Immigration Backlash?

In our last post, we wrote about a possible backlash on immigration in the US and concluded that:

As the number of undocumented immigrants in labor’s ranks grows, it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine a situation in which one part of the labor movement is demanding the deportation of the other half.

In a recent article in the American Prospect journalist Harold Myerson writes about how Republicans may use immigration as an issue during next year’s election:

The conventional wisdom is still unpersuaded that the Republican Party is about to mount a full-force attack on American's undocumented immigrants -- of whom, by some counts, there are 11 million. After all, the Republicans are the party of employers -- large (agribusiness), medium (construction companies), and small (restaurateurs) -- who have long depended on immigrants for cheap labor. The cheap labor sectors of American capitalism are a huge source of donations for the GOP. How could the Republicans turn their back on them?

But the conventional wisdom is wrong. Republicans are coming up on a midterm election in which their control of both houses of Congress is very much at stake…... With control of Capitol Hill very much in the balance, they will beg the forbearance of their longtime friends at the building contractor, big agra, and restaurant lobbies, and go after the immigrants tooth and nail.

And no wonder. Fear and resentment of the effects of an open border -- primarily the economic effects, and only secondarily the cultural ones -- are rampant throughout the American working class. That is clear from all available polling, and to any journalist who writes about the economy and gets responses from his or her readers.

There is a response to this argument that is popular among both employers and pro-immigrant liberals: that immigrants take jobs that no native-born workers would want. Among affluent liberal professionals, comfortably cocooned, it is almost possible to see how this illusion could be sustained: immigrants mow the lawns and take care of the kids, something nobody else in the neighborhood would do. But this belief is utterly wrong, and pro-immigrant liberals who invoke it are doing their cause, and themselves, no favor.

Myerson is right.  Today, immigrants—documented and undocumented -- work in many jobs once held by long-established workers. They work in hotels, in construction, in retail, in fast food, in food processing, in manufacturing—sometimes in jobs that were once decent paying, even unionized. And it is not just unskilled workers that have been affected by immigration.  In the last few years, many workers in the high-tech industry suddenly found themselves competing with temporary workers from around the world working in the US on short term visas. These workers often expressed their resentment by supporting  anti-immigrant organizations and legislation.  In addition to those directly affected, jobs that once were held by teenagers and younger workers are now held by immigrant workers sometimes provoking resentment in working class families.

Over the past decade or more we have worked directly with both new immigrant workers (some documented, most not) and with native US workers employed in a whole range of jobs. We have generally been struck by how tolerant people are of the newcomers. That tolerance—build in part on a shared history of immigration--is something US workers can be genuinely proud of, something that we can build on, and something we can offer a world struggling with migration. But the tolerance is wearing thin as jobs become scarcer.

It is easy to dismiss the fear and resentment that Meyerson talks about as “xenophobic” and “right-wing”-- a lot of it is. But a lot of it is legitimate fear-- particularly among those directly in competition with immigrants -- that wages will be driven down even further by competition with immigrants willing to work for less.  While this fear can be exploited by xenophobes and right-wingers, it often reflects the actual ability of employers to create and then exploit a labor surplus.

As we noted in our previous blog, the labor movement today is often a leader in the fight for immigrant rights. But we will need to do more to prevent a great split in the membership.

Ironically, there is a bit of old fashion trade unionism involved in the talk about restricting access to jobs: whether externally through hiring halls and closed shops, or internally through job ladders, bidding rights and seniority systems, restricting access to jobs has been a traditional way that unions have raised wages and improved working conditions.

The problems associated with immigration will not be solved by simple public policy fixes. Nor with the threat of a backlash. These are complex issues that require complex solutions. We suggest the labor movement should take the following steps:

•    Frame immigration as a global issue—workers must leave home to find work because of a global economy dominated by footloose corporations that roam the world looking for cheap labor costs.
•    Develop a full public policy and action program on immigration that matches the complexity of the issue, including support for amnesty; opposition to the militarization of the borders; opposition to global economic policies  that force people to migrate; support for effective economic development  strategies here and abroad; support for a global bill of employment rights for all workers regardless of their immigration status; and support for a global labor dialogue on immigration in the labor movement and beyond.
•    Conduct a vigorous education program for union members—all of the good institutional intentions in the world will mean nothing if there is no support among the membership.

In future blogs we will explore in detail the elements of an action program. Failure to tackle this problem head on could lead to divisions that could tear the labor movement apart.