Raids, Reforms, and the Labor Movement

The December immigration raids at Swift & Co, and increased enforcement activity elsewhere, are a body blow against labor’s attempt to organize low wage workers.

Undocumented workers comprise a significant percentage of the workforce in many of the industries targeted for organizing by unions including cleaning contractors, hotels, meatpacking, food processing, light industry, and commercial laundries. The raids will make workers feel more insecure and may make them less willing to take the chances required to organize. The raids may also make employers more willing to use immigration status as a club to thwart organizing and more willing to cooperate with immigration authorities to protect themselves from prosecution or lawsuits. If a significant percentage of the workforce feels vulnerable, all workers will be hurt since chances of successful organizing campaigns will be greatly reduced.

With so much at stake the response by unions has been remarkably timid. Those unions that have spoken out have mainly issued press releases to condemn the raids and to call for Congressional action on immigration reform. That is simply not enough.

In fact, the raids also provide a good opportunity for labor to reframe the immigration debate with fresh ideas and new action. The raids were an affront to common decency. They were an assault on human rights, on labor rights, and on the notion of proportionality in the conduct of law enforcement. The raids were conducted under false pretenses —only a handful of those caught in the raids were charged with “identity theft”—the ostensible reason for the raids; and they were discriminatory—company officials who knowingly built an entire staffing system in the meatpacking industry based on undocumented workers walked away free.

As part of reframing the immigration issue, labor leaders need to stand shoulder to shoulder with workers from the affected communities, in the affected communities. They need to make a public display of supporting those swept up in the raids, many of whom are now unemployed and facing deportation.  And—very importantly—they need to stress that the raids undermine working conditions for all workers—not just undocumented immigrants.  One way to do this would be to hold public hearings in which workers in the industry—immigrant and non-immigrants—tell their stories. Properly done, reframing the immigration issue can both help build alliances between immigrant and non-immigrant workers for real immigration reform and cement the relationship of labor with immigrant communities in the upcoming policy debates and the 2008 elections.

Current immigration policies function badly as they have for years. Reform is needed, but the immigration “crisis” is largely a product of the Republican right’s attempts to fan the flames of a growing, but still contained, backlash against undocumented immigrants in order to create a wedge issue during the 2006 elections. They miscalculated badly. The real backlash was among the millions of Hispanic voters, many of whom have voted Republican in past elections, that voted Democratic in this time. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the nativists have poisoned the national debate on immigration reform and many working class and middle class voters—with genuine concerns about globalization and the economy—are at least listening to hard liners.

As the socially sanctioned institution representing workers interest in policy debates on labor and employment issues, the labor movement must step forward and assume its responsibility to help craft a worker friendly immigration policy. As an institution representing both immigrant and non-immigrant workers, as an institution with ties to potential allies in sending countries, and as an institution with renewed political clout in this Congress, the labor movement is in a perfect position to convene a genuine debate on immigration reform.

Here are some ideas to help shape such a debate. 

Labor must demand that the raids be stopped. The current immigration problem is a result of conscious action—and inaction—on the part of governments throughout the hemisphere, of businesses looking for cheap labor, of workers looking for jobs wherever they can find them, of consumers looking for cheaper goods. To single out the most vulnerable—immigrant workers and their families—as scapegoats for an entire system violates any accepted standard of decency. A rational debate on immigration reform can not be conducted with the immigration authorities ready to storm plant gates.

There is the basis for an alliance between immigrant and established workers. Immigrant rights advocates and progressives should not cede the established working class to the right-wing nativists. US workers—partly because many have immigrant roots—can be an ally in the fight for just reforms as the generally progressive role of US unions in the current debate shows. But fears that immigrants take jobs and decrease wages need to be taken seriously. Immigration legislation should emphasize the labor rights of immigrant workers both to protect their human dignity and to protect the wages and working conditions of established workers.

Any comprehensive immigration program will be the result of a compromise among workers—both immigrant and established—employers, and politicians. The result will not be perfect, but it can be satisfactory. Employers need immigrant workers; workers need jobs. The interests of both are opposed to the right-wing anti-immigrant ideologues.  But it’s time to junk the existing narrow debate that revolves around a limited amnesty, a fortress America, and a guest worker program. A comprehensive plan is needed that addresses the concerns of all the stakeholders in the US and the sending countries.

Policies supported by the US and institutionalized in treaties like NAFTA are a key factor pushing migrants north. NAFTA helped push around two million peasants off the land in Mexico and forced many Mexican companies out of business because they were unable to compete with cheaper imports. While NAFTA was touted as a way to slow northward migration, it has done the opposite. The giant sucking sound that many thought NAFTA would produce turned out to be less from jobs going south than from workers heading north. In 1995 there were 2.5 million undocumented Mexican workers in the US, ten years later there were more 10.5 million.  Any solution to the immigration problem must begin with rewriting NAFTA. With massive political change going on in Latin America, it’s time to take a fresh look at ways new hemispheric economic policies can make it possible for people to live decently at home without being dependent on migration or remittances from the US or elsewhere.

In some industries and some localities there is already a hemispheric labor market. In some occupations undocumented immigrants make up a substantial percentage of the workforce. About 24% of all farm workers are undocumented immigrants; 17% of all cleaners; 14% of all construction workers; and 12% of all food preparation workers. Taking a closer look at jobs within these categories 36% of all insulation workers; 29% of all roofers and drywall workers; and 27% of all butchers and food processors are undocumented. National laws have not kept pace with the reality of transnational labor markets. What’s needed now are laws and regulations that guarantee immigrant workers the basic human and labor rights needed to let them work and live in dignity.

Immigration reform must be hemispheric in scope. A step in the direction of recognizing the hemispheric and global nature of the immigration issue has already been taken. The governments of the nations of Latin America that send migrants to the US have banded together to lobby against the most draconian immigration reform bills were before the last Congress. This recognition that immigration is no longer a strictly national issue should prompt the labor and social movements in Latin America and the US to convene a hemispheric meeting of unions and social movements to help draft a worker and immigrant friendly immigration program.  Unions and social movements should not leave immigration reform to elite decision makers whether in the US or in the hemisphere.

Increased border security fails to keep undocumented immigrants out, but it does keep them in. Labor needs to stop pandering to the enforcement crowd and take them on in a policy debate beginning with the myth that increasing border enforcement is part of the solution. The facts speak otherwise. The number of border patrol agents increased from around 2,500 in the 1980s to 12,000 today. Over-all spending on border security since the late 1980s has increased 500%. One result is that the cost of making a crossing for an undocumented immigrant today is about $2,500. According to Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey 1980s about half of all undocumented Mexicans returned home within 12 months, but by 2000 the return rate was only 25%. That’s because while the increased enforcement doesn’t keep people out, it does keep them in by making it more expensive and riskier to return to their homeland. Thus the net result of increased border security is to actually increase the number of undocumented workers in the US.  Effectively sealing the border would require a massive attack on civil liberties and unacceptable economic and political costs in the US and abroad—and its primary effect would be to keep even more undocumented immigrants from returning home.

Abruptly halting undocumented immigration would have a chaotic effect on the economies of Mexico and Central America. Remittances from the US provides the second largest source of foreign capital in Mexico after oil. About 18% of Mexican adults—and 29% of Salvadoran adults—receives remittances from someone in the US. Those remittances are essential to support families and build communities. Shutting off the flow would create hardship and instability in Mexico and Central America. Instead ways need to be found to smooth the flow of remittances and make them part of a new economic development strategy that utilizes them to provide socially constructive forms of credit.

A program can be developed that represents the interests of established US workers, undocumented immigrants, and Latin Americans. Their interests can be meshed with those of US employers on this issue. The claims of nativist ideologues to speak for American workers can be discredited. If the groundwork for such a program is laid now, the alliance of immigrant and established workers can seize the initiative in shaping progressive immigration legislation in the next few years.

M.O.

Comments

[Fred L. Gibson, Jr.]

I think this article shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Labor History.

Large corporations and those who employ large amounts of laborers have historically been in support of mass immigration. Mass immigration helps them by being able to suppress wages and discourage representation among workers. They still support mass immigration today. However, laws limiting immigration, which were put in place largely by Labor's influence, are now being circumvented by large corporations and those who employ large amounts of laborers, by encouraging illegal immigration and non-enforcement of immigration laws.

I am dumbfounded by the arguments made in this article, and so much so that I am suspicious of the ultimate aims of the authors. Their arguments would lead to lower wages and representation and are too much in line with large corporations and large employers.

Also, I consider the term "nativist" to be used in a bigoted and possibly even racist manner.

I would really like to know more about the background of these authors.

[John Kugen]

Randy Erb's response says it all. You guys say you are for American workers but sound like you are not.

The American people stabilized their population at 250 million. That is a known fact, the increase to 300 million was mostly the result of immigration, most of that illegal. My question to you is when is enough enough, when we have 350, 400, or 500 million people, or a billion people? Most of our environmental problems, economic problems, and social problems are caused by the size of the population. The more people, the more pollution, more people, the higher the cost of housing, food, energy, the more people more crime. The quality of life goes down.

There was a time when each new immigrant helped build this country. Now each new immigrant for the most part is tearing it down!

[Reg M.]

Excellent article, but I noticed something interesting when the author says that "the raids also provide a good opportunity for labor to reframe the immigration debate with fresh ideas and new action." Although he dances around offering an actual "frame," he never actually articulates it linguistically. Dr. George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute wrote an excellent article on the topic of how progressives shoud frame immigration: basically to move away from the narrow and counterproductive "illegal/legal" frame (because everybody concentrates on the legality of it when the fact is that immigration involves oh so much more than just that aspect) and instead move towards and activly use the larger, more humanistic and powerful frame of "economic refugees." For a full explanation of how the "economic refugee" frame would be applicable, go to the following link:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/immigration

[Randy Erb]

As a union member for most of my life and a union official for some of it, I am appalled at this article. It mistates and the case and ignores reality. First off, there is NOT a shortage of labor. There are plenty of unemployed American workers or those who are more than willing to do the jobs of the illegals. The fact is that after the raids at the plants, the wages went UP to attract more LEGAL workers. I agree that it is the employers fault for having used illegals to drive down wages and they should indeed be prosecuted if they did so knowingly. I also fail to see why any American worker would be in favor of having a large pool of workers who will take jobs at significantly LOWER wages. Maybe you can explain why it is in our interest to have such a flood of workers here. You ignore that entirely.
Unlike your people, I have lived on the Mexico border and have travelled extensively in Mexico as well. The fact of having so many illegals drives down the wages in the border areas to that of the minimum wage. My neighbor who was a LEGAL immigrant and a skilled mechanic got $6/hr because of the number of illegals working in McAllen. They simply crossed the border every day to work. The meatpacking industry used to have wages of around $19/hr while it is now at $9/hr because of this flood. Perhaps you will explain why that is in our interest. In effect, the illegals are SCABS who have taken our jobs. It is absurd to say that we must organize the scabs since they are now here and that we must make them feel comfortable.
Any organizing attempts will simply be met with importing more illegals and doom such efforts to defeat as long as there is an open border which is what you are advocating. So please tell me why it is that you are on the same side as the Chamber of Commerce and the employers. You are traitors to the union movement and have NO place in it. I will also keep on fighting your attempts to do the work of the bosses and drive our wages down.