“The Government Has to Enforce the Law. But . . .”
October 12, 2009
by Phil Cafaro
One of the key divisions in immigration debates in the United States is between those who believe we need to enforce our immigration laws and those who do not. The overwhelming majority of Americans are in the former camp, but there is a significant minority who believe that any effort to enforce immigration laws is misguided and cruel. Attend an “immigrants’ rights” rally, or visit the website of La Raza or similar organizations, and the rhetoric is clear. Illegal immigrants who are caught and jailed are victims. Victims of “hate,” victims of “racism,” victims of “overzealous enforcement,” etc.
The problem with this position is that pretty clearly, it undermines any attempt to set limits to immigration. A refusal to enforce immigration laws equals acceptance of unlimited immigration into the United States. But very few people, on reflection, think this would be a good thing.
After all, it is one thing to argue over the proper levels of immigration, or which groups to prioritize in admissions. It is another to argue for throwing the doors open and saying to the world, “anyone who wants to live in the U.S. can do so.” So whether they want to admit or not, even those who support mass amnesties or increased immigration are probably committed to supporting some degree of immigration law enforcement. It would be nice if they admitted this forthrightly, instead of pretending that every such act of law enforcement was an act of injustice. Or, alternately, if those who really wanted open borders would advocate for them honestly—in the same way those of us who want to limit immigration are willing to do.
Unfortunately, such plain speech seems beyond the reach of many mass immigration advocates. They act as if every workforce raid or act of deportation was a horrible injustice—while insisting that they are all for enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. Exhibit A of this dishonesty is the New York Times, whose immigration editorials almost always include some variant on the phrase: “of course, we must enforce our immigration laws.” But not, they go on to insist, this way. Not by this agency. Not here.
We should enforce our immigration laws. But no actual way of doing this is ever quite gentle and pure enough to do the job.
Last week, the Times editorial board served up another example of this way of thinking (and invitation to their readers not to think) in “Broken in U.S.A.,” published September 30, 2009. The Times had objected to workplace raids, late in the Bush administration, that had caught and deported thousands of illegal workers. The Obama administration, more sympathetic perhaps to illegal workers, recently staged a major raid on a clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles where they purposefully refrained from catching and deporting any illegal workers. Here are excerpts from the Times editorial (it can be read in full at www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/opinion/01thu2.html):
“An immigration crackdown by the Obama administration has led to the imminent firing of about 1,800 workers at American Apparel, the trendy clothing company whose downtown factory is one of the largest still left in Los Angeles.
“This time the feds came with payroll audits rather than the guns and dogs of the Bush years. The director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, called it a milestone in the fight against illegal immigration: ‘Now all manner of companies face the very real possibility that the government, using our basic civil powers, is going to come knocking on the door.’
“The government has to enforce the law. But one has to ask who benefits from a crackdown like this . . ..
“American Apparel wouldn’t be our first target in the notoriously shady garment industry. The government has not charged it with knowingly hiring or exploiting illegal labor. By most accounts it has tried to maintain a legal work force given how hard it is for employers to weed out applicants whose fake documents look authentic.
“Unlike companies that routinely seek out illegal immigrants (the better to exploit them), American Apparel pays $10 to $12 an hour, well above the minimum wage and industry standards, plus health benefits. It hires locally, cultivates a trained work force and is seen as a valued corporate citizen in Los Angeles . . . .
“President Obama and Ms. Napolitano [Secretary of Homeland Security] inherited a failed immigration policy. They have promised do better in setting priorities, hunting down abusive employers and pressing for comprehensive immigration reform that will give workers hope and a path to legalization.
“A crackdown that forces 1,800 taxpaying would-be Americans into joblessness in a dismal economy is a law-enforcement victory only in the bitterest, narrowest sense. As a solution to the problem of unauthorized workers — 1,800 down, millions to go — it’s ludicrous”.
So says the New York Times. “The government has to enforce the law. But . . ..” Not here and not now. Somewhere out there, there is an employer bad enough, or an illegal worker illegal enough, to actually deserve to be fined or deported. But not these ones.
What is “ludicrous” is the Times’ idea that we should pick and choose which employers have to follow immigration laws, based on whether they are “good corporate citizens.” The Times editorial board would never accept this as a valid criteria for deciding which corporations should have to obey the nation’s anti-pollution laws, for example, or which corporations should have to pay their taxes in full. But somehow, when the topic turns to immigration, selective enforcement is not just acceptable, but the moral high ground.
Apparently, American Apparel should be given a free pass on hiring illegal workers, because it pays better than minimum wage, and therefore “isn’t taking advantage of its workers.” But this is setting the bar pretty low in our standards for corporate behavior. It is also a “ludicrously” narrow view of the impacts of mass immigration on wages for low-wage work.
American Apparel benefits from a flooded labor market for jobs in garment manufacturing. $10 an hour is not enough to live well and support a family in Los Angeles. If we want to raise wages significantly, we’ll have to tighten up labor markets. This will necessarily involve limiting immigration and thus some measure of workplace enforcement, deportation of illegal aliens, etc.
Tighten labor markets to raise wages. This is Econ 101. The Times routinely deploys quite sophisticated economic thinking in reporting all manner of stories in its news sections. It is curious indeed that when it comes to the depressive impacts of mass immigration on wages, the board assiduously keep the topic off its editorial page.
If the economy continues to falter, however, it may become increasingly difficult to play the bait and switch game regarding immigration enforcement. That is because enforcing workplace laws can help provide work for United States citizens—not “would-be citizens,” real citizens—at a time of terrible unemployment. 1800 jobs held by illegal immigrants are 1800 jobs that poor, out-of-work Americans could be doing.
The time is long past when this aspect of things could be casually shined off. America’s official unemployment rate is now approaching 10% and the actual rate is much higher. Unemployment is particularly high among poor and poorly-educated Americans—the kind who might want or need that $10 an hour job at American Apparel. They deserve to have their government making every effort to ensure that job goes to them—not to someone in the country illegally.
“Who benefits from the kind of crackdown” the government just imposed on American Apparel? Poor Americans, that’s who. The kind of people whose interests have been ignored by recent American administrations. The kind of people who have taken a back seat to the bankers and well-connected financiers, in recent bailouts and stimulus efforts. The kind of people who progressives should support.
“The government has to enforce the law. But . . ..” No buts. Not here and not now. Our government has a duty to enforce U.S. immigration laws and look out for working-class American citizens. We intend to hold it to its responsibilities.
