Thread: The AFL-CIO wants to make sure that dues-paying illegal

Click here: Numbers USA
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/illegal_pro.html
The Pro-Illegal Agenda

The May 21, 2001 issue of The Nation magazine explained clearly what the immigrant-rights groups of America seek: the virtual elimination of U.S. borders and the nearly free flow of illegal aliens through the country. In an approving article by Julie Quiroz-Martinez of the Center for Third World Organizing, the pro-illegal-immigration agenda of the immigrant-rights groups was detailed:
an amnesty and path to U.S. citizenship for all illegal aliens now in this country;
a process by which a new amnesty is constantly being provided so that future illegal aliens will always be "in process to access permanent residency;"
the end to sanctions against hiring illegal aliens so that they will have full access to all U.S. jobs;
"demilitarization of the U.S.-Mexico border;"
drivers licenses for all illegal aliens;
in-state tuition for illegal aliens at state universities. It appears that the United States that is being sought for the future would be one where most people who try to cross our borders illegally would be able to do so without harrassment by a nominal Border Patrol. They would be legally free to work and to take advantage of most tax-supported services. They apparently could still be picked up and deported, but if they can escape detection for a short time, they would be rewarded with the path to U.S. citizenship.In a companion article, David Bacon of Pacific News Service writes that the pro-illegal-immigration agenda is finally receiving its proper place on the political agenda because of the wholehearted support of the national AFL-CIO. He notes that the percentage of U.S. workers in the private sector who now are in unions has fallen to an incredibly low 9 percent. To keep the percentage from falling any farther, the unions will need to organize 400,000 new workers each year. The best opportunity is among foreign-born workers, especially illegal aliens. The AFL-CIO wants to make sure that dues-paying illegal aliens are under no threat of having to return to their home countries.Bacon wrote thankfully that the AFL-CIO has finally turned away from its long policy that "sought to protect wages for native-born workers by excluding immigrants."Actually, Bacon got his history a little skewed. The AFL-CIO from its beginnings around 1900 until the year 2000 sought to protect wages for both native-born AND immigrant workers by demanding that the government keep the flow of new foreign workers modest. (Read more from Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL)

Click here: The Social Contract Press - A Voice from the Past - 1921 letter by Samuel Gompers
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bi ... %0DGompers

And how long will it be before the illegals stop paying dues.

The AFL-CIO is being moronic. The way to protect wages and boost union membership is to reduce the supply of labor. A big part of the reason union membership is so low is that if workers start organizing, management can fire them and replace them. It's not legal, but they can do it and get away with it because in this low-wage economy, it's hard to get together the money to sue.

Illegal immigration and the kind of legal immigration the Bush administration is proposing is nothing but a way to have what Marx called, "the reserve army of the unemployed." It is a way to keep the price of labor cheap and the workers docile.

Unions And Immigrants

About two years ago, the country's labor unions split into two: a
coalition of unions with millions of union members bolted from
the ranks of the old AFL-CIO, and formed the Change to Win
coalition. The AFL-CIO that remained was about a third smaller
than its former self. This has had important consequences for
immigration, particularly the Comprehensive Immigration Reform
(CIR) battle currently underway on Capitol Hill, here's why.

Historically, the largest organized opposition to immigration in
the US was big labor. This was true in the late 1800s, and
remained true through almost all of the 1900s. The switch of the
unions from the "anti" side to the "pro" side in the late 1990s
was thus a momentous change and was spear-headed within the old
AFL-CIO by the leaders of the unions that have since bolted to
form the Change to Win coalition. The new AFL-CIO has been
reverting to a bit of the old union behavior - for example, while
the SEIU and UNITE HERE (members of the Change to Win coalition)
are part of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,
http://www.cirnow.org/
the AFL-CIO is conspicuously absent. There is good reason why.
Generalizing a bit broadly, the Change to Win coalition unions
largely organize occupations that cannot be globalized easily
(e.g. waiters, hotel staff, laundry workers), while the new AFL-
CIO unions largely organize occupations that are subject to
strong global competition (e.g. steel workers, auto workers). Put
another way, while we can import a car from Japan, dirty dishes
cannot be sent to Mexico to be cleaned. Again generalizing a bit
broadly, the Change to Win coalition sees immigrants as future
union members, while the new AFL-CIO views foreign workers, both
overseas and migrants, as potential competitors for jobs. For
those who keep the lessons of history in mind, the fear that the
AFL-CIO might soon join the Pat Buchanan-Lou Dobbs anti-
immigration gang is reasonable.

Recent events illustrate how this new union landscape is
affecting events currently on the Hill. Everyone expected that
Senators McCain and Kennedy would join this year, as they did
last year, in leading the CIR battle on the Hill. To everyone's
surprise, this has not happened, and despite three full months
having already passed, the Senate has not had any major bill
introduced, nor is any markup currently scheduled. Rumor has it
that the fall-out between Mr. McCain and Mr. Kennedy happened
over Mr. Kennedy's insistence that undocumented immigrants be
covered under Davis-Bacon wages, and Mr. McCain's demurrer
thereto. With the Democrats in charge of the agenda on the Hill,
Mr. Kennedy apparently thought he could achieve a long-sought-
after goal of his friends at the AFL-CIO and extend Davis-Bacon
to cover a large swath of the US workforce. Naturally, Mr. McCain
did not see this as part of any immigration compromise, and the
result has been not just a lost opportunity, but deadlock on
Capitol Hill, giving more time for the anti-immigrationists to
organize in opposition to CIR.

Since Republican votes will be essential for CIR to become a
reality, it will be impossible to avoid enriching corporations in
the process of legalizing workers and worker flows. Going for
worker protections beyond seeking true portability will likely be
self-defeating. Liberal Democrats will have to choose between
their old friends in the unions and immigrants. In other words,
if CIR does not happen, liberal Democrats will likely be most
responsible (much as they will blame the anti-immigrationists,
the reality will be otherwise). Swing votes in politics have a
disproportionate power, and the few Republican votes necessary
for CIR will surely exact a high price. When Congress returns
from its Easter break, the future of our nation, and its
immigrants, will be in its hands.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by
writing to mailto:editor@ilw.com.
______________________Home Page - http://www.ilw.com/
____________________________