We haven't discussed this here

[msgadget]

Yep, it's immigration reform time folks. Okay, I ask you to suspend judgment of 'Martin' for being a republican and latitude for the NAACP for doing their usual inclusive thing. Read both snippety snips objectively. What do you think? This is quite a contrast and has less to do with party affiliation than usual. Please, no knee-jerking in response to a republican or in defense of folks just 'cause...

These include:

Support of family unification by not subtracting the visas given to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from visas available to all family immigrants thereby reducing the backlogs in which people wait for many years to reunite with their closest family members;

Support of protections for agricultural workers and a path to legal permanent residency and citizenship for college age students;

Support of due process rights for immigrants facing deportation, including access to fair, humane and common-sense procedures such as a speedy trial and adequate counsel;

Opposition to efforts to penalize anyone for providing humanitarian assistance to their fellow human beings, regardless of the citizenship status of the person in need of help;

Opposition to any efforts to require, encourage or deputize state or local police to enforce federal immigration laws;

Opposition to Department of Homeland Security detention of individuals indefinitely;

Opposition to low-level Citizenship and Immigration Service personnel exercising unreviewable authority to judge good moral character of an applicant for citizenship;

Opposition to mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants without individualized consideration of whether detention is necessary.

<clip>

And, a response from Denise's husband, Martin, aka, Joseph C. Phillips:

http://www.michaellwilliams.com/blog/display.php?id=489|Hello NAACP! Is Anybody Home?>

...

The plain math is that the abundance of illegal labor puts downward pressure on wages and in the words of Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University “diminishes opportunity for low-skilled American workers who compete in the same sectors as the illegal immigrants.” For those in the back of the room that means young Black men.

The four industries or sectors that rely most heavily on illegal labor are: construction, food preparation, cleaning and farming. The great lie of this debate is that illegals are doing jobs Americas will not. The obvious rejoinder is: Who filled jobs in these sectors before 11.5 million illegal immigrants crossed our borders? The answer is Americans — specifically Black Americans. The rub, as Professor Swain points out, is that these American workers must now compete with an influx of labor that has the advantage of under-pricing their services. In Los Angeles during the 1980s for example, the percentage of Black janitors and hotel workers in the workforce plummeted as immigrant workers who accepted lower wages replaced them.

Black America looks to the NAACP for leadership on this issue. Unfortunately, all the organization has to offer is a one-page outline filled with the odd notions that law enforcement officials should not enforce the law, people who break the law should not be detained and people who have disregarded our nations sovereignty should be protected and receive amnesty.

The Congressional Black Caucus has also been absent on this issue, but I suppose we can forgive their timidity. Many members of the CBC have large Latino populations in their districts and must tread lightly when it comes to the issue of immigration. The district of Maxine Waters (D-LA) for instance is home to one hundred thousand more Latino residents than Black residents. Similarly, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) represents an almost equal number of Black and Latino voters. The NAACP, however, suffers no such burden. It seems plain that an organization that purports to be for the advancement of “Colored People” should be out front in advocating immigration policy that makes sense for a Black community that is growing increasingly frustrated at being displaced by workers who are in the country illegally, consuming jobs and services, and more significantly accumulating political clout.

[Zookeeper]

1. Well, I would love to know what you think Ms.Gadget.

I have engaged in some VERY heated discussions in GD and GDP. I've been called a racist despite my continuously raising the issue that citizens of other countries working here illegally for low wages, hurts African-Americans, Native Americans, poor whites from historically chronically depressed areas of the country and the many (at least in Minnesota) LEGAL Somali, Ethiopian and Hmong refugee immigrants.

I have also stated that, as a native Detroiter who has seen how Union jobs created the middle-class, I'm acutely aware of the effect the loss of Union and living wage jobs has had on the African-American community. There is a very vocal group of illegal immigrant advocates who have been posting flamebait threads, then ganging up on DUers who disagree with them. I have suggested that those who are so moved by the plight of illegal immigrants who, "Just want to work," should visit Detroit if they want to see pain. So far, my line of reasoning is ignored, in favor of continuing to insult easier targets.

There have actually been statements made like, "We (Americans) all just need to learn more skills so we can change jobs (when we're replaced by illegal immigrants)" and "Having low-paid illegal workers is good because it creates more IT jobs."

I want to see things made right for working-class and poor Americans. I want to see the inequalities of education and employment for Black Americans corrected before I start worrying about jobs for non-citizens. I have made my loyalties clear on those threads and challenged what I think is arrogance on the part of the pro-illegal worker crowd.

BUT, then I heard about the NAACP and Jesse Jackson supporting the illegal workers. So, since I'm white, should I just shut-up? Despite how I must sound in this post, I'm not an overly emotional person, but I feel deeply in my heart that this is not good for the black community.

There are so many DUer's who are quick to accuse others of hating "brown people," but I see absolutely no support for Black Americans in their arguments, beyond, if pressed, a pie-in-the-sky reference to how things will be better for Blacks after we reform our government, corporations and the entire capitalist system.

However, if the majority of Black Americans and Black leaders agree with open borders and amnesty, I will stop making that argument. :shrug:

[msgadget]

2. Shutting up is never good

I hear the same people who say "These people do jobs Americans won't do," continue with, "so let them do it." and am offended. When even the most compassionate person waxes on and on about humble, hardworking people I want to vomit. Is it a requirement in this country that low-skilled workers be of the head bowed and underpaid variety? It's classist and plainly illustrates how little has changed from the days of slavery and indentured servitude. We're suffering through job attrition from technology and outsourcing, unions and labor laws are weak and corporations are strong. The continued influx of the latest underclass dilutes the workforce to the extent it becomes cheap, expendable and powerless. In the process it is creating a new domestic underclass of those who have been underbid.

What liberals - and I am one - are too busy being offended to say is that illegal immigrants today are predominantly from one region, specifically the NAFTA and WTAA 'region'. When those agreements were signed we were all promised prosperity. Well, I see profits but no uplifting of them or us. Every American clamoring for guest workers is ignoring that most basic tenet, justice for all. We were lied to and championing the right for betrayed people to ignore that broken promise and leave their heritage to work for less than they deserve is not only falling down on the ol' liberal job but enforces labor-hostile policies. I grew up clamoring against the 'establishment' and guest workers are a boon to an establishment I still distrust.

Politicians wanting to get on the right side of voting Latinos (their current favorite voting bloc) are pretending our discontent is mean-spirited protectionism, racism and purely selfish. When we let them get away with that, with standing behind microphones wearing the cloaks of false champions, we seal our collective fate. They're blatantly ignoring the true cause of the increase in migration and bluffing outrage while damning those who dare to demand the same ownership and accountability of them that they demand from us.

So, I don't care what black leaders, democrats and liberals are advocating. They're misguided, blind, enabling, imo. Sure, open up the borders but only if these poor people are welcomed into a strong, less corrupt America that values its citizens and workers, not one...like this.

[Zookeeper]

3. Your last paragraph sums it up...

We need a stronger, healthier America before we try to absorb millions more people. I'm not anti-immigration, but we really have to have some control over how many new people are coming here every year just to make sure that everyone has a chance at a decent quality of life.

Another consideration I've raised in previous threads is the environment. Where is the water going to come from for the next 12 million people who walk across the border? America is no longer a land of limitless natural resources. We need to "green-up" our act before we increase our population in significantly large numbers.

But, again, my main concern is that poverty in American communities be addressed before worrying about providing a livelihood for workers coming here illegally. And I don't think we can do both at the same time, especially under BushCo.

[msgadget]

4. That's a great point

and I never really considered that impact. China is currently trying to balance growth with ecological responsibility and not doing so well but at least they're paying attention. Half the time this administration is dismissing the environment unless some otherwise repugnant policy skims close to being green. What worries me is that the next administration - regardless the party - may also be corporate friendly to the extent they don't re-establish or enforce regulations that may inhibit competition. Someone - I can't remember who - said if corporations see that green policies are unavoidable we'd be green in no time. I don't know how that'll happen without a few more catastrophes or...what? Right now if they don't have what they need they strip some poor country of it.

And, how do you think we should address poverty here? Stronger vocational programs in high schools, childcare and medical so parents can work, raise the minimum wage (of course), free community/jr.college... The biggest problem I have with social programs is that they usually place those receiving aid in poor neighborhoods with few opportunities. Without examples of success what do kids have to aspire to? I think a culture develops that makes it that much harder to join or stay in the mainstream. I've read of some fantastic programs though that have a high success rate but they require closer supervision (mentorship) and more money. Job training programs sponsored by corporations would be great to have back... Actually, corporations with a certain amount of employees should be required to provide such opportunities and to sponsor hands-on programs in communities that provide kids with good role models and examples of time well spent. I've only had one cup of coffee...what are your ideas?

Edit for spelling

[Zookeeper]

7. Your ideas are on target.

Raise the minimum wage, to start. If we reduced the Pentagon's budget by 10 percent, we could probably fund vocational programs, childcare and early childhood education and lower the cost of college. We need smaller class sizes. Perhaps there should be a mandatory year of service (not necessarily military) for ALL young people. I think that would be an eye-opening and mind-expanding experience for kids of all backgrounds, and could make underprivileged youth aware of all of the options that are available to them.

We need a national healthcare program for all.

It all boils down to jobs and wages, though. Illegal immigrants are happy to work for more than they could make at home. But, there is no reason why young Americans should be happy to settle for less than their parents had. We need to ensure that working-class Americans are given the opportunity to move up the ladder.

[msgadget]

8. Great way to put it,

'...no reason why young Americans should be happy to settle for less than their parents had.' Those who believe in framing should be using that one, ZooK!

I've seen that one year of voluntary service more than a few times. Would there have to be a consitutional amendment for something like that or would it be part of high school? Depending on which party is in office the other side's gonna think it's evil, you know that, right? :) Still, it could be a good thing run properly. Oh, here's an idea that just popped into my head, it'd be in exchange for the free post-high school vocational or community college education. Wonder if that'd work...

If the populace is tended to - the entire populace - there'd be less crime and poverty and more money in the pockets of consumers TO SPEND. People would fix up or move out of desolate communities to start. Ya notice how money was freed up for spending these past few years? Via debt, mostly mortgage debt and policy helped facilitate that trap. We absolutely have to keep complaining AND we have to be picky about and relentlessly demanding of our elected officials. Everyone with a (D) isn't up to the task of changing the current status quo. I'm not a centrist - not even close - because corporations have gorged themselves quite enough these last several years and it's their turn to be restrained. If politicians can be convinced that what drives this country is the populace, aka the consumer, we can ALL ride the prosperity train.

I realize your initial post was about providing extra opportunities for the disenfranchised but I think we're all disenfranchised these days and in this fight together.

[Zookeeper]

10. Thanks, Msgadget...

that idea just came to me as part of formulating my response.

I wouldn't think a year of mandatory service would require a constitutional amendment, simply because we have had the Draft and I don't think that required any changes to the Constitution. (I could be wrong...)

As far as exchanging it for secondary education, it reminds me of what I say to my kids every once in a while regarding an occasional extra chore: I expect you to do this, for free, because you are a member of this family and obligated to just contribute (now and then) to the maintenance of our household. Also, if there were a year of service, it should apply to EVERY young adult rich or poor. I'd hate to see rich kids weasel out of their obligation because they don't need the educational subsidy.

(BTW, I'm sure LOTS of people would consider this an evil idea. Let's start with Libertarians...a group I'm more than happy to annoy.)

From your second to last paragraph, it sounds like you share my concerns about what will happen to consumer spending when the housing bubble either bursts or flattens. I'm no economist, but it strikes me that, as you said, the only reason there has been consumer spending the last few years is because so many people are borrowing against their mortgages and assuming the value of their property is going to continue to increase rapidly. I'm not sure exactly to whom Baby Boomers think we are going to be selling our houses when we trade down, especially those who have built humongous McMansions. I just heard of another study saying that wages have remained flat for the last few years. My sense is that most Americans' sense of prosperity is based on illusion, artifice and wishful thinking: "As long as I can get a home equity loan and buy a new ATV/snowmobile/boat/big screen TV/SUV/vacation/pay off my massive credit card debt, I'm doing OK!"

"...n this fight together." Yes, we are and I wish more Americans could or would see that bigger picture.

[msgadget]

9. It's already working elsewhere

and even though Americans are skeptical, this is worth advocating. Notice there are NO gov't incentives, what a concept!



Posted Tuesday, Apr. 11, 2006
It may be hard for Americans to fathom a world in which corporations, instead of merely lamenting the shortage of skilled labor, volunteer to train vast numbers of the non-college-bound. Oh, yeah, and to pay them a bundle along the way. But under Germany's earn-while-you-learn system, companies are paying 1.6 million young adults to train for about 350 types of jobs, ranging from industrial mechanic to baker to fitness trainer. And the trainees' average annual salary of $19,913 helps explain why less than 9% of Germans drop out of high school: they can't get in on the action without a diploma.

Private-sector apprenticeships have long been a mainstay of Germany's robust vocational-education program — so much so that in 2004, 58% of students finished high school with three-year training contracts in hand. Historically, more than two-thirds of the trainees end up with permanent job offers by the time those contracts are up. And despite increasing pressure from globalization and a shrinking labor market at home, 23% of all German companies continue to offer apprenticeships, a remarkable statistic, given that it takes into account every one-man shop as well as every megacorporation.

Even more impressive: businesses don't get tax breaks or other subsidies to help foot the bill. All the German government pays for is the two days a week apprentices spend in vocational school. So what's in it for the companies? According to a recent survey, 90% of the firms that offer apprenticeships say they do so because skilled employees simply are not available on the job market.

That's why the German model has occasionally been exported, if only on a local basis, to nations that also suffer shortages of trained workers. For instance, when BMW decided ten years ago to open a factory in central England, the enginemaker struck a deal with the British government to jointly finance a German-style apprenticeship program. Likewise, in 1995 a small consortium of manufacturing companies in North Carolina — that now includes firms headquartered in Germany, Switzerland and Austria — approached high schools and community colleges in the Charlotte area to develop Apprenticeship 2000, a four-year program for students interested in technical careers. The participants, who are recruited as 11th-graders and must maintain a 2.5 grade-point average, get paid to attend community college and, upon completing the apprenticeship, are guaranteed a job offer but are not obligated to accept it. Starting salaries are generally between $34,000 and $40,000.

Curiously enough, while the financing, training facilities and guaranteed benefits are all at hand in the North Carolina experiment, the students are not. One reason may be that the closing of several manufacturing plants in the state has scared off potential recruits who often turn to the service sector and never even get the chance to learn about the consortium. The largest of its member firms, Julius Blum Inc., an Austrian-based maker of hinge, drawer and rollout systems for cabinetry, has already invested some $30 million in machinery for the training program and hired 26 of its graduates. But Blum apprentice trainer Tony Austin says the company still faces an uphill battle educating students, parents and — yes — school counselors about the value of apprenticing. Says Austin: "Recruiting is one of our biggest problems."

[bobbieinok]

11. this apprentice program has a long history in Germany...also in

Switzerland.

One advantage is that apprentices are very well trained; they really know how to do the job. Also, everyone knows that what the workers do is important; it's not like in US where many still believe those who work with their hands are lower class.

One aspect I noticed the first time I was in Germany (in 1962): those who have gone through the three years apprenticeship are very proud of their skills; they also know that not just anyone can walk in and do their job.

In the last few years, I've heard that young people are advised to do a 3 year apprenticeship before they go to the university.

From my own Swiss relatives' experiences: One young relative (25 or so) was visiting us with his wife. He was fascinated by farm machinery, so in IA it was easy to visit a dealer; when the manager found he had spent 3 years in a mechanics apprenticeship with an extra year on farm machinery, he begged my cousin to move to the US and offered him a job to start at once. He said the most training he ever found were people who had 6 to 12 months at a vocational school.

The sister of the young man was trained as a florist (also 3 years). When she worked a year as an au pair in Canada, she learned quickly that her florist training could get her a good-paying job immediately.

[freestyle]

5. The harsh penalties should fall on the employers.

There are two main forces at work that contribute to illegal immigration from (primarily) Mexico and points south. Greed on the part of U.S. employers, and systematic underdevelopment of the economies of their home countries. Another force that can't be overlooked is the expectation of unrealistically cheap goods by U.S. consumers. That chicken is not on sale for 79 cents a pound because it was processed by well paid, unionized butchers.

To deal with the problem, we have to deal mainly with the employers and the economic situations in Latin America. Employers of illegal immigrants should be harshly fined, at least $10,000 per employee, and repeat offenders should face jail time. Some construction company heads in prison would be a hell of a wake up call. We also need to do much better with foreign aid and fair trade.

Letting this become a Black versus Latino issue plays right into the hands of the superrich who are oppressing us all. I find much more fault with the employer who offered the job to the illegal immigrant than with the person who took it.

[Zookeeper]

6. Yes! Nothing will change until employers are held...

responsible! However, I know a couple of rethuglicans who are all in favor of an open border with Mexico and amnesty. They are also horrified at the idea of penalizing employers. They say they like Hispanics' "all American work ethic," and "family values." (They are anti-choice.) I have been told by them a number of times that Unions are dead and never coming back, so get over it. They have no respect for Americans who are unwilling to work for the low wages that illegal migrants will take. And I don't know if it's because they are from a "white," farming area of the country, but they have no particular concern for, or connection to, Black Americans. I am very worried by that lack of connection, and think it is going to play a bigger part in setting immigration policy that anyone is expecting.

As far as "a Black versus Latino issue," that's kind of what I was getting at in my first post (#1). If the majority of Black Americans and Black leaders are marching with and supporting illegal workers, I don't want to speak on their behalf, or help create a division where one doesn't exist. I believe that having citizens of other countries working here illegally for low wages is bad for Black Americans (among others), but I don't know that it's my place to be making that argument if Blacks don't think the situation is a problem.