The failure of the Immigration Bill (notwithstanding its gradual and uncertain prospects at resurrection) in Washington has been cast as a victory of the far-right immigrant bashers, hiding behind their paper-thin justifications of crusading against “lawbreakers.” I have little doubt that among the most vociferous members of this crowd, Howard Dean had it right in his reference to “racist hysteria.”
But who else voted to uphold the filibuster against the bill more than a week back?
Senator Bernie Sanders – and Bernie’s actions bear discussion for two reasons; both to highlight problems of the bill which was also a priority of President Bush’s, and also to beg the question of precisely who our elected officials represent and who they don’t. More beneath the fold.
The Immigration Bill of course, would have – among other things – provided what opponents are calling amnesty; that is, a vehicle whereby current illegals can get a limited visa to stay and work legally after paying a fine of several hundred dollars – or opt to pay even more and get on the path to citizenship by way of their native countries. Obviously lost in the shuffle are the huge numbers of truly poor illegals who can’t possibly afford even a few hundred dollars, and the problem of reaching many of them to explain the program.
Nevertheless, the very idea is anathema to the right wing for all the usual reasons.
But Bernie is not the only member of the Senate Democratic caucus to oppose it. Voting with him against cloture were a handful of other Democrats, such as Barbara Boxer of California. Bernie’s objection is a Labor-based one; that this guest worker program amounts to an endorsed and fully facilitated rush of cheap labor that would undermine workers in this country. From Bernie’s floor statement in support of an amendment that mitigated some of the bill’s less desirable qualities:
Mr. President, one of the businesses supporting this bill is Wal-Mart. Oh, they don?t go out and say this directly. They let special interest groups like the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition do their dirty work for them.
Mr. President, is there a shortage of Americans willing to work at Wal-Mart? Well, let?s see. Two years ago, when Wal-Mart announced the opening of a new store in Oakland, California, guess how many people showed-up for a job? 11,000, Mr. President. 11,000 people in Oakland filled out applications for about 400 jobs at Wal-Mart just two years ago.
In other words, there is no shortage of labor when it comes to Wal-Mart, the largest employer in America, a company I might add, that just a few years ago was paying its clerks a poverty-level wage of $8.23 an hour.
But, you might say, that was two years ago, ancient history. Well, guess again.
In January of 2006, it happened again. When Wal-Mart announced the opening of a store in Evergreen Park just outside of Chicago, 24,500 applied for 325 jobs at this store.
And, Wal-Mart says that there is a labor shortage. Give me a break.
So, we know who supports an expansion in low-skilled visas and what their motivations are.
The bill is more than troubled, it’s not even good, frankly. Remember, the President likes it, after all. But it does (or did) represent some opportunity for struggling and often impoverished illegal immigrants in this country, which is why it did draw the often grudging support of many immigrant rights advocates.
And it’s no accident that many in the business community supported it – particularly the high-tech sector, which has loudly complained for some time of the dearth of highly-skilled techies in the US and the need to import some as easily as possible. Bernie rightly went after that myth and earned (once again) the ire of corporate America:
Compete America, a coalition of U.S. tech companies, in response to the Sanders Amendment, wrote: “The Sanders Amendment will accelerate outsourcing and undermine U.S. economic growth. This ill-conceived measure is flatly anticompetitive and is a clear attempt to gut the H-1B visa program and will make it much harder for U.S. businesses to support the Senate bill? American companies should not be penalized for hiring top talent, especially those who are graduates of U.S. universities.”
Sanders made the case convincingly that major high-tech companies that are laying off workers by the thousands should hardly complain that they need to import more to fill a shortage.
And yet, there’s still the plight of those on the bottom of the American workforce. The ones that people like Jim Douglas have no problem with exploiting within the market machinery. What about them? The following quote of Bernie’s from a letter to the LA Times suggests where his focus is:
The great economic crisis facing the United States is the shrinking of the middle class and the loss of millions of good-paying jobs. In my view, we must do everything that we can to reverse that trend and make sure that, to as great a degree as possible, good-paying professional jobs in this country are filled by Americans, not by people brought in from other countries by corporate interests.
It’s a Hobson’s Choice to be sure. To support a bill that could help millions of those in the greatest need, vs possibly harming one’s constituents.
Or is it even more complicated than that?
It’s time that our elected officials who represent areas (like Vermont) where illegal immigration is not only a part of our culture, but has become an indispensible part of our economy, to recognize that these illegals became every bit their constituents the moment the crossed into the state and got a job, as any one else in the state. They are part of the Vermont economy, culture, and community, and are therefore part of our Washington delegation’s responsibility. They may not be able to vote, they may not be paying income taxes, but neither are my kids and nobody would suggest that they are not part of our Senators’ purview. These people (and they are “people,” not simply “illegals”) are not only a constituency of Senator Sanders, they are a constituency in serious need of help.
Given the implications and collateral damage this bill would have caused, I cannot fault Bernie for working against it. It probably needs to die. But in doing so, he (and other progressives that opposed it) have taken on a special moral responsibility to place the welfare of illegal immigrants at the top of their priority list. They don’t like the bill, fine – understandable, even.
Now give us an alternative.
When I moved into my Winter quarters last October 22nd (here), the arrangement agreed upon was that I would be moving out on the 22nd of either by April or some following month to be decided upon later by my kind and generous hosts, which ended up being June, just like what turned out to be the case last year as well.