Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Future Flows
New Report Describes Peril Immigrant Women Face in U.S. Food Industry
01 year ago
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) released a new report called Injustice on our Plates: Immigrant Women in the U.S. Food Industry which looks at the conditions under which immigrant women work. It documents and personalizes the stories of women who have made the dangerous journey to the U.S. seeking a better life for themselves and their families, only to end up working long hours under extremely difficult and dangerous conditions.
Entering the U.S. surreptitiously is extremely difficult for anyone, but particularly for vulnerable women crossing alone or with small children. According to SPLC, some academics and humanitarian organizations estimate that as many as six out of 10 women and girls experience some sort of sexual violence during the journey. Some do not make it at all. In the five-year period from FY2000 to FY2004, border officers recovered the remains of an average of 61 migrant women a year along the 1,952-mile Southwestern border. In the latest five-year period — from FY2005 to FY2009 — that number jumped to 77.
Many of the women who make it to the U.S. safely are confronted with the horrendous working and living conditions made possible because of the existence of a group of vulnerable, desperate, and disposable workers. Many of the women interviewed complained about the difficulty supporting their families when they make minimum wage, or even less, and wage theft is common. To earn their meager wages, immigrant women perform hard physical labor and have few rights or protections.
Working in the fields can be backbreaking, and workers are exposed to dangerous pesticides. An interview with Isabel, who picked strawberries, revealed:
Working in these fields takes a physical toll. At times, Isabel must spend whole days hunched over. In addition, we “have a lot of hand movement and use big scissors to cut the little branches and cutters for the big branches.” At the end of the day, the pain can be numbing, Isabel says. “Sometimes I don’t feel my hands. I feel like an animal bit me. I have a pulsing in my arms, and I feel the pain when I sleep. It’s like biting me. It’s intolerable the pain, from using the scissors so much.” She also suffers from headaches from the pesticides. “It’s such a strong smell,” she says. “When I start to breathe that in, my head starts to hurt, and I feel nauseated.”
Work in meat processing plants is also extremely dangerous, and few workers have access to safety equipment. Workers become crippled by the strenuous and repetitive motions of the work. Many of the female workers reported being restricted from using the restroom, while others spoke of sexual abuse, and discrimination against pregnancy. According to SPLC:
The women are even more vulnerable in the workplace than their male counterparts. They are often the primary caregivers for children, making them less likely to assert their rights for fear of being fired or, worse, being deported and separated from their families. And because of their fear of being reported to immigration authorities, they are reluctant to report wage violations, sexual violence or gender discrimination, or to take legal action to stop it.
How are these conditions allowed to exist in the U.S.? SPLC notes that farmworkers are the least protected workers in America. They were specifically excluded from labor laws passed during the New Deal era, and today are not eligible for workers compensation in many states, and are not entitled to overtime pay or minimum wage under federal law. They are excluded from many state health and safety laws, and even child labor laws do not apply in some cases. Furthermore, farmworkers also are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Every day, Americans are benefitting from the hard work of these immigrant women who work to put inexpensive food on our tables. In one hour “Rosa” cleans and debones enough chicken breasts to sell for $900, but she earns $6.25 for that hour of work. Another immigrant woman makes $2.50 for every tray of grape tomatoes she picks. During a good 12-hour workday, she gathers a dozen trays, about 300 pounds. That’s $30 a day – far less than minimum wage. Yet her one-day tomato harvest retails for as much as $1,000.
Americans could spend a tiny bit more on food and increase workers’ earnings. However, there is much resistance, and ultimately large companies who do not want to pay more can buy imported food rather than pay higher prices for U.S. food.
Perhaps more importantly, measures could be taken to ensure that undocumented workers receive the same protections as other workers, leaving them far less vulnerable. The SPLC report ends with recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security, Congress, the Department of Labor and other federal agencies who could take actions to improve the lives of the immigrant workers who produce our food. Passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation tops the list, of course. Ultimately, all workers need to be on a level playing field which starts with obtaining legal status, and the immigration system must provide a way for needed workers to work in the U.S. legally and be protected by employment and labor laws.
Photo by PNASH.
How a Drop in New Immigrant Households Affects an Ailing Housing Market
01 year ago
While some fault the foreclosure crisis for the swell in vacant homes and continuing drop in home prices, recent Census data reveals that immigrants—or lack thereof—may be a bigger factor contributing to the housing glut than people may realize. According to Fortune, steady unemployment, the drop in immigration and the growing number of young people moving back in with their parents have all contributed to the “slowest growth in the number of new households since the second World War”—households which would otherwise be filling up vacant homes. Research indicates that new immigrant households have long sustained the “housing and retail markets at the heart of many of our large cities,” but as the number of new immigrants to the U.S. continues to decline due to economic downturn, the already ailing housing market gets a little worse.
As Fortune explains:
Foreclosures may leave homes empty, but the owners need to go somewhere. If they end up renting elsewhere, that leaves the housing glut unchanged. The proportion of vacant units stood at 14.5% at the end of the second quarter of 2010, just below the 14.6% record high set in the first quarter of 2009. The vacancy rate hasn’t changed much, even though new home construction has plunged—housing starts have been running at an annual rate of under 1 million since June 2008. Historically, the market needed to build 1.5 million to 1.7 million per year just to meet demand.
In other words, the vacancy rate remains basically the same despite the plunge in new home construction—which implies that there are not enough new households to fill existing vacant homes.
An economic consulting firm, IHS Global Insights, uses Census data to show that the overall U.S. household formation rate dropped to record lows in 2009 (357,000), down significantly from the 2002-07 average (1.3 million/year). Why the drop? IHS Global suggests several reasons—intensity of the job recession, divorce and birth rates, rise in homelessness—but chief among them, the drop in immigration and the increase of youth “doubling-up.” Foreign-born households dropped by 338,000 in 2009, according to the Census.
Clearly, the economic recession and steady unemployment rate (9.6% as of August) are contributing factors to the housing crisis, but as the data suggest, there simply aren’t enough new households to fill the available homes we have. Immigration’s trickle down effect is obviously being felt in the housing market. The sluggish economy and job market explain the lull in immigration—when the economy dips, so do the number of immigrants who come to the U.S. in search of employment…and when the number of immigrants dip, so too does the housing market.
Perhaps if we, as a country, not only examine the flow of immigrants but their economic roles as workers, consumers, entrepreneurs and homeowners as well, we might be at a better starting point for debating how to regulate immigration in this country, now and in the future.
Photo by coffeego.
Senators Graham and Kyl Buy Tickets to the Birthright Citizenship Dog and Pony Show
01 year ago
Over the weekend, the second-ranking member of the Senate Republican leadership, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) joined Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in considering a repeal of birthright citizenship laws through a constitutional amendment. Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, is the cornerstone of American civil rights and affirms that, with very few exceptions, all persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens—regardless of their parents’ citizenship. Although the Supreme Court has consistently upheld birthright citizenship, year after year restrictionist groups and legislators trot out the “repeal birthright citizenship” mantra in the hopes of adding a few more immigration extremists to their dog and pony show audience.
Senator Kyl sidestepped the direct question of whether he supported a repeal during an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. Instead Senator Kyl egged on Senator Graham’s push for a constitutional amendment that would end birthright citizenship:
The question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior? My colleague Lindsey Graham from South Carolina suggested that we pursue that. And what I suggested to him was that we should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is.
On the one hand, Senator Kyl sought to take a more deliberate approach to the issue, calling for hearings on the matter. On the other hand, however, he set up an extremely punitive measure for reviewing the question of birthright citizenship—casting the protections of the Fourteenth amendment as a reward for illegal behavior and blithely ignoring the significant importance of an egalitarian measure of citizenship.
Last week, Senator Graham told Fox News that he was “fair and humane in dealing with immigrant children,” but that birthright citizenship is a mistake:
I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here. Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake … We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.
The truth is, however, that ending birthright citizenship wouldn’t end illegal immigration. As the Immigration Policy Center reports, ‘since children born to undocumented immigrants would presumably be undocumented, the size of the undocumented populations would actually increase as a result of the new policy. While some children could acquire the citizenship of their parents, others would be left with no citizenship or nationality, leaving them stateless.’ How’s that for fair and humane treatment of children?
The idea that ending birthright citizenship would discourage unauthorized immigrants from coming to the U.S. 1) does nothing to address the unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S. and 2) falsely presumes that unauthorized immigrants’ come here primarily to have U.S. citizen children—not work, flee persecution, reunite with their families or one of the many other reasons someone might come to U.S. Furthermore, eliminating birthright citizenship would mean that all American parents would have to prove the citizenship of their children through some complicated bureaucratic process—not just immigrant parents.
As Margaret Stock, Associate Professor at West Point, points out:
The policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship are very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it is not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright-citizenship rule for one that would cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to approach our complex immigration problems.
If Senators Kyl and Graham were serious about dealing with our immigration problems—as they once were—they’d spend more time crafting practical solutions instead of pandering to immigration extremists who would rather amend the U.S. Constitution than reform our immigration system.
Photo by G. J. Charlet III.
The Right Side of History: Religious Leaders Urge Immigration Reform at Hearing
01 year ago
At a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing today, a panel of conservative religious leaders made the case for common sense solutions to our immigration problems—comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that secures our borders, follows the rule of law and provides a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. While the hearing, The Ethical Imperative for Reform of Our Immigration System, started off with ethical and biblical arguments supporting and opposing reform, it later evolved into what most immigration debates eventually boil down to—fairness, justice and the punitive aspects of a reform effort.
The majority witnesses—Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and VP of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Dean Mathew Staver of the Liberty University School of Law—testified to the moral and biblical mandate to care for “the least of these among us,” the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Faith leaders will continue to reach out and support the undocumented population, Dr. Land said, but “only a proper government response can resolve our immigration crisis.”
“Get tough on immigration” hardliners—Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA)—however, pushed back on religious leaders by citing scripture that quote the “rule of law” and advocate the “punishing of wrongdoers.” “Americans need not repent for wanting to follow the rule of law,” Rep Smith said, “A truly Christian approach would be to end illegal immigration.” Likewise, the single witness for the minority, Dr. James R. Edwards, Jr. of the restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies, testified that biblical precepts of compassion and mercy “might not apply to civil government of the nation-state of which we are citizens. Sometimes, such application would actually be harmful and wrong.”
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)—among others—took particular offense to Dr. Edwards’ distinction. Rep. Gutierrez replied, “I want my government to be a reflection of my values, don’t you?” Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) asked Dr. Edwards if our current immigration laws were just and whether deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living here was considered “justice?” Dr. Edwards replied “no” to both questions.
The underlying tension in the room, however, wasn’t whether our immigration system is broken (everyone in the room agreed on that) but in how to fix it—and a step further, what a “just punishment” might look like. While the majority of committee members and witnesses agreed on CIR as a solution, immigration restrictionists championed the Arizona SB1070 model—enforcement through attrition—that is, create enforcement laws so harsh that people choose to leave the state. Rev. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law, argued that deportation wasn’t the answer and that the conservative “amnesty” scare tactic wasn’t helping anyone:
I call upon those who label an earned path to legal status as amnesty to stop politicizing this debate needlessly and to honestly acknowledge the difference.
Dr. Richard Land echoed Rev. Staver’s complaint that “amnesty” is, in fact, something very different from proposed CIR proposals.
Some critics, however, suggest that “comprehensive reform” is a code for amnesty, but such action is not amnesty because it does not merely pardon an offender. My proposal requires lawbreakers to pay a fine, learn to read, write and speak English, and follow a rigorous process for legal status. Penalties, probation, and requirements do not equal “amnesty.” Going to the back of the line behind those who have, and are trying, to come here legally is not amnesty. These are principles of justice and fairness that respect the rule of law and treat all parties involved (American citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants) with dignity.
While restrictionist committee members continued to argue that CIR and its prescribed penalties—paying fines, going back to the end of the line, etc.—were simply not enough, religious leaders like Rev. Staver, continued to drive home the point that immigration is not a “right left” issue, but a “right wrong” issue, a moral issue, and that we “should not allow partisan politics to deter us from the ultimate goal of fixing a broken system.”
Photo by Lone Primate.
Hammering Out Future Immigration Flows: Immigration Commissions in Context
01 year ago
Today the Washington Post reported that Senate Democrats are working on a plan to create an immigration commission to help determine future levels of employment-based immigration as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. While some disagree as to how future immigration flows should be regulated, immigration advocates agree that planning for future flows of legal immigration is among the most critical elements that comprehensive immigration reform must include.
One of the greatest challenges in immigration reform is the need to realistically assess future employment-based immigration needs. Many people agree that the current legal immigration flow is drastically out of sync with America’s labor needs and the global realities of the 21st century. Given the current weakened economy and high unemployment rates, it is difficult to estimate the U.S.’s future labor needs. However, the economy will eventually improve, and a reasonable, flexible legal immigration system must be put into place to fill our future labor needs. Failing to do so would only repeat the errors of IRCA and create the likelihood that unauthorized immigration will continue.
But how do we determine how many workers are needed? In order to address this, some have called for the creation of an independent immigration commission that would analyze U.S. labor needs and recommend levels for employment-based immigration. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) proposed a Standing Commission on Labor Markets, Economic Competitiveness, and Immigration. In their 2009 Independent Task Force Report, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) echoed the need for a streamlined immigration system and offered their public support for MPI’s Standing Commission. Former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall, together with the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and the AFL-CIO presented another proposal for such a commission. These ideas have already been integrated into legislation. For example, House Bill 4321, better known as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP), includes provisions for an immigration commission. In April 2010, Senate leaders presented a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform that also included an employment-based immigration commission.
But not everyone agrees that an independent commission is the way to go. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out against the idea of an employment based immigration commission. In a June 2009 press release the U.S. Chamber’s Vice President of Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits stated that “The free market is by far the best tool for setting immigration quotas and picking immigrants” and insisted that “Employers need and will continue to fight for a market-based immigration system.” The American Council on International Personnel argues that one commission would never be able to understand the actual, real-time needs of thousands of employers, regardless of the quality of data available. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has also taken a position against a commission.
IPC has put forward several principles for future flow. The following two principles reflect the need to create a more flexible system based on economic realities:
Create a more flexible visa system that more accurately adjusts to the economy and labor market conditions. The current number of permanent employment-based visas available each year was set by Congress in 1990 and has not been adjusted since. The number of temporary visas has been adjusted infrequently. This current system does not have the flexibility to nimbly adjust the number of visas available to align with changing economic conditions. A reformed visa system would enable the U.S. to better manage our legal immigration system by allowing immigration flows to rise and fall during periods of prosperity or job scarcity in order to maximize the economic benefits of immigration. Some have proposed a standing commission to examine labor market conditions and make recommendations to Congress on a more regular basis. Others suggest that employers should play a larger role in determining the legitimate demand for foreign labor. Whether by a commission or some other mechanism, comprehensive immigration reform must include a more flexible decision-making process.
Conduct research and gather and analyze data about worker shortages, labor market trends, and other critical factors in order to aid decision making. Under the current system, Congress sets visa numbers with little regard for actual labor market conditions and needs. A system should be created so that experts have access to reliable data about future projections of labor needs. Congress should identify and require government agencies to track and produce accurate data on key factors including national and regional needs, industry-specific trends and needs, unemployment rates, and wages, working conditions, and recruitment of U.S. workers.
Whether policy-makers are for or against the idea of an independent commission, addressing the future flow of immigration must be hammered out in any immigration reform bill.
Photo by jolien_vallins.
