January 08, 2004

• As a nation that values immigrants and depends on immigrants, we should have immigration laws that work and make us proud," the president said. "Yet today we do not. I agree with the sentiment, but I'm doubtful that the proposal will be something to be proud of. This may be portrayed as courting the hispanic vote, but I'll venture that it was designed to please his campaign donors in Agribusiness. Back in April there was a piece in the New Yorker magazine about slavery conditions on tomato farms in Immokalee, Florida. (I haven't been able to find an online version of the article, but there is lots of info to be found by googling for Immokalee or "Taco Bell Boycott".) Tom Ridge made more sense on the subject of immigration, but the Administration sure shut him up fast.
• Anyone catch the Democratic radio debate on NPR? The candidates were asked about immigration, and all seemed to be in favor of implementing a "guest worker" type of program. There's obviously no correlation, but it's strange that Bush makes this announcement the day after that debate. I'm of the opinion that Bush is the worst president in recent memory (and he has some stiff competition!), but I'll admit that this may be a good thing. The devil, of course, is in the details, and if worker protections aren't addressed (and in this administration, worker rights are not really a priority) then this could be wretched. But I hope it won't be.
• Kevin Drum at Calpundit posted this: For the time being I'll stay on the fence about this, but it's hard not to think of Bush's proposal as just an updated version of the infamous bracero program under which millions of Mexican farm workers provided low-wage labor in U.S. fields for more than two decades after World War II. Overall, I'm not thrilled with the idea of a "guest worker" program that essentially indentures a worker to a particular employer and provides no assurance of permanent residence, so while I'm generally in favor of more liberal immigration laws, I figure we should either let immigrants in or we shouldn't and quit playing games about it. What's more, this sounds all too typical of a Bush program, and I suspect there will be more bad news as the details are released. The Bushies rarely have the courage to push a genuinely conservative agenda, which they know is unpopular, but instead hide conservative time bombs in legislation that's clothed in the rhetoric of traditional liberalism. I suspect that this is happening yet again with this proposal, so I'll withhold judgment until I hear more about it.
• path: Shouldn't we be keeping an eye on this? Yes, but we can't do anything until the guest-workers have some sort of legal status. This is a step in the right direction. ambrosia: Tom Ridge made more sense [...] but the Administration sure shut him up fast Not really. Rep. Hayworth hardly speaks for the Administration.
• I guess the administration isn't satisified decimating the middle class by sending manufacturing and IT jobs overseas. Now they've decided to kick the legs out from under the lower class as well. Some will claim that the jobs likely to be most affected such as restaurant, farm, and hotel work are already largely staffed by illegal immigrants because Americans won't take these jobs. While this may be the case, if the Bushies would stay true to their conservative roots, enforce existing immigration law, and let their beloved market forces work their magic, you'd soon see the wages and working conditions of these positions improving to an extent that many Americans would be glad to have them. And it won't just affect the farming and hospitality industries either. All sorts of employers will be clamoring to hire these guest workers into their so-called "unskilled" positions. That may not seem like a big deal, but there are Americans who make a living in fields such as fast food and retail who will find either they've been replaced or that the downward pressure on their wages makes it pointless to keep working. Further, the administration says the program would only be used to fill positions when the employer has demonstrated there are no Americans to fill the job. Even if we ignore the possibility that Americans will be driven out of jobs as they begin to pay less and less, this safeguard still means basically nothing. In reality, employers will have carte blanche, much like they do with H1B visas. For example, over the course of the last two years, I've watched as my employer has laid off half the Americans in my office and replaced them with foreign workers on visas. It's not that they couldn't find Americans to fill these positions. They already had them but it was cheaper to replace them. Bush's program will allow the same thing to happen throughout the "unskilled" workforce. I cannot for the life of me see why, after a recession and a jobless recovery, we need to add another 8 million people to the workforce. Exactly how many anti-American stunts can Bush pull before the public realizes he doesn't give a damn if this great nation collapses on his watch?
• First, Mackerel, lots are already here and working, so what jobs are lost? Also remember that employment is (a) a trailing economic indicator (in that the economy has to be rampong up pretty well before companies start hiring again) and (b) employment has already started trending up. And even so: why SHOULDN'T an employer be able to hire anyone he or she wants? Similarly, why shouldn't an individual seek the best possible job and pay rate he or she can find? Bash Bush all you want, but when it comes to hamhanded economics and onerous employment strictures, it is his opponents across the aisle who have done the most damage over the years to the idea of a free market for employment. But beyond that, the greater question is whether or not we are going to trend isolationist (due to the effects of 9/11), continue with our reasonably open by rather byzantine immigration policies, or free things up a bit and streamline the process. This looks like that last one. Bush portrayed as a traditional conservative is a joke (to wit: prescription drug benefit), but this is a good thing. The treatment of Hispanic illegals in this country has been cavalier, and I think this will go a step in the direction of remedying that.
• The proposal isn't pretty vague, it's entirely vague. This proposal will present the impression of action: that the president is doing something. A proposal vague enough can evade Mackerel
• A devil/details interface, for sure. It could be a deeply liberal measure - (almost) unlimited immigration? Hah! That's the sort of thing I talk about with my other lefty friends at about three in the morning when we've had a few too many. Sort of the Bush version of Nixon going to China - so radical that the other side could never do it, because they'd confirm everyone's worst fears. But it probably won't be. Worker's rights are a problem, housing and healthcare and related social factors are problems, and above all the fact that it's explicitly set up to only allow them access to crap jobs is a huge problem. While many of the worries about this come from the (justified) fear that it will take jobs away from Americans, another take on it might be this - that the kind of economy the Bush administration are working towards, for the benefit of their corporate buddies, requires a massive underclass. And wouldn't it be nice for the administration if that underclass consisted of people who can't even vote? Liberal wet-dream or social engineering designed to lead to a new feudalism? Surely it should be somewhat easier to tell the two apart... :-)
• I meant to type "ideal." But otherwise, it's just what it sounds like: A free market (in that the marketplace is unencumbered by extraneous restrictions and is self-regulating through supply and demand) for what we Marketing scumbags like to refer to as "Human Capital" :) Now, admittedly, the Form of such a thing has never existed in the history of the world. However, on a theoretical basis, it seems like it would be the baseline for interactions between employers and workers in a capitalist economy.
• Here in Britain, you'd never get a politician of any real importance daring to talk about the positives of immigration, or how great its been for our nation.
• I would love for us to have true globalism and freedom of movement like Fes suggests. Its part of the Utopia I've always dreamt of. (that is sincere by the way - its a shame idealism always sounds like sarcasm on the internet)
• Here in Britain, you'd never get a politician of any real importance daring to talk about the positives of immigration, or how great its been for our nation. Here's an article that helps illustrates my point.
• Positives of immigration? Don't you know that Asylum Seekers Eat Our Donkeys?
• I've always wondered about the "jobs Americans are unwilling to take" bit as if there were a multitude of great-paying jobs and the majority of Americans can simply choose one of a plethora. What are the choices if you're one of the thousands that are soon to be pink-slipped from Ford for instance? What with outsourcing, that means employers have more choices, but employees certainly don't. And the disparity between rank-and-file pay versus executives is widening. Free market taint free.
• Living in an agricultural area where farmers will move to non-unionised counties to be able to pay minimum wage ($7.50 per hour for 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, only paying overtime rates beyond those hours, and paying no benefits) I can testify that not many Americans with any hope for a better life will take those jobs. You really need to thank the immigrant population for making your produce affordable. And, hope like hell that their children will get the idea that education will help them move beyond that.