A Different View on Immigration

There has been much conversation about the immigration debate recently in light of the situation in Arizona, the first state to form legislation (SB 1070) criminalizing the violation of a status-only offense. However, there is much not mentioned when discussing immigration. With this blog, I will share what I feel to be an overlooked theme on immigration: worker's rights.

The Congressional calendar is quickly disappearing and we've yet to see a bill or comprehensive immigration legislation introduce in either chamber. Republicans fault the healthcare legislation for creating an extremely partisan atmosphere as part of the reason why, along with additional endless rhetoric about other issues. Democrats also continue with the same rhetoric-redirecting attention to the extreme opposition and lack of cooperation. All the while, when immigration matters are discussed, it almost always concentrates on forms of punishment for the undocumented instead of providing a path to citizenship, due process protections, and cultural integration.

Most people overlook the reasons people migrate in the first place nor tempt to consider what their aspirations were. They want what we all want--economic security. But there is a conglomerate of networks whose interests benefit from the current failed immigration system.

Perhaps the reason the immigration debate steers clear of more humane solutions is because if we legalized all 10.8 million undocumented individuals in this country, restored due process protections, and provided an attainable path to citizenship, then these newly-established American citizens would be entitled to worker's rights. If each one of us were to go out and ask every undocumented person why they've migrated to the United States, among other reasons, they would more than likely say to improve their living standards. Most immigrants migrate from countries that have policies that impede social or economic prosperity. We've seen that in Mexico with the North American free trade agreement-also known as NAFTA; European immigrants that migrated to the US in the early 1900s to the mid to late 1990s; and also with citizens of less developed countries in general.

The fact of the matter is corporations would no longer be able to fully expropriate the benefits of cheap labor. Currently immigrants who work, receive no benefits at all, no form of social security-thus indirectly thrusting them into an inestimable number of working years, and no leverage or influence on their jobs. Through years of organizing and pressure in the struggles for workers' rights, jobs were made secure. However this security is not available for non-US citizens. The Undocumented who remain so are not able to tap into the pros of organized labor, thus hampering what would be an uplifted status of all workers. It would not be in the best interest of most companies to employ newly-legalized working immigrants, even with the penalties and growing regulation, simply because it would significantly impact profit margins and bind them to a contract of obligations such as social security and newly-mandated health benefits. These reasons are why we've seen increased outsourcing and continued hiring of those willing to work for cheap labor.

How does all this trickle into policy? It's no secret companies have had their hands in our government for years, and in the past years or so, that has become more apparent. Undoubtedly one party tends to guard the interest of the free-market, but to be frank, there are those with that same interest on the other side of the isle. Organized labor has always been a starting point to hold those in power accountable, and with the right maneuvering, can and has been the start of very influential social restructuring. This same conglomerate has influenced our nation's foreign policy's focal point to be that of trade agreements and an increased private sector abroad, discounting that these agreements create huge economic gaps and poverty, thus causing people to migrate. Instead of advantageous and punitive approaches when addressing immigration, we need to urge Congress and other members of our state delegation to approach reform from a human rights perspective. It is at that point a more commonsense solution emerges for all parties involved. But if we continue with this fear-based, punitive approach, we will only end up with things that don't work with enormous costs, both human and economic.