Sogdian
12th February 2010, 17:15
I was reading The Conservative Nanny State (conservativenannystate.org/) by Dean Baker and this section raises the question that I for long time wanted to understand in depth. I have difficulty in understanding Socialist/Communist et al. positions on Immigration. Surely current capitalist immigration laws are especially unfair to the working class. I understand the arguments about multi-culturalism, diversity, etc. but what about the economic burden of immigration to the local working class? In short term, what should be the position of the working class in [so called] developed countries towards immigration?
Trade is not the only mechanism that nanny state conservatives have used
to depress the wages of the bulk of the population. Immigration has also been
an important tool to depress the wages of a substantial segment of the
workforce. The principle with immigration is exactly the same as with trade. It
takes advantage of the billions of workers in developing countries who are
willing to work at substantially lower wages than workers in the United States to
drive down the wages in a wide range of occupations.
The conservative nanny state folklore on immigration is that immigrants
take jobs that workers in the United States do not want, and they point to jobs
like custodians, dishwashers, and fruit picking, all very low paying jobs. The
problem with the folklore is that the reason that native born workers are
unlikely to want these jobs is that they are low-paying, not because they are
intrinsically such awful jobs. Native-born workers have been willing to take
many unpleasant jobs when they were compensated with high wages.
Meatpacking is an obvious example of an industry that did offer relatively highpaying
jobs that were widely sought after by native-born workers, even though
no one would be very happy to work in a slaughterhouse. This is less true today
than in the past, because the meatpacking industry has taken advantage of the
availability of immigrant workers to depress wages and working conditions in
the industry. As a result, immigrant workers are now a very large share of the
workforce in the meatpacking industry.7
The same sort of situation holds in all of the jobs that native born workers
supposedly do not want. Native-born workers will wash dishes, clean toilets,
and pick tomatoes for $20 an hour. When the nanny state conservatives say that
they can't find native-born workers for these jobs, they mean that they can't find
native-born workers at the wages that they want to pay, just as most of us can't
find native-born doctors or lawyers who are willing to work for $15 an hour.
The difference is that the nanny state conservatives get to bring in immigrants at
low wages to meet their needs, whereas the doctors and lawyers can count on
the nanny state to protect them from competition with immigrant workers.
The immigration laws end up being an effective conservative nanny state
tool in this respect. The current laws do put limits on the numbers of
immigrants who can enter the country each year, which should limit the extent
to which immigrant workers can place downward pressure on the wages of
native born workers. However, a large number of immigrants work in violation
of these laws, but overwhelmingly in jobs held by less educated workers (e.g.
dishwashers, custodians, fruit pickers).
There are two reasons that this is the case. The first is that less-skilled
workers in developing countries have less to risk by working illegally in the
United States than more highly skilled workers. In other words, if a person is
working in a relatively low-paying job in Mexico or Central America, they are
not giving up a lot to work without proper documentation in the United States.
On the other hand, doctors, lawyers, or accountants in Mexico or Central
America would be risking a relatively secure position in their home countries if
they went to the United States with the intention of working illegally. If they got
caught and deported, they would be much worse off than if they had stayed in
their home country. For this reason, less-skilled workers will be far more likely
to risk working illegally in the United States.
On the other side, there are no organized groups in the United States with
substantial political power to raise issues about the lack of enforcement of
immigration laws when the people being hired are less-skilled workers. If a
hospital made a practice of hiring foreign doctors who are in the United States
illegally, and paying them a fraction of the prevailing wage for doctors, or a
university sought to hire large numbers of immigrant professors who were not
legally authorized to work in the United States, it is virtually certain that there
would be loud demands from doctors' lobbies and organizations of university
faculty, demanding that the laws be enforced.
The result of this situation is that there are a substantial number of people
in the developing world who are prepared to come to the United States and
work in less-skilled jobs, in violation of U.S. immigration laws. This typically
means overstaying a tourist visa, but it can also mean a risky illegal crossing at
the border. For employers, this inflow of immigrants means a cheap labor pool
that lowers wages in a wide range of less-skilled jobs.
By contrast, the inflow of more skilled immigrants is restricted largely to
those who work in the country legally. The pool of higher-skilled immigrants
has been expanded somewhat in recent years with special visa programs, such as
the H1-B program, which allows workers with special skills that are deemed to
be in short supply (i.e. employers want to pay less) to work in the United States
for a limited period of time. However, the supply of higher-skilled immigrants is
still dwarfed by the inflow of less-skilled immigrants. In 2005, approximately
190,000 workers were employed on H1-B visas. By contrast, the Census Bureau
estimates that more than 5 million immigrants entered the country over the
prior decade without legal authorization, the vast majority of these people
presumably came to work in less-skilled jobs.
Since there has been a large increase in wages for more educated workers
over the last quarter century, and a relative decrease in the wages of lesseducated
workers, there should be an increase in the inflow of high-skilled
workers other things being equal. However, since immigration policy has been
deliberately skewed to benefit higher paid workers, it amplifies other factors
placing downward pressure on the wages of less skilled workers.
7 For a discussion of the transformation in the meatpacking industry see Stull, D., M. Broadway,
and K. Erickson, 1992. “The Price of a Good Steak: Beef Packing and Its Consequences for Garden City, Kansas,” in Structuring Diversity: Ethnographic Perspectives on the New Immigration, ed. L.
Lamphere, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Trade is not the only mechanism that nanny state conservatives have used
to depress the wages of the bulk of the population. Immigration has also been
an important tool to depress the wages of a substantial segment of the
workforce. The principle with immigration is exactly the same as with trade. It
takes advantage of the billions of workers in developing countries who are
willing to work at substantially lower wages than workers in the United States to
drive down the wages in a wide range of occupations.
The conservative nanny state folklore on immigration is that immigrants
take jobs that workers in the United States do not want, and they point to jobs
like custodians, dishwashers, and fruit picking, all very low paying jobs. The
problem with the folklore is that the reason that native born workers are
unlikely to want these jobs is that they are low-paying, not because they are
intrinsically such awful jobs. Native-born workers have been willing to take
many unpleasant jobs when they were compensated with high wages.
Meatpacking is an obvious example of an industry that did offer relatively highpaying
jobs that were widely sought after by native-born workers, even though
no one would be very happy to work in a slaughterhouse. This is less true today
than in the past, because the meatpacking industry has taken advantage of the
availability of immigrant workers to depress wages and working conditions in
the industry. As a result, immigrant workers are now a very large share of the
workforce in the meatpacking industry.7
The same sort of situation holds in all of the jobs that native born workers
supposedly do not want. Native-born workers will wash dishes, clean toilets,
and pick tomatoes for $20 an hour. When the nanny state conservatives say that
they can't find native-born workers for these jobs, they mean that they can't find
native-born workers at the wages that they want to pay, just as most of us can't
find native-born doctors or lawyers who are willing to work for $15 an hour.
The difference is that the nanny state conservatives get to bring in immigrants at
low wages to meet their needs, whereas the doctors and lawyers can count on
the nanny state to protect them from competition with immigrant workers.
The immigration laws end up being an effective conservative nanny state
tool in this respect. The current laws do put limits on the numbers of
immigrants who can enter the country each year, which should limit the extent
to which immigrant workers can place downward pressure on the wages of
native born workers. However, a large number of immigrants work in violation
of these laws, but overwhelmingly in jobs held by less educated workers (e.g.
dishwashers, custodians, fruit pickers).
There are two reasons that this is the case. The first is that less-skilled
workers in developing countries have less to risk by working illegally in the
United States than more highly skilled workers. In other words, if a person is
working in a relatively low-paying job in Mexico or Central America, they are
not giving up a lot to work without proper documentation in the United States.
On the other hand, doctors, lawyers, or accountants in Mexico or Central
America would be risking a relatively secure position in their home countries if
they went to the United States with the intention of working illegally. If they got
caught and deported, they would be much worse off than if they had stayed in
their home country. For this reason, less-skilled workers will be far more likely
to risk working illegally in the United States.
On the other side, there are no organized groups in the United States with
substantial political power to raise issues about the lack of enforcement of
immigration laws when the people being hired are less-skilled workers. If a
hospital made a practice of hiring foreign doctors who are in the United States
illegally, and paying them a fraction of the prevailing wage for doctors, or a
university sought to hire large numbers of immigrant professors who were not
legally authorized to work in the United States, it is virtually certain that there
would be loud demands from doctors' lobbies and organizations of university
faculty, demanding that the laws be enforced.
The result of this situation is that there are a substantial number of people
in the developing world who are prepared to come to the United States and
work in less-skilled jobs, in violation of U.S. immigration laws. This typically
means overstaying a tourist visa, but it can also mean a risky illegal crossing at
the border. For employers, this inflow of immigrants means a cheap labor pool
that lowers wages in a wide range of less-skilled jobs.
By contrast, the inflow of more skilled immigrants is restricted largely to
those who work in the country legally. The pool of higher-skilled immigrants
has been expanded somewhat in recent years with special visa programs, such as
the H1-B program, which allows workers with special skills that are deemed to
be in short supply (i.e. employers want to pay less) to work in the United States
for a limited period of time. However, the supply of higher-skilled immigrants is
still dwarfed by the inflow of less-skilled immigrants. In 2005, approximately
190,000 workers were employed on H1-B visas. By contrast, the Census Bureau
estimates that more than 5 million immigrants entered the country over the
prior decade without legal authorization, the vast majority of these people
presumably came to work in less-skilled jobs.
Since there has been a large increase in wages for more educated workers
over the last quarter century, and a relative decrease in the wages of lesseducated
workers, there should be an increase in the inflow of high-skilled
workers other things being equal. However, since immigration policy has been
deliberately skewed to benefit higher paid workers, it amplifies other factors
placing downward pressure on the wages of less skilled workers.
7 For a discussion of the transformation in the meatpacking industry see Stull, D., M. Broadway,
and K. Erickson, 1992. “The Price of a Good Steak: Beef Packing and Its Consequences for Garden City, Kansas,” in Structuring Diversity: Ethnographic Perspectives on the New Immigration, ed. L.
Lamphere, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.