Immigration Crackdown; NYT Opinion Piece - "Broken in the USA"

[pampango]

http://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."

"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. The city’s mayor called the firings “devastating.”"

"President Obama and Ms. Napolitano 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."

[JonQ]

1. Why is it wrong to force people to follow labor laws?

If they were hiring 12 year old to do it (ala 1900) would anyone lament the firing of these poor people who just want to work and earn some money?

Jobs in america should go to americans, not illegals. This was a good step. I hope the company was also fined heavily for hiring illegals.

[thunder rising]

2. Americans can't cross the border to scab jobs in other countries. Can we take care of us for a bit.

I truly empathize with the plight of undocumented workers. However, right now, I feel like I'm the undocumented worker standing behind India as the true source of valid documents.

In the '90 when there was plenty to go around, nobody minded the influx. But in this time, just for bit, can we take care of us, the citizens of the United States that have no other country to run to?

[Romulox]

6. The OP "cares about all the workers of the world the same amount"

Unfortunately, that amount isn't very much. :shrug:

[thunder rising]

3. Dupe: Upload glitch

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

4. 1,800 is a start and it is an enforcement of existing laws.

The opinion writer seems to imply that these unauthorized workers should continue to work because they earn substantially more than other immigrant workers who may be paid lower wages under the table by unscrupulous employers.

However, the opinion writer neglects that once the law has been enforced and these employees let go, 1,800 authorized workers (such as U.S. citizens and other people with legal authorization to work in the U.S.) can now take their place and be off the unemployment rolls.

Would this writer feel better, then, to have law-abiding people who can legally work in the U.S. be unemployed? I am not so convinced that American Apparel did not know the workers' documentation was fake.

Moreover, this opens up another issue and that is identity theft. Having been the victim of identity theft, I can assure you it's not easy to reclaim your identity after it has been used by someone who was just trying to get a job in the U.S.

[Romulox]

5. Center/right paper calls for elimination of workplace regulations.

Nobody is surprised.

[pampango]

7. Perhaps something a little more left wing than the NYT might suit you.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/09/17/failure-in-the-making

"The Democrats have adopted large segments of the Republican program as their own--above all, the "enforcement first" strategy. Thus, the right--in spite of its repudiation in the 2008 election--has been able to hold its ground on immigration and set the terms of the debate."

"As an example of this new crackdown, the Los Angeles-based American Apparel recently announced it will mass-fire 1,500 workers rather than face sanctions after being audited by federal officials. John Morton, the new chief of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, promised to ratchet up sanction raids, saying that "654 companies are currently being audited, and...many more employers will be notified soon that they also will be under scrutiny by the government.""

"Rather than begin with a call for legalization, which would energize immigrant communities, unions and the Democratic Party base, and throw Republican opponents on the defensive at time when they are weak, divided and vulnerable, the Democrats choose to prop up the Republican Party by claiming its strategy."

"The formula of "getting tough on immigration first, legalization later" has opened the door for a continued anti-immigrant push at the local and state level, and allowed a raft of new repressive propositions and bills restricting immigrants across the country to move forward. It provides fuel for hate-radio demagogues, anti-Latino crusaders like Arizona's notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and violent anti-immigrant organizations like the Minutemen."



Or perhaps you would prefer a right wing site that supports your position on American Apparel.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/01/who-cares-about-citizens-just-give-illegal-immigrants-amnesty-and-the-jobs/

From the Heritage Foundation:

"Who Cares About Citizens, Just Give Illegal Immigrants Amnesty and the Jobs"

"The only thing ludicrous about the example cited in the New York Times editorial is the callous disregard the editorial board has for citizens."

"Specifically, the New York Times cites the case of American Apparel, which is a clothing company in Los Angeles, California. As noted by the editorial, upon receiving word of the payroll audit, American Apparel let go roughly 1,800 illegal immigrants. As further noted by the editorial, American Apparel paid the illegal immigrants from $10 to $12 per hour — “well above the minimum wage and industry standards, plus health benefits.”"

"According to the Census Bureau, the unemployment rate in Los Angeles County as of August 2009 stood at 12.4%. I assume that America Apparel will look to fill those 1,800 jobs that had been held by illegal immigrants. At a time of such high unemployment, many citizens will be eager to get a job that pays so well and comes with health benefits. What is ludicrous about that outcome? The New York Times editorial board should be forced to face the 1,800 citizens who end up in those jobs and tell them why it is unfair that the illegal immigrants were fired from those jobs.

It is high time the New York Times editorial board got itself out of the Upper West Side of Manhattan and spent a little bit of time among the Americans who are fighting to keep their heads above water. Maybe then their sympathy will directed in the right direction."

[Romulox]

9. Appealing to Leftwing sources only when it suits your purpose isn't terribly convincing.

Nor is appealing to the Heritage Foundation a good rejoinder to complaints of a rightwing source. :hi:

[treestar]

8. OK, let's see 1800 unemployed citizens of the US go take the jobs

This is L.A. Should be easy.

[Romulox]

10. If you believe the employer 2/3 of its workforce is already legal.

You act like you just made the McCain "$50/hour lettuce" comment. :hi: