voiceofsandiego.org: James Goldsborough... Immigration Idiocy
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Immigration Idiocy

By James O. Goldsborough



Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2009 | "The law is an ass," said Micawber, and there are times one must agree.

American Apparel is a giant garment maker in Los Angeles, a successful company whose "Made in U.S.A." labels on slacks, shirts and dresses shock customers used to seeing "Made in China" on everything they buy.

James O. Goldsborough

Employing some 10,000 workers, American Apparel keeps prices low enough to compete with imports from Southeast Asia, whose low prices in stores like Wal-Mart are made possible by sweatshop conditions. At a time when U.S. garment manufacturing, like most U.S. manufacturing, has left America to implant itself abroad, American Apparel is a growing success story, helping to mitigate the effects of 10 percent unemployment during what is now known as "The Great Recession."

Last week, following a series of visits from immigration officials, American Apparel began firing some 1,800 employees whose papers were found to have "immigration discrepancies," which is a nice way of saying they were fake.

"Many of you have been with me for so many years," wrote company CEO Dov Charney to the fired employees, "that I just cry when I think you will be leaving the company. It is my belief that immigrants bring prosperity to any economy." Most of the 1,800 are from Latin America, China, Korea and Vietnam.

American Apparel is no sweatshop: Its workers earn $10-$12 an hour, more than the garment industry standard, and receive health insurance and company stock. They pay income taxes. The fired workers are not likely to be deported, but will join the 15 million other workers currently unemployed in America. Many of them are parents of "citizen children," American children of illegal immigrants, of which Los Angeles, with an estimated 500,000, is the world capital.

"Devastating," said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of the action.

Not everyone agrees with Villaraigosa.

Leading the cheering is San Diego Rep. Brian Bilbray, who ran for his seat on an anti-immigration platform and like the rest of his party has been steadily moving right. American Apparel, sniffed Bilbray to the New York Times, is "addicted to illegal labor. They seem to think that somehow the law doesn't matter."

So let's look have a look at the law.

The immigration laws passed over the past two decades represent some of the worst laws ever passed by Congress. The laws of 1986, 1990 and 1996 opened the floodgates to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now here. You, Rep. Bilbray, and others like you in Congress who rejected the Jordan Commission proposals on immigration, are responsible for those 12 million.

The Jordan Commission, established by the first President Bush, presented its proposals to Congress in 1996 after four years of work. The key proposal aimed to halt illegal immigration by giving employers access to a centralized computer system that would enable them to verify the legal status of employees.

"Members of Congress don't want immigration reform," charged Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming, when the Jordan proposals were rejected. Simpson, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Immigration, accused Congress of "straining the fabric of the country" and left the Senate.

You were there, Rep. Bilbray, you remember.

Having helped scuttle provisions that would have made it impossible for Dov Charney to hire illegal immigrants, Bilbray now cheers him for adding 1,800 more workers to the masses of unemployed. American Apparel, he says, thinks that "somehow the law doesn't matter, that crossing the line from legal to illegal is not a big deal."

Once fired, these workers do not go home. There are some 380,000 illegal immigrants in detention centers across the country, representing 3 percent of the 12 million presently here. Without a law that gives employers the tools to verify papers, the Obama Administration is proving no better at dealing with the problem than previous administrations. Some 1,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to pass our borders every day, meaning that in one year we nearly equal the number currently in detention.

Few of the 12 million will ever be deported. Government wastes time and money ($2.4 billion annually to run the centers) by throwing people with good tax-paying jobs, who are contributing to the economy and the community, onto the street.

The effect of the half-ass law Bilbray so ardently defends is the following: We lose employment, lose tax dollars, lose competitiveness with countries like China that exploit their workers and steal our industry, throw thousands of able-bodied workers onto the street and allow officials like Bilbray to crow over the misery and chaos being created. Obama officials insist they are being kinder and gentler than Bush II, who preferred to invade plants and arrest immigrants as red meat gestures for the rabid right, but the effect of the action is the same.

Californians learned something about immigration fecklessness during the fiasco over Proposition 187, the centerpiece of Gov. Pete Wilson's 1996 presidential campaign. But a funny thing happened on Wilson's way to the White House: the courts decided that throwing California's citizen children out of schools was unconstitutional.

The solution to illegal immigration lies in stopping them from coming, which is achievable through a centralized verification system, as Jordan proposed. It is not in making people miserable once they already are here.

So what is to be done with the 12 million? Should they all be thrown onto the street because Bilbray's Congress continues to pass laws that invite more illegal immigrants into the country? Or should the nation accept that the ones who are here are not going anyway, and that the goal is to integrate them into the economy while at the same time passing laws to assure that no more illegal immigrants come?

Correction: The original version of this commentary mistakenly listed Alan Simpson's home state as Utah rather than Wyoming. We regret the error.

James O. Goldsborough has written on foreign affairs for four decades, both from the United States and abroad, where he worked as a foreign correspondent for The New York Herald Tribune, International Herald Tribune and Newsweek magazine for 14 years, reporting from more than 40 countries. Visit his website here. Submit a letter to the editor here.




25 Comments so far on this story...

James, the letter you mention from Mr. Charney is quite good. I'm glad you recommended it. For everyone else, you can see the pdf here: link

Posted by Anna | reply to this comment
October 7, 2009 11:29 pm

Many said the same thing after the raid on the Iowa meat packing plant. Illegal immigrants are just taking jobs that Americans don’t want? Bull. That small Iowa town is now home to legal Somali immigrants who moved down there from Minneapolis (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-28-2265386181_x.htm). Be sure to note the part of the story that says pay and working conditions are improved. This sort of thing has happened all over the country in the past year. And I love the silly suggestion that Bilbray opposes the Jordan Commission whose “key proposal aimed to halt illegal immigration by giving employers access to a centralized computer system that would enable them to verify the legal status of employees.” The truth is that Bilbray is a champion (and Pres. Obama an opponent) of E-Verify (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca50_bilbray/morenews1/EverifyLettertoObama.html).

Posted by Mark S | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 6:31 am

With all the verification programs they have out there it will be impossible to get a job if you're and illegal. So there, problem solved. Legalize with permanent residency all 12 million we have here because they have children here that are usc and spouses that are usc's including my husband he entered illegaly I am a usc and cannot fix his status. Anyways-then make a law that if a permanent resident (previous illegal) is caught associated with an illegal they will have their GC taken away and they will be deported. Also encourage all the illegal aliens that got their status fixed to report illegal aliens or they will have their GC taken away-I bet they would report them.

Posted by Vianey | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 7:18 am

it will be interesting to see what the Goldsborough-bashers come up with this time ... And I would like Bilbray to define his position on a centralized verification system such as mentioned in this column; it seems basic to ensure that illegals are not hired in the first place. And if an illegal IS hired anyway, then punish the crap out of the employer (the flip side of enforcement, which certain sectors of the political establishment choose not to touch with even a rose petal for fear of causing them harm). Finally, as for the illegals already here, there are really only two options: massive raids to round them up a la police state, or a sane admission that they are here, they are not all going to go away, and some of them (1,800 for sure) are productive and desirable. A two-pronged approach. And I'm out of space.

Posted by JDMB | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 7:22 am

We already know Bilbray's position. He supports it. He is one of the biggest champions of it. Perhaps Mr. Goldsborough can interview him and write an essay on it?

Posted by Mark S | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 8:57 am

I posted before your post appeared on my screen, so that point is answered, thank you.

Posted by JDMB | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 10:17 am

Fair enough. But I still think it would be good for Mr. Goldsborough to follow up on this, and possibly the other recommendations from the Jordan Commission that he praises. I would hope that a reporter with four decades experience would have some interest in seeking Mr. Bilbray’s position. Of course, I would have thought a reporter with four decades experience would have sought Mr. Bilbray’s position before attacking him, but, hey...

Posted by Mark S | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 12:57 pm

Look, here's one of many things I don't understand .... Illegal immigrant means what -- you are here illegally! Therefore, you MUST leave. You have already broken the law by entering the country illegally -- compound this by stealing the identity of someone else and if you are employed, the employer is equally guilty because he/she has now broken the law. Why can't anyone see this? Why are we spending billions of dollars for committees, meetings and sessions when the laws are clear? If you are here illegally and have children, now you are sucking the system dry because you cannot put back into the system -- YOU ARE ILLEGAL!!!! If you are hiring an illegal you are violating the law -- YOU ARE IN VIOLATION. What exactly is the problem?

Posted by Gwen Johnson | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 8:04 am

For those of you who are under the misconception they "milk the system," be aware that those who are undocumented are not eligible for most services that we take for granted. For instance, financial aid, unemployment, health insurance, drivers license, even car insurance things that are pretty basic necessities for most people. Which i'm sure most of you think are things they shouldn't be allowed to receive. However, most of these people ARE taxpayers, since it is not a requirement to have the proper documentation to pay taxes, while it is necessary to receive any of the benefits you obtain for paying them. In fact, it is mandatory to pay taxes whether you are legal or not. It does not take someone to have worked for the financial industry for the past 8 years to know that, as I have done.

Posted by Janet | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 9:56 am

I don't see how this can be true. How does someone without a valid SSN pay income taxes or property taxes? Yes, I can agree that they pay taxes and fees for whatever services they use.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 3:53 pm

If you work for an employer, wages are witheld (income tax and SS) and paid by the employer to the gov't. under your SSN; if it's nonexistent, supposedly the system should reject it and the employer advised of the discrepancy (in practice, the gov't. keeps the money). And if the SSN is somebody else's, that person will reap the benefits of additional wages "earned" during their lifetime. Either way, income tax/social security goes into the coffers. As for property taxes, does the county require your SSN in order to accept your payment? Not owning real estate myself, I don't know; but I suspect the county will be more than happy to take your money, no questions asked...

Posted by JDMB | reply to this comment
October 9, 2009 6:03 am

How about a path to residency instead of a path to citizenship? I don't think that illegal immigrants should ever gain the privelege of voting in an election. Now if you return to your home country first, apply for entry, and enter the country legally then and only then should you have a path to full citizenship. I would support something like that. Really, the free market should regulate wages. Since we have a minimum wage, illegals wouldn't be able to underbid citizens. Employers hiring illegals for less than minimum wage ought to suffer severe penalities. I'm also curious as to what law congress passed that allows children born of illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens. The constitution certainly doesn't support that. Whatever it was should be challenged. Parents who are illegal immigrants should be deported along with their kids.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 3:55 pm

It wasn't Congress, it was the Founding Fathers: the US Constitution says taht anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

Posted by JDMB | reply to this comment
October 9, 2009 6:01 am

Shawn1874 is right, and the question is valid. The Constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the _and_ in there. US-born children of illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" any more than the child of a pregnant foreign visitor who happens to have her baby early. It is Congress, not the Constitution, that forces the anchor baby concept on us.

Posted by Mark S | reply to this comment
October 14, 2009 7:04 pm

The author is also assuming that those 1800 jobs won't be given to legal immigrants or citizens. In this time of unemployement why not fire illegals and give the jobs to citizens and legal immigrants? Sounds like a good plan to me. The assumption that this action led to higher unemployment is nonsensical.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 4:01 pm

OK, but the question is: How do you get them to leave? Voluntarily? Not realistic. Deport US citizens (children born in the US)? Unconstitutional. Deport the parents and leave the children here? Immoral. The assumption that illegals are a drain on public services is at least questionable as can be seen from the 1,800 American Apparel tax-paying employees who were let go (surely they aren't the only ones in the country), so that argument is debatable. Yes, non-compliance with the law is galling to those of us who do comply; but what solution do you offer?

Posted by JDMB | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 10:20 am

In addition, if you want to take it to the most basic principle and discuss the fact that in the end they are still illegal, bare in mind that the first form of illegal immigration took place in 1830 when the Mexican Government outlawed further American immigration into Texas while Americans continued to cross the border as "illegal aliens" ( as people like to say) claiming the land as theirs before the annexation of Texas and eventual hostile seizure of southwest territories. All of a sudden the border was moved, and now thousands of Mexicans found themselves inside the US. Where is they stayed were guaranteed all the rights of citizens of the US but have been alienated instead ever since.

Posted by Janet | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 10:25 am

It is surprisingly hard to find a summary of the Jordon Commission work, but here is one from FAIR: link (and they do link to the full report). This was a bipartisan commission, and Pres. Clinton supported it. It’s amazing what Democrats used to support. Does Mr. Goldsborough support these recommendations? Improve border enforcement, increase barriers to illegal employment (OK, both Bilbray and Goldsborough support that), make illegal immigrants ineligible for non-emergency public services, reduce all immigration to 550,000 per year, and prioritize skilled over unskilled immigrants. Perhaps Mr. Goldsborough can write an essay on the need for the US to do these things. Perhaps he can publically support politicians who favor these things.

Posted by Mark S | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 8:49 am

I support immigration reform and I hope it will be passed soon rather than later. YES it will pass soon or later.

Posted by JJ the king of bippers | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 9:48 am

There may be 1,800 illegals out of work but that means 1,800 jobs for LEGAL citizens. I totally agree with Mr. Bilbray. People who think that they do not have to obey our laws deserve nothing but a boot back to their own country. Its time people stop making excuses for lawlessness. Illegals know what they are doing and should be held accountable for their crimes. Its not just crossing the border illegally, but the many other crimes committed to stay here I'm glad Obama is doing this. Although I think the workplace raids were much more effective, catching hundreds at a time. And why aren't the 1,800 illegals being deported? Oh yeah, cause our gov't is too busy pandering to illegal loving advocates, being totally PC, and looking for 12 million new votes. Enforce our laws !

Posted by A Real American | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 1:01 pm

The Iowa packing plant is a good example. With almost 10% (really estimated at 15-17%) umemploymen,t those jobs will be filled quickly by legal residents. We need to stop the flow, stop the drain on services, . Immigration reform means amnesty, which most don't want. Remember the uproar a couple years ago. Nothing has changed, except now we have an economic crisis. We are now bailout nation. The amnesty talk is now falling on deaf ears.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 3:24 pm

If one focuses on a particular person or a particular employer, it is easy to divert attention from the real issue. A critical component of the success of our nation is the rule of law. These people are here in violation of our laws. Do we ignore the law because they are nice or make us money? Or, do we support the rule of law? If one doesn't support the rule of law, there are many countries that can't be pointed to as a contemporary example of the result. I wouldn't want to live in any of them.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 3:37 pm

Just like so called HEALTH CARE REFORM, I think the so called IMMIGRATION REFORM is not going to truly reform anything. Why do you say that Tickyul? Because the REPUBLIRATS AND DEMORATS are spineless. No rocking the boat, it may cause me to get thrown out of office.

Posted by tickyul | reply to this comment
October 8, 2009 6:55 pm

E-Verify matches social security numbers to names. It has been available to this business for years, and is now required for Federal jobs and contractors. The lure of companies turning their heads and knowingly hiring someone here illegally is removed. With the lure(jobs) gone, most people do return hime. And if they had children while here, those children have dual citizenship, and naturally return home with the parents. Enforcing the law is quite easy, fighting the PR campaign supported by major US business interests that want to destroy our middle class is hard. They pour money into the pro-illegal groups to try to discredit or fight anyone who takes the opposing side.

Posted by Stickler | reply to this comment
October 10, 2009 6:17 pm

You can always count on an old lefty like Goldsborough to trot out all the standard cliches for any of his "editorials" and this piece is no different. But what strikes me most about the economic arguments in favor of illegal immigration is how similar they are to the arguments made by plantation owners pre-civil war. In essence they argue that an economy will collapse if we can't force human beings to work for less than a job is worth. Ahhhh... the enlightened Liberal speaks! Democrats supported slavery in the 19th Century. Democrats like Goldsborough support the 21st Century version of slavery now. Nice to see some things haven't changed...

Posted by william | reply to this comment
October 12, 2009 11:58 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
a946b4f



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.