New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 28, 2005

Jeff Taylor makes a run for the border and spots Tom Tancredo making his own run for the White House.

Comments

|11.28.05 @ 3:59PM|#

demand for action�any action

Because we all know only drunk Mexicans cause traffic fatalities.

|11.28.05 @ 4:01PM|#

These immigrants need to understand that only people with diplomatic immunity are allowed to kill American citizens with their vehicles.

|11.28.05 @ 4:06PM|#

I'm interested in starting a campaign to deport Tancredo. God, what a dick...

|11.28.05 @ 4:07PM|#

I think you give anti-immigration agitators too much credit when you attribute their position to the fear of Americans losing jobs. That's a fig leaf for their "cultural" motivations.

The people who actually care about working class Americans and their jobs, like the AFL-CIO and SEIU, have been forging alliances with pro-immigrant groups for years.

The people feigning concern about Americans losing jobs to immigrants can be counted on to be anti-union and to oppose any genuine social justice causes, just at they can be counted on to oppose any genuine environmental cause, despite their transpartent pseudo-environmental appeals.

Mike|11.28.05 @ 4:11PM|#

"There's no doubt that the Mexican men and women, full of dignity, willpower and a capacity for work, are doing the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States."

-Vincente Fox

|11.28.05 @ 4:12PM|#

The people who actually care about working class Americans and their jobs, like the AFL-CIO and SEIU, have been forging alliances with pro-immigrant groups for years.

Are you sure that the motivation isn't self-interest among union leadership? After all, if they can unionize all those "illegals", that certainly shores up the currently declining membership base, doesn't it? It's not like union leaders don't occasionally act in ways contrary to the interests of the membership.

Two-Way Traffic|11.28.05 @ 4:19PM|#

C'mon -- enough Tancredo bashing. Where are all the free traders demanding that Mexico drop its own immigration barriers and let Americans and Guatemalans into Mexico to work there? If you want an open border, the human traffic needs to be able to go both ways. As it stands, I can hardly just saunter over into Mexico and find a comparable job with comparable pay. Until that is the case, our own border needs to be resealed. Look, the European Union did it this way, denying EU membership to prospective countries until those countries achieved enough economic vitality to make it worth throwing open the border. To do it otherwise, you disingenuous suckers, is just making this country Mexico's biatch.

|11.28.05 @ 4:19PM|#

"There's no doubt that the Mexican men and women, full of dignity, willpower and a capacity for work, are doing the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States."

I've never seen a Mexican lifeguard.

|11.28.05 @ 4:26PM|#

I've never understood the fear of immigrants that raises its head every few years. They aren't really taking jobs that anyone else wants. I do think it's legitimate to want to document immigration (i.e., illegal immigration perhaps should be illegal to some degree), but if someone wants to work here, why not let them?

One aspect of large-scale immigration that occasionally gives me a little discomfort is the idea that many immigrants bring with them the more authoritarian ideas of the countries that they are escaping from (a number of my Cuban friends--left or right variety--seem pretty authoritarian in outlook, for instance). Eventually, that means voters who don't necessarily support the political and/or economic traditions of the U.S. That might prove to be a bad thing in the long run, though I don't think the answer is to bar immigrants.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.28.05 @ 4:39PM|#

The people who actually care about working class Americans and their jobs, like the AFL-CIO and SEIU, have been forging alliances with pro-immigrant groups for years.

AFL-CIO reversed a long standing opposition to amnesty and illegal immigration a few years back. They have been roundly criticized for doing so by unions and others.

The other thing that is crazy about all of this is the idea that illegals work for substandard wages. Where I live the going rate for hiring illegals is more than the minimum wage and often includes lunch--not to mention a ride to work.

Two-Way, you ain't going to be able to find a job in Mexico that pays what you want.

|11.28.05 @ 4:39PM|#

joe:

You are suggesting that AFL-CIO is pro immigrant? All that depression of wages bit just comes from the fringes, then?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.28.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Meant to mention that the sign graphic depicting the running family that appeared with Jeff's story on the main page was designed by the Communications department of Cal State Fullerton when Mrs TWC was a student there. Various versions of it can be found at various places on I-5 between the Mexican border and the OC as well as in other stretegic locales. It was a response to the rash of pedestrians getting squished by unsuspecting motorists as they ran across the freeway after being dumped by the coyotes just shy of the checkpoint.

Jeff's right, it's going to be a war. That's because everybody hates Mexicans, whether they're from Long Beach, Guada La Habra, Santiago, Brasilia, Nogales, LA, or Puerto Rico.

|11.28.05 @ 4:56PM|#

I hope that what ever happens with this the US doesn't end up like Malaysia. They kicked out illegals and then found they had a severe shortage of workers for some jobs.
http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2005/04/malaysia-shoos-away-key-business-asset.htm

|11.28.05 @ 5:00PM|#

If you want an open border, the human traffic needs to be able to go both ways.

Why? Your position is unsupportable on either economic or moral grounds.

While it would be nice to have free migration in both directions, free migration in one direction is better than no free migration at all.

R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 5:03PM|#

The people who actually care about working class Americans and their jobs, like the AFL-CIO and SEIU,

Big Labor cares about working class Americans like a farmer cares about his herd of cattle.

chandler|11.28.05 @ 5:14PM|#

The people feigning concern about Americans losing jobs to immigrants can be counted on to be anti-union and to oppose any genuine social justice causes

This is a bad thing why?

|11.28.05 @ 5:21PM|#

Browsing through the AFL-CIO and SEIU websites, I find that a big reason for their embracing immigrant issues is to document the undocumented.

While the ostensible justification is to help the immigrant get the privileges they are due under American labor law, I would surmise the real goal is to prevent them from competing on the freer playing field that being undocumented allows*.

* Those inclined may read "on the freer playing field that being undocumented allows" as "unfairly".

M1EK|11.28.05 @ 6:18PM|#

" They believe, for example, that contrary to several decades of experience, there exists a wage rate at which American citizens will claw sweet potatoes out of the sandy South Carolina soil with their bare hands, Jorge Humberto Hernandez Soto�style."

And nobody contested this?

Hell, if you pay me a million dollars a year, I will dig sweet potatoes out of the sandy South Carolina soil with my bare hands for an entire year. I bet there's a lot of people who would do it cheaper, too.

|11.28.05 @ 6:20PM|#

I hope this doesn't do to the GOP nationally what 187 did to it in California. Before 187, the GOP was a competitive party in California holding the gubintorship and one vote shy of control of the assembly. Then Pete Wilson got this bright idea to anger a large and growing block of mostly conservative (pro-business, tough-on-crime, government-should-force-everyone-to-go-to-church) voters. Now California is almost a one party state.

|11.28.05 @ 6:55PM|#

"Big Labor cares about working class Americans like a farmer cares about his herd of cattle."

You're giving them too much credit.

Unions consistently favor legislation that makes membership cumpulsory. This way they don't have to compete with the lower prices of less skilled workers. Those who don't want to join may be just as well working class, but they're the competition and drive down those profits, so fuck 'em. As someone previously pointed out, they're taking this stance on immigration so they can raise membership and gain more political leverage to screw over any non-union workers. That's just grand for the working class, yeah. As are the higher prices (working class!) consumers pay and the retardation of real wage growth. A closer analogy is a farmer who "takes care" of his cattle by torching another farmer's grass.

They care, man.

|11.28.05 @ 7:50PM|#

" They believe, for example, that contrary to several decades of experience, there exists a wage rate at which American citizens will claw sweet potatoes out of the sandy South Carolina soil with their bare hands, Jorge Humberto Hernandez Soto�style."

Rhetorical question: Is the market for agricultural workers in the U.S. growing at a rate of >10^6 jobs / year?

If there is a demand for work that only illegal immgrants can fulfill, then let's charge ($) for guest worker passes which can be sold to companies that believe they need that labor. The supply of passes can be set to a negotiated level and let the resulting market sort it out.

|11.28.05 @ 8:06PM|#

I wish people would understand that there are two issues here: the question of whether or not people should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and find work, and the problem of people living in the U.S. without documentation, thus being unaccountable before the law in many ways.

Undocumented workers will always have an unfair advantage in the labor market for low-end jobs, and their presence is generally unstabilizing to society. You might find that this is at odds with your harcore libertarian values, but this is a reality.

Someone who is not "on record" does not have to pay taxes, social security, etc. This means that they are able to get by with lower salaries. Also, a lot of undocumented people are able to take advantage of free social programs meant for people with little or no income, while earning livable wages. For instance, my wife worked at a non-profit community center that helped a particular immigrant group in the D.C. area. The group basically helped people apply for free medical care and other services from the local government. It turns out that a lot of these people actually work and earn decent money (in one case, someone heard some of these undocumented people's kids bragging about the neighborhood where the live and the car their folks drive). The community center didn't rat on anyone, because they felt that they should maintan consolidarity within their ethnic group.

That brings us to another issue: accountability. I don't cheat on taxes or the like largely because I don't want to go to jail, have a felony on my criminal record, and have my life go to utter ruin. Someone like that asswipe drunk driver in the article, who crosses the border everyone other month, doesn't worry about this. If he's caught, he'll just be thrown back into the briar patch.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think that taxes, social security payments, free public medical services or the like are good things. But as long as those of us who live in this country "legally" are required to abide within this kind of system, people who cheat the system in various ways are a liability. As long as illegal immigrants are able to ignore all of the crap that the rest of us have to deal with, they'll only stir up resentment and make the rest of us get screwed even worse.

As for the question of immigrants competing for jobs: I say, let them come here legally and compete. If the playing field were level, then Americans would have no reason to complain about immigrants taking away their resources or opportunities. Success would depend on who is more frugal, harder working, and better able to network.


Why have to mix these two things together?

|11.28.05 @ 8:40PM|#

I wish people would understand that there are two issues here: the question of whether or not people should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and find work, and the problem of people living in the U.S. without documentation, thus being unaccountable before the law in many ways.

The two issues are inextricably intertwined.

If undocumented immigrants could become documented immigrants without jeopardizing their ability to live and work in the United States, then you would have a point.

But that's not the world we live in. There is no office where undocumented immigrants or immigrants-to-be can show up to get documented.

Considering the massive violation of human rights that the prohibition of free migration is, I find it hard to be upset with undocumented workers who have to try to get by in a society with such laws.

|11.28.05 @ 9:06PM|#

jf, "Are you sure that the motivation isn't self-interest among union leadership?"

No doubt it is, partially. Moral purity is not something I'm on the lookout for when it comes to large political movements. Nonetheless, among groups that are broadly committed to jobs-for-workers platforms, there is very little support for these anti-immigrant provisions, and among anti-immigrant politicians, there is little support for labor politics, outside of couching their nativism in labor rhetoric.

|11.28.05 @ 9:09PM|#

I think your forgetting that the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not work under the table for cash, but are employed by legit companies.
Illigal immigrants have taxes taken out of thier paychecks, but unlike documented folks, are unable to get anything back on their tax returns or benifit from much of the government programs their taxes go towards like social security, labor and industries, and yes, welfare.

|11.28.05 @ 9:10PM|#

Jason Ligon,

The talk about the depression of wages caused by immigrants doesn't come from the unions. It comes from politicians pitching it to the unions.

Go onto SEIU's or AFL-CIO's or even UAW's websites and take a look at what they have to say about immigration.

|11.28.05 @ 9:14PM|#

MikeP, "...the freer playing field that being undocumented allows*."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! I think I just pissed my pants!

Yeah, those lucky duckies, illegal immigrants! They're really holding all the cards!

"Undocumented workers will always have an unfair advantage in the labor market for low-end jobs" Oh, yeah, that cursed "unfair advantage" of being desperate enough to work for shit wages AND being too frightened of the police to report abuse. Man, them illegals, they get all the breaks.

|11.28.05 @ 9:32PM|#

joe,

They're not "breaks". They are differences, and they do offer advantages in some ways. But I expect, all things considered, that most undocumented immigrants would rather be documented.

Important for the unions, legal workers of the United States do think illegal immigrants have unfair advantages over them in finding employment. You may disagree. But, considering all the potential costs to the employer, the mere fact that illegals are employed at all tells me that there must be something that at least some employers find preferable about them.

Thus the efforts by unions to document the undocumented, to reduce this "unfair" competition.

|11.28.05 @ 9:39PM|#

Go onto SEIU's or AFL-CIO's or even UAW's websites and take a look at what they have to say about immigration.

I have browsed a couple of these sites. joe accurately describes their positions.

But I will note that you won't find any truly pro-immigrant positions from these unions. Nothing like, say:

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference.

|11.28.05 @ 10:30PM|#

Mike P, they don't have advantages. They settle for a worse deal, because they have fewer choices. That's not an advantage - it's the consequence of disadvantage.

And maybe they're not "truly" pro-immigrant, but please remember my point here, which is: unions, and labor politicians in general, are not anti-immigrant. They eschew anti-immigrant positions, and stand in sharp constrast to people like Tancredo, who dress up their anti-immigrant views in labor language as a ploy. Those arguments are not the arguments of labor, they are arguments to labor from politicans who are almost always anti-labor.

dhex|11.28.05 @ 11:46PM|#

joe: same difference.

|11.29.05 @ 12:57AM|#

Hungry for tacos now.

|11.29.05 @ 1:30AM|#

" Eastman turned heads in September in testimony before the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims subcommittee by arguing that the amendment could be read to mean that children born to illegals in the U.S. were not citizens precisely because, as illegals, the parents had not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government."

Doesn't this view go against over a century of established constitutional law? Or is it an unresolved question due to a lack of challenges of citizenship of people born to illegals? Would Eastman's interpretation be more consistent with an "originalist" or "living constitution" view?

The relevant clause is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the juristiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....." What does "subject to the juristiction thereof" mean? I have always thought it meant "didn't move to another country and give up US citizenship" or something like that. Can some constitutional law experts fill me in?

|11.29.05 @ 3:09AM|#

They settle for a worse deal, because they have fewer choices. That's not an advantage - it's the consequence of disadvantage.

The illegal worker may have fewer choices, but the best choice for him can be offered at terms not available to a legal worker. In competing for some labor opportunities, that is indeed an advantage.

As for the unions, they are trying to gain favor with immigrants already in the country while still excluding potential immigrants outside the country. It is still protectionism: They are merely going through the motions to modestly expand the "us" part of "us" and "them".

|11.29.05 @ 8:47AM|#

"the best choice for him can be offered at terms not available to a legal worker."

I must respectfully disagree. An American citizen could choose to work as a farm laborer and be paid pennies on the bushel. An American citizen could wait around at one of those job lots and wait to be picked up. An American citizen could join one of those Wal Mart cleaning crews. They just choose not to, because their legal status means they have better choices, while the Paperwork Deprived America Joiners do not.

|11.29.05 @ 9:54AM|#

Ok, if the child is born in the U.S. and is not granted U.S. citizenship then this child is a citizen of which country exactly?

The mother's country?
The father's country?
Would the child be stateless?

|11.29.05 @ 10:00AM|#

Okay, joe, you've convinced me. The legal resident does indeed have the choice to work as the illegal one must. He can swallow his pride and his legislated privileges and go paperless so his labor and wages are harder to track. He is then breaking the law -- much like the illegal resident -- though they may be different laws.

So the illegal resident does not really have an advantage, and complaints that he is competing unfairly are only so much political hay.

|11.29.05 @ 10:11AM|#

The relevant clause is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the juristiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....." What does "subject to the juristiction thereof" mean? I have always thought it meant "didn't move to another country and give up US citizenship" or something like that. Can some constitutional law experts fill me in?

That's the debate, indeed. Yes, Eastman is being originalist and is explicit that he is being so. The standard interpretation, by explicit Supreme Court decision, is that it generally means all persons born in the USA who are not foreign diplomats' kids, and not American Indians (at that time). It possibly, on some evidence, was originally intended to mean children born here of parents who had other allegiances, ie other citizenships.

I suspect that the large wave of immigrants after the 1880s or so put an end to the more narrow interpretation as so many of those who came here had kids born here while they may not had been naturalized here yet. Too much confusion and opportunity for arbitrary abuse.

The difference is that "jurisdiction" may have meant "allegiance" (a concept like citizenship) originally, or was thought to mean that by some, or something like it, including some Supreme Court justices in early non-binding opinion who opined that (but who later came out in favor of the wider interpretation requiring citizenship for any born here unless diplomats and Indians were the parents).

Since the definitive case, which involved a child of Chinese legal resident but non-citizen parents in the late 19th century, jurisdiction simply has meant subject to the laws of the US which even an illegal alien is in the US. (By some legal argument, the jurisdiction clause also excludes children of members of an invading army).

Politically, historically, the citizenship provision was indeed actually designed to permanently enfranchise blacks while keeping out Indians.

I think the more generous interpretations, aside from being settled precedent, is right because those who want to say the provision was really only about enfranchising black ex-slaves and their descendants are at the burden of demonstrating why the 14th Amendment Framers didnt just say so in so many words instead drafting a broader provision, which appears designed to more broadly and prospectively prevent the re-creation of a native-born underclass as existed in slavery times (except for Indians, who in theory had their own native nation -- Indians as a class became US citizens by Congressional act in 1922 or so).

After all Congress was quite explicit about naming races explicitly in the Civil Rights act of 1866 to which the Amendment was politically connected.

Another consideration is that if allegiance is concerned, even naturalized citizens who renoucne foreign allegiance may still be regarded as citizens of their first country owing allegiance by that country. The French regard one as once a Frenchman always a Frenchman.

And what of persons born to a US citizen and a lawful foreign citizen in the US, technically the child could have another allegiance.

If changing the law is appropriate, it should be done by amendment. It is settled case law, and a solid principle designed to prevent a native underclass.

A simpler standard may be -- anyone born in the US and subject to paying taxes. Indians, not of US jursidiction, used to be also called "Indians not taxed."

|11.29.05 @ 10:16AM|#

Correcting one of many errors in the above:

"A simpler standard may be -- anyone born in the US and to parents subject to paying taxes"

|11.29.05 @ 10:20AM|#

MikeP, are you being for real? If so, I really admire your intellectual honesty.

If you're being sarcastic, it went over my head.

I'm not cynical, dammit!

|11.29.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Thanks Matthew that helped.

|11.29.05 @ 12:26PM|#

MikeP, are you being for real?

Yep. I'm being for real.

I was mistaken in implicitly presuming that the legal resident was beholden to labor laws. Not only was that accepting the premises of the anti-immigrant position, but it blinded me to the possibility of ignoring laws I consider unjust. Even worse, it showed bias in that I of course assumed that illegal residents would break laws to work but assumed that legal residents would not. Becoming illegal is a valid choice for legal residents that will be very infrequently exercised, but it will be exercised at some margin.

And you caught me on it.