« Asses | Main | Unoriginal »
March 27, 2006
Guests
CNN.com - Bush pushes guest-worker program for noncitizens - Mar 27, 2006
There's a fair amount of dislike for this program on both the left and right. The right, as usual, is full of it and mostly fueled by bigotry and ignorance of basic economic principles. The concern on the left is mostly about the idea of institutionalizing a program where people come to America with no chance of becoming American citizens. That is valid.
Make no mistake, what President Bush is proposing is not actually anything new; it is only the institutionalization of what we already have. The US has a "guest worker" situation already. It is only that these workers are "illegal aliens" and are unable to receive basic protections, and do not pay income and (more importantly at these low levels of pay) social security taxes.
Some complain about a "two-tiered labor market", divided among citizens and non-citizens, and say that the United States should not have such a beast. The problem is that the US has always had a two-tiered labor market. Citizens and slaves, native-born and immigrant, there have always been these divisions. The US has always imported low-cost labor; most developed countries do. The current situation, divided among legal residents (citizen and non) and illegal immigrants is but the latest iteration. We can not get rid of it without major economic restructuring that is simply not going to happen. Any even partially successful attempt to shut off the flow of immigrant labor will lead to high inflation (particularly in produce, but in many other areas as well) and probably the collapse of the residential construction industry.
It is still vital that we do not enter a situation where people are brought into this country with no chance of earning American citizenship. We do not need a permanent caste system. The immigrant labor brought into this country -- African, Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and many others -- has always, eventually, become American. It should be possible for "guest workers" to come in, work for a few years, and leave, but they should have the right to change their minds and enter a citizenship track. Anything else is un-American.
Posted by Mac Thomason at March 27, 2006 12:27 PM
Comments
American companies have repeatedly proven how affronted they are by the notion of paying fair wages, and they’ve resorted to every imaginable tactic to avoid doing so: outright slavery, company town/commissary systems, union-busting, and now off-shore outsourcing and on-shore hiring of illegal workers (it's no coincidence Lou Dobbs rails about both of them at the same time; it's just a question of geography).
Hiring illegal immigrants/guest workers is no different than outsourcing: a soulless company revolts at the idea of abiding by its country’s wage and employment regulations, so it pays a man in India as little as it can to answer customer service calls and, through a contractor, pays an illegal immigrant as little as it can to clean the office at night. It’s the same end run around decency; only hiring immigrants is less cosmetic because these second-class workers inconvenience middle-class America with their presence.
If American businesses’ supply of illegal workers is cut off, they’ll push for wage and safety rollbacks. They'll come up with ways to outsource dishwashing. They’ll resort to human trafficking if things get bad enough. They’ll do something, but it won’t be paying unskilled workers what they deserve.
Posted by: Susan at March 27, 2006 01:21 PM
"Hiring illegal immigrants/guest workers is no different than outsourcing"
Hiring illegals (or guest workers) is much better than outsourcing. Although illegals send some money home, they spend most of their paycheck in the United States. That's far preferable to the outflow of currency that occurs when a U.S. firm sets up shop in a country with less expensive labor.
Posted by: JoeyT at March 27, 2006 03:05 PM
I am all about a guest worker program like Bush wants. The left's fears of a two-tiered labor market are well-founded, that's what we have now. If we institute a guest worker program (and actually prosecute employeers who hire undocumented workers), then we can regulate the bottom tier and ensure they are making a living wage, paying taxes and obeying the law.
Posted by: Poser at March 27, 2006 03:19 PM
It's no different in terms of the employers' shirking their responsibility. They don't choose hiring illegal immigrants over outsourcing jobs because they want to ensure the tax proceeds their workers will put back into the community. They do it because certain jobs must be done on-site.
Posted by: Susan at March 27, 2006 03:29 PM
Bottom tier? making a living wage? When did that happen?
Look, pigs flying...!
Employers are going to pony up and pay the bottom tier living wages? Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Jeff (no, the other one) at March 27, 2006 03:51 PM
In the short term, having Mexicans do jobs here instead of Mexico but for the same wages is probably better for the US. In the long term, not so much, because it will destabilize Mexico.
I will probably write another long (for me) post outlining my preferred plan, which has something to anger everyone.
Posted by: Mac Thomason at March 27, 2006 03:56 PM
Employers are going to pony up and pay the bottom tier living wages? Don't hold your breath.
Employeers do what is profitable. That seems to be what no one understands. They aren't motivate by public shame or concern for fellow human beings, they are motivated by profits. This is the way it should be. If we took the profitability out of hiring undocumented, illegal workers, it would stop.
Get rid of these ideas of pansy fines of a few thousand dollars per incident. Do a three-strikes-and-your out policy like they do with the rest of us. If you are caught with three infractions, you forfeit all profits for year, plus you are fined all compensation for the owners/shareholders and executives that year. Or even better, if you are a corporation, revoke their corporate chater and sieze their assets.
If that were made law, it would never have to be used.
Posted by: Poser at March 27, 2006 04:50 PM