Well the same thing is happening in the United States. It began with the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs in the 80's, and continued with the outsourcing of computer jobs in the 90's and now. So what's left is a polarized economy with high level positions in corporations left open, and low level positions in the service industry left open, and a disappearing middle. Immigration does affect this too, because the Illegal immigrants entering the US markets have the same effect. That is part of the reason they are trying to change the immigration policies in the US.
I just watched "Spanglish," which is a not-so-great movie about what it is like to be a Latina in the US, but it had one point which I think is a perfect metaphor: The dad of the rich-kids offers the kids some $$ for picking up beach glass, figuring that they will get bored quickly and he won't be out that much money. The daughter of their live-in maid is allowed into the bargain, and she goes out and picks up a ton of beach glass, which (haha yeah right!) adds up to $650.00! The dad then debates whether to pay her or not, because he wasn't expecting that any of them would actually do the work to find that much glass. In the end he pays her, but you can bet the next time he won't offer such high prices for the glass.
Essentially the argument for the US isolationists is something similar: that the immigrants are flooding the labor market by doing jobs that nobody wants to do, and thereby pushing down the overall wages.
It is hard to say what is right. But certainly it seems to me in our best interests to build an economy whose structure is sound. I'd say the problem isn't the immigration, but the fact that many of the production jobs which provide sustainibility in an economy have been moved outside of the US, and (I assume) the UK and most of the EU as well. The "skilled-labor" jobs of manufacturing which have been lost have left a huge hole in the middle of the economies of those places.
If the idea that with-holding labor/production occurs to any of the countries currently classed "undeveloped" where much of the world's production goes on and they realize they can stop work to demand better wages, the corporation/owner nations will be screwed, because we no longer have the infrastructure nor the skills in our disappearing middle classes.
The immigrants taking service industry jobs seems to me to be a secondary problem. If there were middle-tier jobs for the asylum seekers, and the locals to take, then there wouldn't be any problem with the newer immigrants taking the bottom tier jobs.
That is part of the reason they are trying to change the immigration policies in the US.
I think straightforward racism has a lot do with this. I think business obviously takes advantage of the willingness of newly-arrived immigrants to work for next to nothing, but the system tries to reserve for itself the right to control the movement of people and of jobs. Sometimes it is just a case of divide and rule, scaremongering American workers into thinking that immigrants themselves are responsoible for poor wages and crappy jobs, when this is not the case. It takes concerted political action, of the kind we saw in LA last week, to demand meaningful rights for immigrants and better jobs for everybody.
I like what you said about the 'outsourcing' nations of the world realising the power of withholding labour. And taking otehr kinds of action - in an ideal world everybody would follow the example of this guy!
Right, they are using latent racist/xenophobic attitudes to justify labour abuses, just like they did against the Irish and Italians in New York at the turn of the previous century.
I'm not sure the political action taken in LA is going to do anything, but if anything I've grown cynical about the supposed freedoms of my home country. The immigration debate in the US right now boils down to one thing: lack of enforcement of current laws. Essentially the presentation of bills in the Senate versus the presentation of bills in the House differs mostly in how they final laws will affect the immigrants themselves. Therefore since their proposals are opposing, I believe that there will be little change in the consequences for illegal aliens in the US, but that the laws for enforcement within companies will be more strictly enforced. (In case you aren't up on this, the Senate Bill {which passed by the way} proposes a general amnesty {in the guise of guest-worker permits} for illegals from certain Latin American countries. In turn the House Bill {yet to be voted upon} proposes to make illegal immigration a prosecutable FELONY.) It is my opinion that each proposal for what to do with the illegals currently in the country is mere talk, and that neither house wants to pass that portion of their Bills into Law. They are using them for political posturing and position prior to the upcoming Congressional elections in November. They aren't going to put either bill to the final vote before then, because if they do, they risk either losing Latino votes, or losing Southern Conservative votes. The meat of both bills is actually in the legalese for how to make companies enforce existing labour-laws. I haven't actually read the bills, but from what I've read about them, one bill proposes to make companies be more consistent in who they hire, and how they document them. And the other bill proposes to put those documentations into some sort of national registry. I'm sort of vague on those parts of the bills.
I've got a friend in the restaurant industry in Chicago, and at one of the companies, a national company (now a franchise, but before previously a corporation proper), they had one girl with three sets of papers that they kept re-hiring every time she got caught and came back again. She was Yolanda, and then Maria, and finaly Marina or something like that. I'm sure the photos on the ID's and the girl herself was recognisable, but because there is no check-up on that part of the paperwork, she could be hired each time. The people at the company didn't care if she was illegal. They cared that she'd work for shit-money, and that she worked well.
But regardless of whether or not these new laws are actually enforced, they certainly contribute to an increasing level of and social and legal hostility against illegal immigrants.
I just watched "Spanglish," which is a not-so-great movie about what it is like to be a Latina in the US, but it had one point which I think is a perfect metaphor: The dad of the rich-kids offers the kids some $$ for picking up beach glass, figuring that they will get bored quickly and he won't be out that much money. The daughter of their live-in maid is allowed into the bargain, and she goes out and picks up a ton of beach glass, which (haha yeah right!) adds up to $650.00! The dad then debates whether to pay her or not, because he wasn't expecting that any of them would actually do the work to find that much glass. In the end he pays her, but you can bet the next time he won't offer such high prices for the glass.
Essentially the argument for the US isolationists is something similar: that the immigrants are flooding the labor market by doing jobs that nobody wants to do, and thereby pushing down the overall wages.
It is hard to say what is right. But certainly it seems to me in our best interests to build an economy whose structure is sound. I'd say the problem isn't the immigration, but the fact that many of the production jobs which provide sustainibility in an economy have been moved outside of the US, and (I assume) the UK and most of the EU as well. The "skilled-labor" jobs of manufacturing which have been lost have left a huge hole in the middle of the economies of those places.
If the idea that with-holding labor/production occurs to any of the countries currently classed "undeveloped" where much of the world's production goes on and they realize they can stop work to demand better wages, the corporation/owner nations will be screwed, because we no longer have the infrastructure nor the skills in our disappearing middle classes.
The immigrants taking service industry jobs seems to me to be a secondary problem. If there were middle-tier jobs for the asylum seekers, and the locals to take, then there wouldn't be any problem with the newer immigrants taking the bottom tier jobs.
Reply
I think straightforward racism has a lot do with this. I think business obviously takes advantage of the willingness of newly-arrived immigrants to work for next to nothing, but the system tries to reserve for itself the right to control the movement of people and of jobs. Sometimes it is just a case of divide and rule, scaremongering American workers into thinking that immigrants themselves are responsoible for poor wages and crappy jobs, when this is not the case. It takes concerted political action, of the kind we saw in LA last week, to demand meaningful rights for immigrants and better jobs for everybody.
I like what you said about the 'outsourcing' nations of the world realising the power of withholding labour. And taking otehr kinds of action - in an ideal world everybody would follow the example of this guy!
Reply
I'm not sure the political action taken in LA is going to do anything, but if anything I've grown cynical about the supposed freedoms of my home country. The immigration debate in the US right now boils down to one thing: lack of enforcement of current laws. Essentially the presentation of bills in the Senate versus the presentation of bills in the House differs mostly in how they final laws will affect the immigrants themselves. Therefore since their proposals are opposing, I believe that there will be little change in the consequences for illegal aliens in the US, but that the laws for enforcement within companies will be more strictly enforced. (In case you aren't up on this, the Senate Bill {which passed by the way} proposes a general amnesty {in the guise of guest-worker permits} for illegals from certain Latin American countries. In turn the House Bill {yet to be voted upon} proposes to make illegal immigration a prosecutable FELONY.) It is my opinion that each proposal for what to do with the illegals currently in the country is mere talk, and that neither house wants to pass that portion of their Bills into Law. They are using them for political posturing and position prior to the upcoming Congressional elections in November. They aren't going to put either bill to the final vote before then, because if they do, they risk either losing Latino votes, or losing Southern Conservative votes. The meat of both bills is actually in the legalese for how to make companies enforce existing labour-laws. I haven't actually read the bills, but from what I've read about them, one bill proposes to make companies be more consistent in who they hire, and how they document them. And the other bill proposes to put those documentations into some sort of national registry. I'm sort of vague on those parts of the bills.
I've got a friend in the restaurant industry in Chicago, and at one of the companies, a national company (now a franchise, but before previously a corporation proper), they had one girl with three sets of papers that they kept re-hiring every time she got caught and came back again. She was Yolanda, and then Maria, and finaly Marina or something like that. I'm sure the photos on the ID's and the girl herself was recognisable, but because there is no check-up on that part of the paperwork, she could be hired each time. The people at the company didn't care if she was illegal. They cared that she'd work for shit-money, and that she worked well.
--a
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment