So if business groups aren't going to support the immigration compromise plan, then why not scrap this guest worker business? That seems like a point which both pro-immigration liberals and anti-immigration conservatives ought to be able to agree on. The guest workers were clearly in there as a sop to business lobbyists, but if they don't like their sop, then let's take it out. It's a terrible idea.
« Iraqi Civil War: Now With Better Drive Shafts | Main | I Can't Even Think of An Appropriate Joke »
Why Compromise?
21 May 2007 09:23 am
Comments (33)
"The guest workers were clearly in there as a sop to business lobbyists, but if they don't like their sop, then let's take it out. It's a terrible idea."
Does anyone actually believe an immigration bill is going to pass this session of Congress?
I'd put the odds on a bill becoming law as pretty damn low.
While guest workers is indeed a terrible idea, as far as I'm concerned, stands on this bill should purely be driven by politics, not policy. (Of course, if I'm wrong about the legislation's prospects, my ideas here would shift.)
Matt,
The terms pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant are inaccurate since it ignores the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants.
It seems pro-legalization and anti-legalization are better terms.
I am a liberal, and I oppose any path to citizenship for illegals, and I oppose any increases in legal immigration.
Big business is using both legal and illegal immigration to drive down American wages.
Please watch this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265
I also support massive decreases in legal immigration. Immigration will destroy our environment, infrastructures, and turn theU.S. into endless suburban development.
The biggest backer of immigration is Wal-Mart, which last year gave more money to La Raza than to any other organization.
Legal and illegal immigration are but tools for big business to drive down American wages.
Without a guest worker plan, I would be completely happy with this bill. Anything else that's wrong with it can be fixed in committee, including the hoops immigration
Matt(the non famous), I'll explain it to you. In our economy, wages are determined by the floor at which wages are set, and the availability of labor. Therefore, the only way to bring down wages in our economy is the dismantling of the minimum wage (which is politically not feasible) or the importation of large numbers of cheap labor. Because of this, if there is a shortage of labor in an area, wages must increase to attract people to that sector. Despite record profits, employers do not want to raise wages. So instead they hatch a plan in congress to get their DLC and Republican minions to create a bill establishing a permanent underclass of workers without any collective bargaining rights, and who have no long-term investment in the US standard of living. Even if the guest worker program is of a token size, it can be increased when voters and the media aren't paying attention, so that's not of the concern. Simple amnesty has a very different effect, providing a small decrease in wages in the near term, a slight improvement in the median term, and a maintenance of the status quo in the long term.
Basically, business is upset because of what few rights this bill would provide for guest workers. They want a bill that allows them to treat them true slaves, and will further break the backs of unions in this country. Unions support the bill because they are run by corrupt old men who view a few extra million unions dues in the short term, and don't think about the abolishment of unions that will come after they die. Liberals support the bill because it helps poor foreign workers at the expense of poor American workers, and progressives generally oppose it for precisely the same reason.
Personally, a bill with no quest worker provision is merely a poor bill. I'd prefer a bill that had real provisions cracking down on employers who hired illegal immigrants. Without these measures, Amnesty is a temporary patch on the problem and will have very little actual effect on the lives of most Americans. This is a demand problem, and a problem of lawlessness in the US corporate and small business structure. It can not be solved on the immigrant side.
It's increasingly unlikely to pass, probably won't even get out of the Senate.
The Washington Times reports today that fewer than 20 senators are openly supporting it. Shitstorms like we've seen in the past week get noticed.
A year ago, I was staunchly against a guest worker program, just like Matt. But then I started reading stories about villages in Mexico and El Salvador where all of the working age males had left for the US, and the social disruptions this was causing. Immigration policy ought to consider not just the effect on us and the effect on the immigrants, but also the effect on the country people are immigrating from.
It’s pretty clear that a certain amount immigration is good for the Latin American counties as well as us, because of remittances, cultural transmission, and the like. But at a certain point, the effect might be different. It’s hard to see how if all of the most skilled and/or hardest working people in Mexico leave for the US, Mexico will end up better off.
I’ve come around to thinking that a guest worker program worker might actually be a good idea, if it can be structured in a way that precludes exploitation. Admittedly, that’s a big if….
Also, see Dani Rodrick who says, ‘even a minor temporary guest worker program would generate greater benefits to the developing nations than all of the Doha trade agenda taken in its entirety.’
Basically, business is upset because of what few rights this bill would provide for guest workers. They want a bill that allows them to treat them true slaves
This certainly seemed to be the subtext of the employers' complaints about the merit-based "point system" for immigrants. The plan seemed to say, "if you have enough points, you are good enough to come here and find a job of your own accord." The employers said that they preferred a system where admission of potential immigrants was dependent on if the employer wanted them to come (and, I assume, be bound to that employer).
soullite, I don't think that the situation you describe is accurate. Much of the best work on immigration indicates that immigrant labor doesn't compete with, but rather complements, native labor. It's not that if we didn't have immigrant labor that natives would be doing valet parking and landscaping at a higher wage but rather that most of those jobs would disappear. Then, the people doing those jobs would not spend money here, further hurting the economy. Some economists don't accept this (Borjas is the best known) but there work is hardly decisive and since they don't suggest actually doing anything to help the poor other than limiting immigration it's hard not to think they are more anti-immigration than pro poor people. Again, I'm not defending the details of this particular guest-worker program. they can and should be improved. But a categorical rejection will either leave us with the status quo or a worse program.
"Guests" aren't good for many reasons, but without them we'll be treated to yet another round of corrupt reporters printing reports from corrupt growers complaining about CropsRotting in the fields. MattY no doubt knows the endless string of highly similar articles I'm refering to, I'm sure.
It is absurd to think that a significant number of jobs will disappear if there are not undocumented workers to fill them.
People want their lawns mowed, food served and homes built.
A good friend of mine worked on a very large construction project at a local university. He estimated the undocumented to citizen ratio was 60-40. An article in the Houston Chronicle a few years ago described a complex network of sub-contractors set up to protect home builders from immigration issues.
One interesting topic I have never seen discussed: how are undocumenteds paid? What percentage are 'on the books' falsely vs. what percentage are part of a cash economy? I am aware of several situations where people have had their personal lives entangled (especially the IRS) by their SSNs being stolen by an undocumented worker 'on the books.'
And BTW, there is already a program for seasonal workers called H2-b. I was completely unaware of this program until CNN broadcast a story on how the Hamptons (!) was desperately short of foreign workers to do summer lawn work and to work in the resorts. It seems the feds were slow and had even cut back on this program. Employers in the Hamptons had requested 5000 seasonal workers.
"It is absurd to think that a significant number of jobs will disappear if there are not undocumented workers to fill them."
No it's not. People want Chinese food delivered, but only if it's cheap and w/ no charge for delivery. They want someone else to mow the lawn, but if it because too expensive they mow it themselves. Resturants have valet parking only if people will pay for it. If the cost doubles, many won't. Many goods are desirable only at low prices. If labor costs go up many of these marginal goods will just disappear.
Basically, business is upset because of what few rights this bill would provide for guest workers. They want a bill that allows them to treat them true slaves
This is a major reason. Businesses want subservient people.
they say "indentured servitude!" "exploitation!" and the like without explaining why this is supposed to be the case.
Read Oliver Twist? Asking for more? The H1B and green card(the many years to get it) is like that - ask for more, and you get thrown out. Well, you may not find many cases like that - but the threat exists, is real, and the very existence of the threat is enough to curb wages. [Kind of like the midnight knock on the door and gulag - you only have to know that these are possible to spread the chill of fear and keep people subservient]
Want to know how true this is? Propose a new schem e that lets the employer bring the people of their liking, but insist that the visa or work permit is not tied to the employer.
Let's see how happy the employers are with such a scheme.
Re Matt's comment " They want someone else to mow the lawn, but if it becomes too expensive they mow it themselves."
Ha ha haha. Bullshit.
Mort Zuckerman, the superrich owner of US News and World Report, was on the McLaughlin Report Sunday and was strongly promoting greater immigration.
Show me a limousine liberal like Mort Zuckerman or Ted Kennedy pushing a lawn mower and I'll kiss your butt.
RC:
"It’s pretty clear that a certain amount immigration is good for the Latin American counties as well as us, because of remittances, cultural transmission, and the like."
The Wall Street Journal (whose editorial page is of course zealously pro-open borders) had a front page article a while ago that examined the effects of remittances on a town in El Salvador where virtually all the working-age men were in the United States. The article also referenced a few studies on this. Long story short: remittances did a poor job of promoting economic development in third world towns.
Many goods are desirable only at low prices. If labor costs go up many of these marginal goods will just disappear.
Right. Not every task is amenable to greater mechanization. Some jobs surely will dissapear if workers can't be found to staff them.
Still, I don't think we need worry about higher prices for oranges or hotel rooms. If Congress fails to create a legal means for economic migrants from Latin America to work in the US, our economy will thankfully still be able to enjoy the benefits provided by all those exploited illegal workers who arrive here each day.
I agree with you Jasper. (I'm not sure if you meant to disagree with me or not.) It seems pretty clear to me that the choices are between illegal immigration or a guest worker program. The former is always going to be worse for the non-citizens, and for most citizens, too. So, liberals ought to stop screaming and start thinking seriously about how to make a guest worker program as good as it can be. I've seen no evidence that Matt Y or Mark Kleiman or others screaming about it have given it any serious thought.
RC promotes remittances, without mentioning that Mexico and other countries really, really, really like that money. And, they work very, very, very hard to make sure it keeps flowing, including lobbying city councils across the U.S. to accept their ID cards. While I understand how many Dems might not think that's a bad thing - and some Dems help them out - everyone else realizes that's a very bad thing. Some cities even let them use public buildings to pass out their cards to their citizens who are here illegally. And, plenty of news stories have cheerfully announced the visit by the MexicanConsul to pass out the cards, without mentioning the downsides.
And, the FederalReserve is trying to profit from the flow that IllegalAliens send home, meaning that (another) part of the federal government is profiting from indirect illegal activity.
"Culture of corruption" indeed.
I agree with you Jasper. (I'm not sure if you meant to disagree with me or not.) It seems pretty clear to me that the choices are between illegal immigration or a guest worker program.
I was agreeing with you, though, yes, I was being a tad snarky to say we'll continue to be able to "enjoy" illegal immigration.
Obviously, I'd much prefer that there be a legal, regulated system whereby these hardworking folks can partake of the bounty of the American economy and have their rights protected. Regrettably I seem to be in the minority.
It’s hard to see how if all of the most skilled and/or hardest working people in Mexico leave for the US, Mexico will end up better off.
Remittances are no long-term solution. Trouble is, no-one in the US appeared to want a Mexican president who might -- oh noes! -- appear on a stage with Hugo Chavez. Can't have it both ways.
And I see WikiCapsBlogwhore is back, with his curious SEO-driven failure to use the space bar, and his equally curious silence on his immigrant ancestry and scurrilous bullshit about a Mexican insurgency. When are they going to declare war on us all, Wack O'?
Fred, I read the story you mentioned, and I agree that remittances don't necessarily do anything for a country's long term growth. However, remmitances certainly help the material circumstances of the people who are receiving them. That has to be factored in as well.
Matt, the reason OUR laborforce doesn't compete with these illegal immigrants is because illegal immigrants pushed them out of the competition for this job. Americans won't pick oranges for $ 2 an hour. They expenct to be paid $ 8.50 an hour because that's what the labor market dictates.
to put it bluntly, your statement proves my point, it doesn't undermine it. You seem to think American workers are simply too lazy to do these jobs. That's not it at all. They simply expect to be paid the market wage for them.
Actually, real Americans are at a deep disadvantage to competing with illegals because real Americans have to report their income to the IRS and pay 20% + in income taxes and payroll taxes and local/state taxes.
Whereas an illegal can agree to a lower wage because he simply folds up the cash and sends it south.
PS Plus corporations like illegals because they (a) are under the thumb of management 100% and (b) the company doesn't have to pay Social Security/Medicare/state unemployment taxes on the illegal.
Look, I've said this a lot, but clearly I haven't said this enough.
If you think it's okay for American leaders to put the interests of foreign workers ahead of the interests of American workers, you do not understand the nature of leadership. A leader preserves and protects his or her people. They do not take from them, and give to others. That argument will lead to political and social irrelevance.
Most of you who advocate this aren't in professions that will be open to competition with "guest workers". You won't suffer the tiniest bit for this. Instead, you will reap the rewards of lower prices and cheaper labor. Instead, you're willing to sacrifice those amongst us who are least able to defend themselves. Tell me again how that's a noble impulse.
"You seem to think American workers are simply too lazy to do these jobs. That's not it at all. They simply expect to be paid the market wage for them."
I don't say anything about people being lazy, nor would I say that. My point is that at the 'market wage' for many of these services they would not exist or would only at a very much lower level. (I'm not sure your usage of 'market wage' here works, either, but that's besides the main point.)
Matt (not the famous one):
You may not remember who did things like mowing lawns and working at fast food restaurants before we had this surfeit of illegals. We used to call these workers "teenagers". Have you checked on the teenage black unemployment rate recently?
Teenagers, who aren't dependent on their jobs for survival may be less submissive workers than illegals, but enough of them will be willing to mow lawns for decent wages.
RC: I doubt remittances are pathway to prosperity for Mexico, and, by idling recipients and feeding complacency about their domestic political and economic situation, they might be making things worse. In interesting possibility might be to somehow use these remittances as a lever to influence the Mexican government to initiate economic reforms necessary to give Mexicans more opportunity in their own country.
"Show me a limousine liberal like Mort Zuckerman..."Whoa there, cowboy! On what planet is Mort Zuckerman a "liberal?"
Any discussion of the economic pros of illegal immigration should also address the huge COSTS.
Which are being ignored by the news media.
As just one example, China has over 4 TIMEs the population we do (1.3 Billion vs 300 million) , yet we have almost 5 TIMES more people incarcerated than does China (7 million versus 1.5 million ).
We spend $Hundreds of BILLIONS every YEAR to apprehend, try, convict, and imprison our citizens -- instead of offering them a road to a decent life.
But when you have a corrupt oligarchy in which 42 MILLION citizens over the age of 25 have an annual income of less than $12,500, then you should not complain about crime.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
RE "On what planet is Mort Zuckerman a "liberal?" "
---------
On the McLaughlin Group.
Mort is always put on the left side with Eleanor Clift -- versus the right hand side holding right wingers like Tony Blankley.
Besides, Mort is a Jewish Billionaire who gave $4000 to Erskine Bowles in 2004. Plus money to something called a national leadership PAC.
By definition, that makes him a liberal. I think the DSCC hands out a lapel pin, a secret password, or something.
Of course, "liberal Democrat" is a word of nuances. Just ask all the Joe Lieberman supporters.
Teenagers, who aren't dependent on their jobs for survival may be less submissive workers than illegals, but enough of them will be willing to mow lawns for decent wages.
I thought that teenagers today were just lay-about good-for-nothings who wear crazy clothes and listen to loud music, nothing like the hard-working teenagers we were.
Matt, no your point is you don't care. Rather than admit that you don't care, you want to pretend that you just don't understand what I'm saying. You didn't want an explanation of our view, you wanted to ATTACK our view. Otherwise, you would have actually responded to the fact that your example sucked, rather than looking for whatever paragraph you thought you'd have the easiest time of attacking. There's a reason I put that accusation in there, and that's because I knew if a person wasn't honest, they'd attack that statement and not the underlying logic.
Matt, the only way that those "market wages" can be "naturally" lower is if you want to lower minimum wage. You're statement that "I'm not sure the term market wages applies"(paraphrase), indicates that this is true. You realy don't think that the minimum wage should exist, just as you think businesses should import labor because it's cheaper. You're a "free market" type, and as such I've got nothing to say to you. You're only concern is shedding your guilt from the sick, selfish, and greedy policies you advocate. I'm not going to provide you with any more cover.
Comments closed June 04, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Why is it terrible? Many aspects of this particular plan are far from ideal but I've yet to see a good argument that some form of guestworker plan is inherently bad. There are lots of bad arguments, but most of the arguments I've seen are not good- they appeal to the German experience without noticing how the US situation makes that sort of thing impossible, or they say "indentured servitude!" "exploitation!" and the like without explaining why this is supposed to be the case. Matt- I strongly suspect that you were taught by many guest workers (that is, H1-B visa holders) at Harvard since most foreign born assistant professors, post-docs, and lecturers are on those. those are guest workers. Were they exploited? No more than other professors are. If you're going to be credible on this you need to come up with some specific arguments, ones that go beyond the fact that this particular program has some bad aspects (I'd make the visa portable between jobs, change the 'touch-back' requirement, probably elminating it after one use by the visa holder, and allow for an application for permanent resident status after, say, 3 or 4 renewals of the visa w/ no arrests, paid taxes, etc. but these are changes that would make a guestworker plan more efficient and attractive, not just hand-ringing w/o explaination of the sort we seem to get here and from Mark Kleiman.)
Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | May 21, 2007 9:57 AM