Marching for immigration rights

The recent marches by Latinos, over immigration issues, have been hailed by newspapers and politicians as demonstrating "political clout."

How do they figure this? What is this alleged "political clout," other than an excuse for Congress to pass yet another amnesty law, with the usual empty promises about securing the borders better in the future. It's a familiar song, same as we heard back in 1987; it was going to be a one-time amnesty, and there would be better security at the borders and a crackdown on employers to be sure that they weren't hiring persons who had entered the country illegally.

Will the politicians be rewarded with Hispanic votes on account of this legislation? Let’s take a look:

Illegal immigrants cannot vote in this country, except in the local elections of a few municipalities which have specifically passed voting rules that allow them to vote. So, in a few towns here and there, they can vote for Mayor, Councillors, maybe School Board members, but nowhere can they legally vote for any state or federal offices.

How about the Hispanic-Americans and the legal immigrants, are they likely to vote for politicians who pass this proposed legislation? No, polls indicate that a majority don’t favor the Senate legislation (though they may not like the drastic House version either).

Of the legal immigrants 60% think that the number of immigrants admitted to the US should be reduced or stay the same. 60% of Hispanic-Americans, born here, oppose the granting of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. And about that same percentage, 61%, said in a Time magazine poll that illegal immigration was a “serious problem.”

So, if our politicians (Senators, really, since the House bill is rather Draconian) needn't fear being voted out by angry Latinos, why are they pushing so hard for the legislation?

Cynically, I'd say it's to oblige their campaign supporters, who run businesses that depend on cheap biddable labor. Many of these are large businesses. Meat packing plants, major carpet factories,, construction (in which Hispanics held about 15% of the jobs in 2002), hotels and restaurants—far beyond the strictly agricultural jobs always referred to, and always termed “jobs Americans won’t do.”

Some of these are low-wage jobs, which Americans might well find more attractive if they paid more. But others, like construction jobs, often pay pretty well.

Businessmen don’t always hire illegals only because they will work for low wages; they also won’t report or complain about anything the employer does, from environmental pollution to sexual harassment, from lack of safety equipment to working overtime seven days a week. Nor will they make official complaints if they are treated like temps, given work 3 days this week, 7 days next week, 2 days the week after that.

Another group active in supporting politicians, the labor unions, has decided to sell out their current members by supporting the Senate bill: a citizenship program for illegal immigrants, and a very large “guest-worker” quota on top of that. Eleven million, or twelve million, here presently and allowed to stay on a citizenship track, and another 400,000 allowed to come in each year on temporary worker cards.

The unions see the immigrants as potential members (more about the demographics of that in another post) who will be well-disposed toward the unions in the future, after receiving their support now. Of course there’s a bit of a difference of opinion between the two groups—big business and labor unions—when it comes to organizing workers, be they immigrants, native-born, or creatures just arrived on UFOs. If big business wanted employees who knew their rights and stood up for a living wage, they’d never have had to hire immigrants, they could have raised the wages, hired Americans, and felt ever so patriotic and virtuous. So when the time comes for the unions to get payback for their support of the Senate legislation, I think they’ll find that their names are not on the guest list and they are not welcome at the party.