Immigration

[chimx]

I am interested to hear pragmatic immigration solutions for the United States from this boards membership.

The current issue from a class perspective is that obviously immigrants that enter the country illegally are generally impoverished working class folks that are risking a great deal to better the living conditions for themselves and their families.

Alternatively, from the American working class perspective, illegal immigration, especially in the South West, is having a very negative impact on unions and union organization. The United States has a stronger economy than the Mexican economy, and American workers fight for a better pay that is proportionate to the American economy's strength. This isn't the case for immigrant labor that is used to a weaker economy. The result is that many of the large gains obtained through hard union work is undercut, making it nearly impossible to use unions as a successful negotiating tactic when dealing with owners and contractors.

Clearly immigrant labor, be it legal or illegal, is ultimately labor--i.e. working class. However, the conundrum as I see it, is that this labor force is not acting out of class interests, but rather personal/family/community. From an American union perspective, what is the solution? How does one incorporate illegal immigrant labor into the folds of America's class conscious labor? Obviously the current sentiments of racism and nationalism aren't a solution.

[Dr Mindbender]

Im not american, but in every country the 'illegal workers are driving down your wages' gambit is just one of many insidious divide and conquer tactics used by the beourgiouse to turn the working class to the right. Exactly the same thing is happening in western Europe with immigrants coming in from the former Eastern Bloc and places like the indian sub-continent. The only way to convince the american working class otherwise is to overcome the BS theyve been force fed their whole lives and open their eyes to the socialist alternative.

[chimx]

I'm surprised that you would assume it to be BS, as most people that work in construction can attest to its effect. Ignoring the issue isn't going to make it vanish.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:46 am
I'm surprised that you would assume it to be BS, as most people that work in construction can attest to its effect. Ignoring the issue isn't going to make it vanish.
The amount that the illegal immigrant or any other sort of immigrant costs the (indigenous) worker will always be the tip of the iceberg compared to what the bosses cost him. This is absolute socialist/communist principle. Heightening border tension and controls only serves to weaken the international working class conscience. Removing the beourgiouse hegemoney and its spearheading foreign activities will remove the push/pull factors of immigration and in that sense it is the root cause of the problem.

[chimx]

The amount that the illegal immigrant or any other sort of immigrant costs the (indigenous) worker will always be the tip of the iceberg compared to what the bosses cost him. This is absolute socialist/communist principle. Heightening border tension and controls only serves to weaken the international working class conscience. Removing the beourgiouse hegemoney and its spearheading foreign activities will remove the push/pull factors of immigration and in that sense it is the root cause of the problem.

I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't address how to unify indigenous and immigrant labor when there is a disparity between requested wages.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:52 am

The amount that the illegal immigrant or any other sort of immigrant costs the (indigenous) worker will always be the tip of the iceberg compared to what the bosses cost him. This is absolute socialist/communist principle. Heightening border tension and controls only serves to weaken the international working class conscience. Removing the beourgiouse hegemoney and its spearheading foreign activities will remove the push/pull factors of immigration and in that sense it is the root cause of the problem.

I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't address how to unify indigenous and immigrant labor when there is a disparity between requested wages.
its about organisation. Going down to picket lines of striking workers and arguing with them why they should come over to our side instead of the conservatives or the fascists. Making them see it isnt immigrants fault that their wages are going down.

[chimx]

What? If you see my original post, i was asking for pragmatic real-world solutions. Nothing utopic please.

[rouchambeau]

I hate to be nit-picky, but I wouldn't associate todays union activity with "class conscious labor".

But really, I don't see any immediate or practical solutions to this problem. Immigrants are going to come from Central America no matter what. What I think is important to worry about is how Americans will react. They can either escalate racial tensions and make things worse, or they can recognize the real enemy and unite with all working class people in taking down the system that makes it hard to live when there is an influx of immigrant labor.

[black magick hustla]

Communist revolution. We are communists after all, and only by understanding that illegal workers dont rob the wages of other workers, rather, bosses do that, is the problem going to be solved.

If that isnt the solution, then what. Reinforcing borders, deporting immigrant workers?

There are many "pragmatic" solutions for a lot of shit, like sending troops to darfur to "help" or banning guns to prevent a lot of armed crime. This are not real solutions of course, in the same way the welfare state is not a real solution to capitalism.

When we chose the communist position, we realized it is not going to be that easy. However it is only the real solution.

[chimx]

I was hoping a more immediate pragmatic solution, short of dreaming of communist revolution next week, would be a way for unions to more actively embrace illegal immigrant labor into the institutions. How that could be done effectively is what I was more curious about.

Still, the fact that the majority of you are essentially saying, "either further racism, or revolution asap," I find a little disheartening and telling of the lack of thought out solutions to the problem.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Seeing that pitting immigrant workers against native-born workers weakens them both, the nativist climate would help drive down the conditions of migrant workers, and make it easier for the employers to impose lower wages on all workers.

I think it is important to combat the attacks on immigrants by these fascist elements; to confront the armed groups that are only assisting in dividing the workers further into mere pockets of resistance. I think that, unless we build a united labor movement that openly welcomes the rights of these undocumented workers; unless we organize ourselves among the principle that we are all equal participants in the class struggle, the conditions for workers will continue to drop as benefits are eliminated, wages are slashed, and jobs are terminated.

I am guessing that there is no "pragmatic real-world solutions" - this is a task that we have to bring to our immediate consideration.

[dannydandy]

Well, I guess its better for us to examine the root of this problem - why is there immigrant workers in the first place?

1. They exist because the capitalists wants cheap labour over local labour with high demands

2. They exist because they are even more exploited in their home country that they do not have a choice but to seek new lives in USA

Thus, they exist due to the capitalist order mentioned above. To solve the problem, the local trade unions must be aware of the situation, and fight against the bourgeosie. Without demand for cheap labour, there would be no supply of it.

This actually complies with Marxism, which states that under capitalism, the workers would only fall, not increase in existence, since the capitlists would always wants to cut costs.

Speaking of pragmatic solutions, it would be rather reformist, like restricting immigration law, increasing the minimun wage, seeting up laws to force companies to hire local workers... all these measures could solve the root of the problem, and would only lengthen the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists.

[chimx]

unless we organize ourselves among the principle that we are all equal participants in the class struggle

But that is the problem. A great deal of the immigrant labor is breaking unions due to immediate family priorities. How do we organize illegal immigrant labor in class struggle when that is not necessarily a primary concern. As it is, illegal immigration is breaking unions, how do we effectively make it build better ones?

[rouchambeau]

Maybe the solution is to organise immigrant labor and the workplaces that hire them. That way, it will be harder for people to label them as scabs.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:11 am
I was hoping a more immediate pragmatic solution, short of dreaming of communist revolution next week...
I think, really, you was hoping that someone would defend 'pragmatic' immigration controls - i.e. reaction.

Marxists make no political distinction between 'domestic' labour and 'foreign' labour. We do not priviledge domestic labour against foreign workers. There is one working class - the international working class - and we recognise immigration controls as being against the interests of this class, helping to divide the working class. We see the increased international mobility of labour as a progressive phenomenon, and we call for an open-door policy on immigration.

Immigration controls are reactionary. They help to divide the working class, both domestically and internationally. As this article (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/567/swp.htm) points out:

'Immigration controls serve the capitalist system in two main ways. As stated above, they systematise the denial of rights as far as migrant workers are concerned. This allows them to become worst paid labour and suffer superexploitation. All of the abuses that Bridget Anderson details in her TUC report are made possible by this denial of rights.

'The other purpose immigration controls serve is ideological. They are used to cut migrant workers off from their British brothers and sisters and turn them into scapegoats for crimes committed by the capitalist system itself. They encourage racism and national chauvinism in an attempt to divide and rule.'

As this article (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm) explains, immigration controls are also a product of imperialism:

'While capital is free to move across borders in the hunt for markets and sources of profit, the representatives of capital insist on their god-given right to tightly control the pool of labour they have available to exploit; and to keep those same borders sealed off to surplus labour of the ‘wrong’ type - whether that means workers with inadequate skills, unsuitable work culture or too great an instinct for class solidarity.

'Border controls go hand in hand with the development of imperialism. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that immigration controls were introduced in most European countries and the United States. Previously, whole peoples were expelled if considered undesirable, but there had been no organised attempt to prevent immigration. England, for example, expelled all Jews in the 13th century, but it was not until the 1905 Aliens Act that measures were adopted to keep ‘undesirables’ out in the first place.'

Furthermpre, anti-immigration anxieties in society are a primary reason for far-right parties gaining support. We need to confront such anxieties and defend mass immigration.

Immigration controls are also supported by environmentalism (the new reactionary outlook of sections of the Western political elite and middle class) because it believes that a growing population is 'unsustainable'. (Indeed, how can you not be hostile to immigration if you want policies to reduce Britain's population by two-thirds). More and more, we are seeing anti-immigration sentiment expressed in Green language - particularly 'overpopulation' and 'sustainability'. As this very good article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1564/) points out:

'Today, demanding the abolition of immigration controls can also expose the reactionary character of what passes for radicalism. Like the Labour left, environmentalists have long been hostile to an open-door policy because they believe that population increases are not ‘sustainable’. However, the fact that millions of people around the world are desperately seeking to live and work in industrialised countries demonstrates why we need more development, not less; more industrialisation in the Third World rather than calls for ‘sustainable development’ to ‘save the planet’, as favoured by today’s greens and NGOs.'

[chimx]

I think, really, you was hoping that someone would defend 'pragmatic' immigration controls - i.e. reaction.


Perhaps it's because most of you do not work construction that you don't understand the nature of what I'm talking about. A unionized construction company, through collective bargaining, fights for a wage that reduces the degree of capitalist exploitation for a laborer. That means that the contractor or subcontractor will have to bid jobs higher while making less money, given the cost of labor. But if a contractor or subcontractor has a significant amount of illegal immingrants on his pay roll, his labor costs are significantly lower than the unionized company. The contractor can then bid a job for significantly less money, while still making a higher profit.

When you have a surplus of cheap labor, unionized labor takes a hit, regardless of if the workforce is immigrant or not.

But if your solution is to create a greater amount of non-union surplus labor, then that is going to drive down prices and break up unions. I don't support immigrant restriction, but what is a middle ground (short of "revolution tomorrow") that will allow for an advocacy of immigrant rights, while maintaining strong unions. Give me an effective organizational praxis!

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

if "illegal" immigrants are humanised, entitled to the same minimum wage as their "legal" counterparts under state law then they have no incentive to work for less and undercut the unionised workforce and could furthermore be incorporated in to the union mechanism.

[praxis1966]

Well, I'm sure I'm going to at the very least going to get call a reformist and at the most a reactionary for this response, but I think I know what you're driving at, Chimx.

The root cause of so-called illegal immigration is primarily economic, and secondarily political. What needs to be done, short of outright working class revolt, is ammending NAFTA. Provisions need to be added which create occupational safety standards, environmental standards, employment protections (ie right to organize and file for redress of work related problems) and a minimum wage comperable to that of the U$ and implimented in all of the signatory countries.

Does anyone honestly think that immigrants from south of the border enjoy risking life and limb, being cut off from family and culture, being mistreated in the workplace, and living in constant fear of deportation? Certainly not. I'm sure if given the option, most undocumented workers would rather stay in their home countries if they could enjoy the same pay, safety, and standard of living.

At any rate, even this is solution is a pipe dream. American big business, both domestically operating and employing immigrant labor and abroad making use of lower minimum wages, has such a stranglehold (through the use of lobbyists and campaign contributions) that this solution will come to fruition.

Therefore, and at the risk of sounding corny, revolution is the only solution.

[chimx]

Therefore, and at the risk of sounding corny, revolution is the only solution.

Perhaps a little... :)

Its an interesting idea you are proposing with NAFTA, but how much of the problem is the minimum wage? (this can goto you too Kevis) Construction laborers don't work for minimum wage. The real problem is the difference in economy between the United States and Mexico. So long as the former remains economically stronger, there is a temptation to take advantage of this strength by emigrating--but of course, with consequences to the native labor organizations.

I dunno. The AFL-CIO has been petitioning for full amnesty of all immigrant labor in the US, but beyond that it is difficult. With the growth of the American economy came the exportation of jobs. But construction is an industry that isn't able to be exported. Logically, a surplus of construction labor that exceeds the countries construction needs, is going to result in a decline in both wages and employment. While the AFL-CIO position is noble, it never really addresses this fact, and it leaves me wonderin if there is any just solution.

[timefornothing]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:26 pm
if "illegal" immigrants are humanised, entitled to the same minimum wage as their "legal" counterparts under state law then they have no incentive to work for less and undercut the unionised workforce and could furthermore be incorporated in to the union mechanism.
exactly!
revolution would certainly solve it, but until then, amnesty and unionization could improve the conditions for all involved

[Ultra-Violence]

i have had this conversation with many people and its a pickle to explain it to peolpe but i had this very inersting conversation whith a white worker and he said qoute "Thier cutin down our wages, thats why i dont want em here" all i had to say well it not thier falut in the first place that thier here 1. I explained too him U.S imperailsim as simply as i could and 2. i told him it was capitilsims fault

and presto he had like an ephany and he now he get the idea and see's the root of the problem and like many of you had said before revolution is a great solution but runner up is amnesty

[Entrails Konfetti]

What immigrant workers can't go on wildcats and demand the same pay as union labourers?

I wonder whats stopping them, they do know they have different working conditions and wages than the native labourer.

EDIT: I know, I just made it sound like wildcats are easy. Yet, I've never been involved in one.

[chimx]

What immigrant workers can't go on wildcats and demand the same pay as union labourers?

Well ideally they could, but the United States government has made it extremely difficult for them. In 2002, the Supreme Court heard the case of Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. vs. the National Labor Relations Board. It found that illegal immigrants are not entitled to back pay if they are fired for their jobs illegally because they are illegal immigrants.

The consequences are significant, because if an illegal immigrant is found organizing for a union, or even in a union, he or she could be fired for doing so. While citizens could then sue the company for back pay, illegal immigrants can't--meaning there is no deterrent for employers to crush any organizing attempts by illegal immigrants. (there have been a few positive court cases since then that have interpreted the Hoffman case differently, but it is still a huge block to union organizing in the US)

[Entrails Konfetti]

I know every workplace in a wildcat strike would have different demands, but if the immigrants are afriad of getting fired for going on a strike can't one of their demamds be the re-instation of fellow workers who were fired?
I don't mean to say the life of an illegal immigrant is easy, but if they are fired its not like their next boss will know who they are and what they did (depending ofcourse if the person is a known activist of a large pro-immigrant event, and even say if the person is well known they could use an alias).

Also, you mentioned that people could be fired for organizing, in the case of forming a strike committee, how could the employer know?

The thing I doubt, especially in this country; is support of most native unions for when immigrants go on wildcats. Sympathy strikes are illegal, and right now the labour movement is passive or is just trying to keep the jobs moving away.

[BreadBros]

I'm not sure I understand the dichotomy of immigrants working for family/immediate concerns while American unions are working for class concerns. Most American unions aren't agitating for revolution or any change to the fundamental economic system, most are pressuring for better wages/contracts. I assume that desire for better wages is simply because workers want better lifestyles for their family. So it really seems to me that both groups are operating on the same basis here. Not to mention that many immigrant-heavy unions (such as the IWW section of truckers at the Port of LA) are far more radical than the average AFL-CIO union. Thats not to knock American unions (personally, much of my immediate family work in unions that belong to the Change to Win fed) but its a bit disingenuous to say that illegal immigrants are somehow subverting the class struggle.

Anyway, there is no easy or pragmatic solution to the issue because it is not a matter of legislation nor is it a political issue, it is an economic issue that is mostly out of our hands. What I think the period of "globalization" really means is that 1. the barriers that existed against the ability of capital to function across national boundaries are increasingly being torn down and 2. it seems that instead of traditional imperialism, it is now increasingly more profitable to integrate formerly competitive or dominated markets into one unitary global market. Thus countries like Mexico, India, etc. are being integrated into the American-led global market. Seems to me that this means that across these national boundaries the standard of living for societies as a whole is starting to equalize. In other words, the difference between American workers and Mexican workers is blurring because their economic function itself is blurring as American workers increasingly no longer hold an advantage simply because of the virtue of being born in the US.

So that sucks, big time, for American workers. But I'm not sure there is anything that can be done precisely about that. It is one of the many economic transition periods that creates lots of problems for people but ultimately (in terms of production and potential) is progressive. Sort of like how the transition from agrarian economy to industrial capitalism tore up many families, presented many new dangers and temporarily lowered the living standards of most working class people ... bust most people wouldn't call for a return to agrarian economy simply because of that.

So I don't think there is a pragmatic solution. I do know that this seems to intensify the contradictions of capitalism. It creates the potential for much more innovation, better lives for everyone, etc. but by the virtue of the class system it does the opposite and throws many people into poverty and positions of precarity, while increasingly pooling wealth into the upper class.

I also know that border controls serve the important function of controlling labor. Borders allow for the creation of a 'boogeyman' that can be used to blame economic ills upon and divert the attention from the operation of the system. It also allows for material control of the in or outflow of labor. I think the solution may lie in counteracting the globalization of capital via the globalization of labor: break down the national boundaries once and for all and allow working people to move around the globe to find work. Considering the political climate in the US though, we're a long way off from that.

[chimx]

Thanks for that response Bread. In response:


. . . . but its a bit disingenuous to say that illegal immigrants are somehow subverting the class struggle.

Certainly. I was looking at American labor more idealistically. Class consciousness is low and unions are used more for immediate needs, such as family, rather than a broader class struggle. Just look at the AFL-CIO website, they are pushing a family campaign right now.

But alternatively, lets take an exclusively domestic example: a group of unionized workers go on strike to better their wages. If some members of this company scabbed to better the immediate needs of their families, would you still be critical of such an action? I'm sure, because it undermines class struggle.

So yes, family and personal needs are important, but it is only through the development of class struggle that those needs are met.

Unfortunately, when you enter immigration into the picture the lines become more blurred. Generally I agree when you say that there is no real solution as we are in a transitional period with the rise of globalization. (though it reminds me more of the Luddites or Proudhonian mutalists than your example).

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:39 pm
Its an interesting idea you are proposing with NAFTA, but how much of the problem is the minimum wage? (this can goto you too Kevis) Construction laborers don't work for minimum wage. The real problem is the difference in economy between the United States and Mexico...
Minimum wage has everything to do with it. A large part of the argument that anti-immigration types are using stresses that many undocumented workers are agreeing to work for less than the federally mandated minimum wage. Therefore, if you raise the minimum wage in the NAFTA/CAFTA signatory countries outside the U$, you eliminate a good portion (if not all) illegal immigration.