UALE Immigration and Globalization Working Group

2010-07-29T17:23:00.004-04:00

A lot has happened since this blog was last in use.

The biggest happening was probably the passage of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, and then U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton's overturning of most of the law yesterday. The public discourse around immigration has become increasingly polarized since our last post, in early 2008 -- and it has moved notably to the right. There was no Tea Party at the time. The U.S. Census also provoked debate among immigrant groups themselves.

Meanwhile, our group has been renamed the Immigration and Globalization Working Group to highlight 2 things:

A broader perspective that encompasses issues of globalization and immigraiton on a worldwide basis, and
The ongoing, non-transient nature of our work (as opposed to a Task Force, that does a task and then disappears.)

So, stay tuned. Comment.

David Bacon: The Political Economy of Migration

2008-01-11T08:18:00.001-05:00

DC Circuit: undocumented are employees under NLRA

2008-01-11T08:15:00.000-05:00

D.C. Circuit Confirms that Undocumented Workers are Employees Under NLRA

In a 2-1 decision (Agri Processor Co. v. NLRB), the D.C. Circuit has held that undocumented workers can still be classified as employees under the NLRA. Following the Supreme Court's holding in Hoffman Plastics that undocumented workers are not entitled to backpay under the NLRA, it is no surprise that employers pushed the issue further. But, as BNA's Daily Labor Report (subscription required) explains, the D.C. Circuit refused to go along:

A New York kosher meat company must recognize a United Food and Commercial Workers Union local as representative of its workers even though many of the workers are undocumented aliens . . . . With all three members of the D.C. Circuit panel writing, Judge David S. Tatel wrote for the majority that Agri Processor Co. Inc. was required to bargain with the local, even though many of the employees were later discovered to be undocumented, because of the expansive definition of "employee" under the National Labor Relations Act.

The majority found that while the IRCA may have made hiring an undocumented worker illegal, it did not necessarily mean that the NLRA's definition of "employee" had been amended. "[T]here is absolutely no evidence that in passing IRCA Congress intended to repeal the NLRA to the extent its definition of 'employee' includes undocumented aliens," Tatel said. "Thus, the NLRA's plain language, as applied by the Supreme Court in Sure-Tan, continues to control after IRCA, as the Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all held."

[T]he majority also] said that despite changes to the status undocumented workers by IRCA, nothing in the legislative history indicated an intent to modify the NLRA. Instead, the D.C. Circuit pointed to two passages in legislative history that support an opposite conclusion--that labor rights were unaffected by the new law. Rejecting the company's argument that Congress intended to end job protections when it made it illegal to hire undocumented workers, the D.C. Circuit said "it is quite possible that even as Congress barred employers from hiring undocumented aliens, it still intended for the NLRA to apply to such aliens." . . .

In a dissent, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh argued that because the workers were not permitted to work legally under the Immigration Reform and Control Act passed in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) was outdated. While concurring with the majority, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson called the requirement to bargain with illegal workers "somewhat peculiar" and agreed that Sure-Tan may be outdated, but still said it was up to the Supreme Court or Congress to alter the law.

I think the court got it right here. Even the Supreme Court in Hoffman did not say that the undocumented workers at issue were not employees--that decision only limited the NLRB's remedial power. Moreover, the vast majority of cases dealing with other statutes consider undocumented workers as employees; indeed, many of those statutes, such as the FLSA, have been interpreted to permit backpay notwithstanding Hoffman. Finally, giving protection for undocumented workers is the better choice as a matter of policy. One of the problems with Hoffman was the Court's failure to recognize that allowing employers to refuse to abide by workplace laws with respect to undocumented workers both undermines the goals of IRCA and hurts the rights of documented workers. That ability makes undocumented labor cheaper than documented work and, given the near-total lack of enforcement of IRCA, employers would have a strong incentive to increase their use undocumented workers.

-JH

Why Immigration will blow up in GOP's face

2008-01-09T17:05:00.001-05:00

On December 4, I attended a forum in NYC, organized by the Labor Research Association, on "The Immigration Debate: Now What for Labor?"

Good talks were given by Eliseo Medino from Change to Win, and Ana Avendaño from the AFL-CIO.

But the presentation I found most interesting was by Simon Rosenberg of NDN, which bills itself as a progressive think tank and advocacy organization.

In a nutshell, Rosenberg's argument is that the uniformly anti-immigrant pronouncements of the GOP candidates are going to absolutely scuttle their chances of winning the presidency. Bush "won" partly by garnering 38-40% of the Hispanic vote, which he was able to do by assiduously cultivating the Spanish language media (and saying different things there from what he said to his Anglo supporters). Since the GOP has so uniformly fled from any form of road to legalization, Latinos have fled from the GOP. Ironically, immigration is not one of the top issues for the American public in general; it is, however one of the top issues for Latinos. Rosenberg analyzes how the electoral college vote would be different if Latino support for Republicans is at about the level it is today rather than what it was in '04. It's a pretty interesting -- and hopeful-- analysis.

The whole presentation can be downloaded in pdf form from the NDN site. It's worth a look.

A corollary of this argument is that immigration CANNOT be used as a wedge issue by the Republicans. It is just too dangerous for them, since they are they ultimately need all the undocumented workers in this country. In fact, not only Rosenberg but most if not all the other speakers agreed that immigration cannot be this year's gay marriage.

However, it is hard not to notice that the Republicans do not seem to have figured this lesson out. They are, of course, all using immigration as a wedge issue.

Stupidity or death wish? I can only hope it's both.

virginia businesses oppose new state employer sanctions

2007-12-17T08:07:00.000-05:00

Virginia Employers for Sensible Immigration Policy was formed in anticipation of another flurry of legislation in the General Assembly seeking to crack down on undocumented residents and employers that hire them, business leaders said....Politicians seeking to get tough on illegal immigration have been targeting employers with increasing frequency, a tactic that critics have said allows them to appear responsive without being vulnerable to accusations of intolerance or meanness toward immigrants....

media thinks immigration's hot, voters do not

2007-12-10T09:32:00.000-05:00

....When asked to name their top priorities, the Iraq War
still tops the list of issues for both Democrats and
Republicans. "It's raised twice as often as the next-
ranking issue, the economy," according to a recent USA
Today/Gallup poll (11/30/07-12/1/07).

Another recent poll (L.A. Times/Bloomberg,
11/30/07-12/3/07) found only 15 percent of Americans
ranking immigration as one of the top three issues of
concern to them. In fact, noted L.A. Times columnist Tim
Rutten (12/1/07), "more than nine out of 10 Americans
think something matters more than immigration in this
presidential election."

Immigration Contractor Trims Wages

2007-12-04T08:54:00.000-05:00

Workers who process visa and citizenship applications are getting a 10 to 20% wage cut as a new low-bid contractor takes over. What's that going to do to the backlog?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/us/02immig.html?ex=1354338000&en=5d64ab1b91d96060&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

CIS's new report blames immigrants for health care crisis, etc

2007-11-30T08:39:00.000-05:00

The newest study of immigration by the Center for Immigration Studies blames immigrants for our health care crisis, welfare costs, and overcrowding in public schools. Initial articles about the study on November 29 featured these headlines:
“Study: Uneducated immigrants hurt country” (USA Today)
“Immigrants, illegals use welfare more often” (Washington Times)
“Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds” (New York Times)

Here is CIS’s director Steven Camarota interpreting the article for the New York Times.

“Immigrants have had an enormous impact on the lack of health insurance,” Mr. Camarota said. “If we are going to have a debate about health insurance, we should recognize that most of the growth in the uninsured comes from recently arrived immigrants and their American-born kids.”
Mr. Camarota found that about one-third of immigrant families receive some kind of public assistance. The services were mainly food stamps and Medicaid associated with care for their American children, he found. The majority of children in immigrant families, whether the parents are legal or illegal, were born in the United States and so are American citizens.
“The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers with children,” Mr. Camarota said. “The study shows that it is very difficult not to have these public costs if you have low-skilled immigrants in large numbers.”
Mr. Camarota did not present evidence of large scale use of public benefits by illegal immigrants themselves.

You can read an initial critique of the study at http://diversityinc.com/public/2785.cfm (“'Sanctuary City'? More Immigrants, More Political Lunacy”) and the study itself at http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html (“Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population”).

More presidential hopefuls go after "illegals"

2007-11-16T07:01:00.000-05:00

Rudy Guiliani cashes in:
www.joinrudy2008.com/immigration

And Fred Thompson climbs on the bandwagon with a campaign video that says "secure our borders, and enforce the law. Giving up, by granting amnesty is not the answer:"
http://www.fred08.com/

It'll be more than interesting to see how all this moves the Democrats' positions.

Spitzer drops driver's license plan

2007-11-16T06:53:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/nyregion/14spitzer.html?th&emc=th

Guillermo Perez of NY LCLAA says:

The drivers license issue has become THE vehicle for attacking the governor and now he's backing down on his former pro-immigrant position because of pressure from Hillary Clinton's people. The biggest problem has been polls indicating that 70% of New Yorkers oppose the Governor's plan to allow some undocumented access to a drivers license. The attacks on "illegals" has reached a level I've not seen in my seven years of activism on this issue here in New York.

We desperately need a power point presentation with all the bells and whistles (graphics, audio, video, as well as pertinent stats) that we can use to start educating the people who should be our allies in this struggle -- e.g., union activists, people of faith, communities of color, etc. That this can happen in New York is especially disturbing.... Any chance we could get a group of labor educators to help produce this power point before the end of this year? Please feel free to circulate this to anyone and everyone who might be interested in contributing.

In Solidarity,

Guillermo Perez

President, Albany/Capital District LCLAA

518-257-1457

Tancredo: immigrants = terrorists

2007-11-15T09:59:00.000-05:00

The "immigration is this year's web issue" train is speeding up and the latest jolt of fuel is Tom Tancredo's campaign ad, which you can see at http://teamtancredo.org/. Just go to the site and you don't have to move a muscle, they'll play it for you. It's classic wedge politics -- a third-tier candidate hopes he can claw his way up by waving the bloody shirt or, failing that, make all the candidates talk about his issue. And it's working: yesterday Gov. Spitzer backed off of drivers' licenses for all.

Labor activists to AFL-CIO: "Give us materials on immigration!"

2007-11-15T09:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday national AFL-CIO staff led a "train-the-presenter" session for the AFL-CIO's new election-year economics package. The trainees -- New England union staff and educators -- repeatedly said that the main piece missing was immigration. They didn't have any doubt that immigration will be the wedge issue in the 2008 elections; they knew what that would do to labor and the electoral results; and they wanted ways to talk to people about the issues.

This could mean that:
-Locals, CLCs, and other labor bodies would use "immigration as a wedge issue" trainings if someone offered them.
-They'd incorporate talking points on immigration into door-knocking trainings and materials because door-knockers will be needing them and asking for them.

The labor educators' network in Massachusetts is developing an "immigration as a wedge issue" training and we'll post it as soon as. If you have thoughts for it or want to work on it (develop it, use it, ...) contact Michael_Prokosch@uml.edu or 978-934-3239.

Solidarity Campaign vs No-Match letters and raids

2007-11-07T09:42:00.000-05:00

Labor/immigrant rights activist David Bacon circulated this campaign proposal on October 31.

From: "david bacon" <dbacon@igc.org
To: <dbacon@igc.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: outline for a solidarity campaign
Circulated among labor and immigrant rights activists in northern California.

A Solidarity Campaign in Response to No-Match Letters

In the late 1980s, when anti-immigrant racism began to rise in Europe, the French labor movement and leftwing political activists responded with a campaign called "touch pas mon pot" (pardon my terrible French), which means "dont touch my pal." We can use this idea as an inspiration for getting our own members involved in solidarity and mutual support, and strengthen our unions and organizations.

The problem with the way we've dealt with the threat of no-match letters and immigration raids in our workplaces and unions so far is that we've concentrated on a "know your rights" approach. There's no question that it's important for workers to know their rights, but limiting our activity to this has two big problems:

1. We don't have a lot of rights. This isn't a very effective way for our members to protect themselves and each other.

2. We're saying, by implication, that the threat of firings and raids is the problem of those people who would be directly affected -- immigrants themselves. We're not looking at how they affect the whole workplace and union, or asking members to stick up for each other. That is, after all, why we have a union in the first place.

I suggest instead that we begin by trying to find ways that our members and workers can stick up for each other. While our primary goal here is to help defend immigrant workers, this kind of campaign will encourage members to defend each other on other issues as well. That will help strengthen our unions and workers centers.

This campaign could involve, as a series of steps in which each builds on the one before:

1. A pledge, like the Jobs with Justice pledge, that says if any of us is fired unfairly or threatened with a raid, that we will treat it as an action against all of us. We could have cards like the JwJ pledge cards that say "an injury to one is an injury to all." The idea here is to get our members thinking about the danger, and how we should respond, before something actually happens.

2. We could have a ribbon or button campaign, that makes that support visible in the workplace. That would have a very good effect on the morale of immigrants, and make everyone feel like we have a real union.

3. We could organize a delegation to the employer, saying that we will oppose any firings based on no-match letters, and demanding that they consult with us immediately if they're approached by ICE demanding records. In the case of workplaces like those in Local 2 where the contract already offers this kind of protection, these delegations could make that contract language well-known among workers, and warn employers that we intend to enforce it. For unions without that language, this could inspire including it in future negotiations, especially if we have model language.

4. We can ask our members to take action outside their workplaces. At the minimum level, this can be the circulation of postcards by stewards, asking members to sign, that demand that the no-match regulation be rescinded, and that elected officials support that demand. As members become more educated and active around this issue, it can involve coming out to rallies and marches.

5. Unions can organize their own public demonstrations of opposition to the no-match letters and immigrant bashing. For example, unions with a lot of Filipino healthcare workers, like CNA or SEIU-UHW, could organize public protest over the racist and anti-immigrant "joke" on Desperate Housewives, denigrating the degrees received by health care professionals at Philippine universities. That's a real hot issue right now in the Filipino community.

To make this campaign work, we'd need an education program to go with it. We need printed materials, written in the language our members feel comfortable with, that explains what no-match letters and immigration raids are, and how they're used to harm all workers.

We need to train workers themselves to speak about this. If we have a core of active, educated workers, they can go with union staff to worksite meetings at lunchtime, for instance, to explain the campaign. As it begins to gather momentum, they can also talk about success stories in differnt workplaces. These workers can speak in public events, from rallies to hearings before city councils or supervisors.

I have not included worksite actions, like stoppages in the event of raids or firings, not because I don't think they're possible or desireable, but to concentrate on a campaign that gets members active where they are, and that starts from the education and commitment level that actually exists. If our members and workers can do most of the things outlined above, they're certainly capable of carrying out worksite actions if required.

Welcome to the UALEITF blog

2007-11-05T17:45:00.000-05:00

Hi UALE Immigration Task Force members and friends,

We are setting up this blog to be a space where we can share information about what is going on in the immigration scene, especially as it intersects with labor.

Immigration as the new Gay Marriage

As we enter another election year, it seems to many of us that Immigration may be the big wedge issue that the right wing uses against progressives this time around. How can we, as labor educators, combat this divisive tactic?

We are hoping that you and other ITF members and friends will post articles you have found interesting (from all sides of the debate) as well as your thoughts on the subject.

To get this thing rolling, here are two articles from today's Boston Globe (assuming I've figured out how to do this correctly):

An op ed by Anita Hill about how anti-affirmative action crusader Ward Connerly is using anti-immigrant sentiment to ban affirmative action in 5 states
A news article about how John McCain has dropped his stand for immigration reform and is now just focusing on border control

We are also hoping that the conversation on this site will engender one or more workshops at the UALE conference in Minnesota this spring.

So, blog on, everyone!