Immigration and Fair Trade (0.00 / 0)

At some point, progressives are going to have to reconcile their cosmopolitan ethics with their populist economic ethics.  On an intuitive level, the two are very much in conflict, and it's a little unfair to criticize Weirauch for taking a position on immigration, which is quite consistent with fair trade.  It is an empirical fact that immigration, especially undocumented immigration, depresses wages of skilled and unskilled workers in this country.  Yes, there is the "they do the jobs we don't want to do" meme, but it's really just a meme.  The reality is that American companies want cheap, exploitable labor, and increased immigration - especially undocumented immigration- gives them just that.  When an issue like "fair trade," i.e. no more free trade deals, resonates with voters, it touches the exact same chord that anti-immigration does.  And it's probably not the chord with which you or I, as elite progressives, are most comfortable.  Those who actually experience labor as a verb rather than abstract it as a noun have very different ethics underlying their political choices.  Those very different ethics can lead to overlapping political positions - as on fair trade - or they can lead to very divergent political positions - as on immigration.  The only consistent position for the "verb-labor" voter is anti-free trade and anti-immigration.  And it is an empirically rational position.

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:36:57 AM UTC

Except Of Course (4.00 / 3)

You have the causal order all mixed up, as shown by a brief history of meatpacking industry, for example:

First they break the unions.

Then they cut the pay to sub-survival levels.

Then no one will take the jobs.

Then they hire undocumented workers.

Are there other undocumented workers, whose competition lowers other people's wages?  Sure, to some extent.  But to a much lesser extent than things like 30-hour workweeks and the like, designed to make sure that people don't have benefits, for example.

But, more to the point, if you legalize these people, then (1) they can't be as thoroughly exploited, and (2) they can be organized and unionized.

The labor movement has come to terms with this fact.  Here in Los Angeles, the labor movement itself is substantially Latino--not just rank and file, but leadership as well.  There simply is no going back, and it's not because of effete wusses drinking their lattes.  It's because the working class itself is largely immigrant or one generation removed, and they know from experience that the fine points of who's documented and who isn't really don't matter that much to the folks coming after them.

So, long story short: the most politically effective thing we can do is restore labor's power, fast.  Because that turns an abstract possibility into a living reality--another way of fighting back against depressed wages and terrible working conditions.  A way of restoring a sense of hope.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:41:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Those who are here should be legalized so they may have the protection of labor laws - that's good for the immigrants and good for unions. You are also quite right that the answer lies in strengthening unions.  The causal connection between wages and immigration, however, is not as linear as you are portraying.  It is more circular than that.  The availability of large pools of cheap labor is what allows business to break union power.  In a closed labor market, no matter how much a company slashes wages, it will be forced to negotiate with the union if it wants to continue doing business.  If there's a large pool of non-unionized, undocumented labor to turn to, there's no pressure to negotiate with unions.

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:37:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the US Never Had A Closed Labor Market (0.00 / 0)

And, lo and behold, one of the main reasons why was the ease with which the racist South resisted unionization.

This brings us back to why it's so important to fight nativism, xenophobia and demonization.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting a linear relation.  I am arguing for an historically accurate account of the main line of causation. I take it for granted that causation is always multicausal, multidirectional, and nonlinear.  But that doesn't mean there aren't main lines of thrust.  Usually there are, even if you have to dig a little beneath the surface to find out what they are.

And, apropos of this discussion, the definition of who is "us" and who is "them" is very often where you find that main line of thrust.  Collective well-being is then built (successfully or not) on the basis of such definitions.  The decline of the middle class is but one historical example of how definitional politics has played out.

My argument is that the most fundamental act of politics is to define the shape of politics.  Accepting the defacto lines of "us" and "them" that reactionaries employ is a recipe for handing them victory before the battle has even begun.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 18:15:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but (0.00 / 0)

if step number 4 (hire undocumented workers) were not available as an option, than neither would steps two and three be.  Companies can't cut wages to an absurd minimum if there aren't any undocumented workers to take the job anyway afterwards.  The availability of cheap labor is an essential part of the program.  It's not the immigrants' fault that the companies do this -- it's the companies' fault -- but the immigrants are a necessary part of the equation.

It's unfortunate that American workers find it easier to hate down than hate up, but that seems to be a long-term feature of this country's mindset.  And I think these workers are generally aware that if there weren't so many immigrants around, this plan wouldn't have been able to have been executed.  And I suppose if these workers see no realistic prospect of actually beating their bosses in direct conflict (unions, anybody?), they think they can at least deprive their bosses of the alternate labor supply needed to brownsize their job. 

And as far as that goes, they're probably right.  Which was more likely to happen in the period 2005-2008, card check, or border-only immigration reform?  You're right that unions are the only real path to economic security for workers, but one can't necessarily blame them for focusing on stopping immigration instead. 

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:32:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have You Heard Of Walmart? (4.00 / 2)

Always Low Wages. Always.

But the only undocumented workers are in their contracted janitorial crews.

Just because an undocumented workforce was favored by the meatpackers after they broke the unions doesn't mean it was their only option, which in turn means that undocumented workers weren't key to their earlier machinations.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 15:06:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both (4.00 / 1)

Falling wages in Mexico and falling wages here are caused by globalization. Our current politics of immigration is a simple result of people fleeing the effects of globalization in Mexico and people here looking for someone to blame the effects of globalization on. The fair-traders recognize that the actual causes of illegal immigration and wider economic instability are the excesses of capitalism, the anti-immigration movement is a simple case of racist scapegoating. Supporting fair trade, American unions, Mexican unions, foreign aid, sustainable development and free movement is a perfectly consistent and humane platform that relies on a certain diagnosis.  Closed borders treat the symptom (immigration) but not the disease (exploitation).

I would also be wary of making claims of empirical rationality in politics. You are assuming a sort of (classical) liberal system of human motivations (utility maximization) that is not accepted uncritically even in economics, not to mention sociology, anthropology, neuro-science, political theory and various less orthodox types of economic theory.

One could support open borders "rationally" because of class solidarity, political expediency (the demographic argument), a belief in the basic right to free movement and a dignified life, a commitment to undermining the nation-state, or a desire for good Mexican food. Don't assume that pursuing a higher paycheck is the only rational input in political decision making.  If it is, there isn't much future for progressive politics either way.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:32:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Points (4.00 / 1)

I am very mindful of all of your critiques - especially about the rationality of political choices.  There are, however, very real economic phenomena driving the issue of immigration, so I cannot agree that it is all a matter of racism.  I acknowledge that racism is part of some of the anti-immigration sentiment in this county, and this force is emotional rather than rational.  However, the liberal elite criticism - that anti-immigration sentiment is all racism - is likewise a rather emotional reduction of a complex phenomenon.  I am not arguing Bentham's position that all talk of rights is nonsense upon stilts.  I am, however, arguing that progressives need to appreciate the economics behind the anti-immigration sentiment instead of glibly dismissing it as racist. 

"Globalization" is not some amorphous boogie-man - it has very specific attributes that we must address. Yes - globalization prevents developing countries from pursuing protectionist policies that would raise their standards of living.  But that is half the story.  Globalization also eliminates economic borders, allowing American employers (corporations) to go where the labor is cheapest.  That doesn't just mean going outside the country.  Increasingly, it means bringing cheap labor here - labor that is all the more cheap for saving corporations the cost of moving overseas.  (You should listen to the latest podcast of "This American Life" for a good story about bringing cheap labor here).  There is a reason why Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported "immigration reform."  Please don't tell me it's based on the "basic right to free movement."  Please tell me that elite progressives are more savvy than that.  So, the question is: will progressives argue for the restoration of economic borders?  That is an economic question, and it is one we must answer if we are to protect American wages.

I understand Kantian idealism.  I understand the desire to help alleviate the human suffering that we have created during the colonial era.  Some progressives say we should undo the trouble we have caused; I say we cannot put out fire with fire.  I am not alone in that assessment. Many of the critiques that voices in the developing world are making about Western "do-goodery" (which is more about guilt-absolution than altruism) come down to: "We don't need the Western hand of enlightenment.  Go home.  You've done enough good to us."  Read Panikkar.  Read Edward Said.  Read Ellen Lust-Okar's wonderful article about how Western NGOs that promote democratization in the Middle East unintentionally legitimize and prolong authoritarian regimes.  I truly believe that we must take this critique seriously.  We must radically disengage - which means no more "help" and also no more exploitation.  It means putting our own house in order.  That sentiment is what populism is all about.  And if the left marketed it to the American people in that way, we would utterly destroy the corporate right in this country. 

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 05:33:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"So, the question is: will progressives argue for the restoration of economic borders?" (0.00 / 0)

No, I really don't think we should. It's truly unfortunate that after the fall of the Soviet Union the left hasn't been able to reclaim an "internationalist" identity.  I don't think its fair to make people choose between Western European style fascist isolationism and global corporate oligarchy.

To beat globalization, we're going to need to do more than just shut down the "economic" borders.  Or at least, to provide a decent life for everyone in the world we will.  ow I understand that foreign aid is often used as a form of soft power to manipulate third world countries, and that development schemes pushed by westerners are often deeply misguided, but that doesn't immediately discredit the concept.  Microfinancing, appropriate technologies and development plans that are done through local groups can greatly improve the standards of living in a rural area for not very much money. And if we don't couple that with pressuring global corporations and third world governments to empower labor and let people move around, we won't be able to move around.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 14:25:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mean (0.00 / 0)

"we won't be able to stop corporate exploitation."

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 14:25:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Sam,

Well, we have just "capped" the conversation because we've reached a point where our fundamental ethical assumptions about the world diverge.  No conversation can continue past aesthetic assumptions without turning personal or emotional.  At an aesthetic level, I feel that it is very wrong for Westerners to "make the world a better place" for those in the third world; to me, that sentiment is "benign imperialism."  However, it is certainly a credible sentiment.  You disagree; you see it as our moral duty to alleviate what you would call "suffering" and "poverty" around the world.  To that I can only say: God Bless and good luck with that.  But on a political level you have to ask yourself a question: can the progressive movement sell the idea to struggling American workers that they will have to give up part of their paychecks so that others around the world can "develop?"  I really don't think that will ever be a winning platform - in fact, it's never going to sell outside of liberal elite circles.

And I must take exception to the term "fascist isolationism" - first, it is historically inaccurate.  Fascist regimes are notoriously internationalist and aggressive toward other countries.  The only well-documented cases of isolationism occurred in democracies - America, Britain and to a lesser extent France - in the interwar period.  No Western European country has ever been both fascist and isolationist.  Second, fascism is precisely the opposite of what I am arguing for.  Fascism is the collusion between government and big business to destroy labor and aggressively pursue a capitalist agenda (much like America today).  No fair reading of my comments could come anywhere close to that assessment. 

Finally, you must really consider whether you are condescending to the developing world by trying so aggressively to "help them."  There is a mountain of evidence that the developing world doesn't want our interference or our modern lifestyles.  You feel it is a moral imperative to give the rest of the world the benefits of your civilization.  At the same time, your civilization is inconsistent with traditional values.  For example, the role of women in Arab countries is very different than it is in the West.  You call it oppression, they call it culture.  Who is to be the final arbiter of a people's own collective destiny?

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 16:35:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (4.00 / 1)

You're misunderstanding my world-view significantly.  I don't have any interest in making the world into America or Western Europe. I don't think we need to "help" people by dictating how they should live. It seems a shame to simply list people or movements that have influenced me, but for a taste I find both Vandana Shiva in India and the Zapatistas in Mexico very appealing. People and groups that have aligned themselves in opposition to the "progress" of global capitalism because they recognize it as a cruel and exploitative force, and are instead seeking alternatives that are found in community and sustainability, not unrestrained growth.

Cutting off foreign aid, closing the borders and banning foreign imports would, aside from being a probably ineffective type of attack on globalization, cause almost every third world economy to collapse. An international movement both here and abroad which is ideologically opposed to globalization is forming, it is not controlled by westerners, and it is not about shutting down the borders.

It shouldn't be about shutting down the borders because that's a bad idea.  Keeping people in one place makes them easier to exploit, and it won't do anything to significantly alter the global economic system.

I think you're using the desire not to carry out soft imperialism (which I agree with and appreciate) as a way to basically discard any concerns about the third world and look at only improving the lives of American workers.

I think Sweden is something approaching that, a country that restricts trade, has strict immigration requirements and a luxurious welfare state which maintains a fairly egalitarian distribution of wealth.

While that's better than what we have in the US, it's not a model for a serious attack on the global economic system, and I think looking at it the way for progressives to go is deeply problematic.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 00:21:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mixed up (4.00 / 1)

I disagree with this pretty strongly. While I agree that there is a strain of populism in anti-immigrant nativism, I hardly think that every populist would need to be anti-immigrant to be ideologically consistent. I can be anti-corporate power and  pro-worker everywhere; I don't have to be only for workers in the United States and against workers in Mexico (or workers from Mexico), which is essentially the anti-immigration view. I happen to think most anti-immigration sentiment is more properly described as simple xenophobia, likely stoked, it's true, by economic insecurity.

I think it's possible to be "populist," as in pro-labor, pro-little guy, and still have an informed, nuanced view of the forces driving labor markets and immigration. For example, one of the most important things the United States could do to stem the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico would be to end agricultural subsidies, especially the massive (relatively unknown) subsidies that pay for water to supply the vast corporate farm operations in California. This action would be a boon to the agricultural economies of Mexico and other Latin American companies and would do a lot to decrease the incentive for illegal immigration.

You also have an error of fact in your post. Please cite the academic studies that show the "empirical fact" that immigration reduces the wages of skilled workers in the US. Because I have seen studies that have concluded to the contrary, though the conclusions are sometimes murky. See for example this Borjas article, which concludes that college graduates benefit from Mexican immigration. (The data seem pretty unambiguous that illegal immigration, which is almost entirely of unskilled workers, slightly depresses the wages of native unskilled workers.) And it is simply not the case that legal immigration of skilled workers (like computer programmers or financial analysts) depresses American wages. This is, in fact, the opposite of the truth, as skilled workers like this in the US reduce the incentive for companies to locate jobs overseas, and every highly skilled worker is going to create jobs for various kinds of support staff (secretaries, IT support, janitors, restaurant workers, etc).

So my "anti-immigration" program would be
1) kill agricultural subsidies
2) allow more skilled immigration, so companies are able to hire the workers they need in the US and don't need to open overseas operations
3) better border enforcement and action against employers who employ illegal immigrants
4) give immigrants already here a temporary amnesty with the option of getting on a citizenship path or returning home

Now, is that populist? I don't know. Certainly some of these ideas are controversial, but is any of them actually inconsistent with supporting the rights of labor against runaway corporate power?

---

by: dbeach @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 06:32:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sources (0.00 / 0)

I was referring to the Borjas article for unskilled labor, and I realize that the reality is somewhat more complex for skilled labor.  I am also referring to Fred Strobel's Upward Dreams, Downward Mobility: The Decline of the American Middle Class and John Kenneth Galbraith's Culture of Contentment.  With respect to the latter, Galbraith argues that the American upper classes are reliant on undocumented immigration to maintain their lifestyles.  If agricultural producers in particular were forced to pay a fair market price to legal labor (both native-born and documented immigrants), Galbraith argues, wealth would be distributed downward from the upper classes to the lower classes, raising their standards of living and also stimulating the economy through greater consumption (lower classes spend a greater proportion of their incomes relative to the upper classes).  You would then see a vast shrinkage at both extremes of the income spectrum.  It is not that American workers won't do certain jobs.  It is that American workers demand a fair (and legal) price for their labor, which would have major redistributive effects on the economy.

Rudy is a Tyrant

---

by: lassallean @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 07:03:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]