?
If large corporations can simply buy their way out of repercussions for breaking the law by hiring undocumented immigrants, is it possible for The People to send a message(financially and ideologically) to these corporations who seem keen on breaking the law to pad their profit margins? Boycotts could work with a little research. But that raises another question: could the boycotts be effective enough in the long-run to justify the short-term hardship they’d cause the immigrants who lose their jobs as a result?
Here’s a link to the research conducted at USC on the relationship between boomer voters and immigrant laborers. http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/13379.html The results of this research formed the basis of the WSJ article I mentioned above.
I think all solutions point towards legalization. If you increase the supply of legal options to meet demand, after you give amnesty to those already here under our weird system you can safely crack down on those who still go outside the rules. The way you do that would be by going after the corporations. That way, corporations won’t be able to reap the benefits from illegal immigration that they have, or at least those benefits can be regulated. Then, we gain a measure of control over things and we can head off crises like those described by the WSJ.
The history of this country contains numerous examples of people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder being the most anti immigrant. It makes sense because they are the ones most threatened by cheap labor. Look at the experience of free Black, Irish, Jews, and now Latinos. There is always scapgoating of immigrants. The labor unions have always been very anti immigrant for just this reason- they are trying to restrain competition.
Polls have repeatedly shown that anti immigrant views are equally split down party lines. Pro Bus. republicans and Economically successful Demos are both pro immigrant. Republican “Populists” and Blue Collar Democrats are both anti immigrant.
I think you are right statistics wise, but I can’t understand why big labor hasn’t really gotten behind immigration reform. With unions losing all sorts of power, you would think that these Democratic strongholds would be clamoring for more legal immigrants, and thus a whole new group of people who need union representation.