How environmentalists can recast the terms of debate around immigration. 25

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   bookerly Posted 9:56 am
   12 Apr 2006

   About Wages and Unemployment
   
      An interesting post, I have no problems with the ideas of supporting locally organically grown food consumption on both sides of the border, though to he honest, I am not sure how much impact it is likely to make.
      Given that most Americans are tied into the giant shopping mall, but it cheap way of life, I suspect that this ends up being something else a few people can do that reduces their personal contributions to the "problem" without affecting the overall situation.
      About wages and the size of the workforce.  The general idea that most people accept is that if the workforce is smaller, than wages will go up.  This may be somewhat true in very limited cases, but the basic idea is based on the myth of the free labor market.
       Corporations such as Wal-mart don't really compete for workers.  Their very size means that they dominate a workplace sector (local retail) so much that they can impose any terms they want.  So, the idea that a dissatisfied worker can pressure his/her boss by threatening to go elsewhere, well, it is unrealistic.
       Over the last forty years (or so), real wages for the vast majority of the work force have fallen.  (The high tech bubble of the late 80's and 90's only created high paying jobs for a very few people (who may be over-represented among Grist readers and contributors)).  This has been true in times of both high and low un-employment.
       Fast food chains are an interesting example.  In the mythical free market, when there was a shortage of workers, they would raise wages to attract more.  They cost would be passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices.  But wait!  For many of them, the prices they charge are set by the franchise holders.  So, since they cannot "freely" raise prices, they cannot "freely" raise wages.  Unfilled jobs remain unfilled, and the pressure becomes not to hire more workers at higher wages, but to make the existing workforce put in more hours.
       For white collar workers, large corporations do not compete for employees most of the time.  They work together to set wage standards for certain jobs, and all pay pretty much within the agreed on range of pay.  This helps them keep wages under control.
       Wages generally go up under three circumstances.  First, when workers join unions.  The problem these days is that unions are weak or non-existant in many sectors.  Second, when government forces action by setting minimum wages.  Third, they go up slightly to keep workers satisified and in regards to inflationary pressure (however, this kind of increase is weak, and is why real wages have fallen so far behind inflation in recent years).
        Don't believe me?  How about a reality check.  Are wages generally higher in large cities (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco) with lots of people (including undocument workers)) or in rural areas with few people (and presumably less competition for the jobs that exist).
   patrick

   Permalink

2. 

   bookerly Posted 10:03 am
   12 Apr 2006

   Immigration and Labels
   
      One of the ways in which the debate over immigration is waged is through the labels assigned to the human beings involved.
      Anti-immigrant forces have been very successful in promoting the term "illegal immigrants" which both marginalizes and criminalizes the people involved.  Currently the "crime" is a civil crime, similar to a parking ticket.  Imagine if we talked about "illegal drivers" for everyone who had ever received a parking ticket!
      People who work with immigrant groups have more often used the term "undocumented workers" as being more accurately descriptive and less pejorative.
   patrick

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 4:37 pm
   12 Apr 2006

   helping Mexico create and distribute wealthThough I know nothing about economics, I entirely agree with the sentiments of Tom and Patrick.
   Clearly it should be a major item on the US foreign policy agenda to do all we can to improve the standard of living, and the hope of adequate employment, in Mexico and throughout Latin America.  No border in the entire world shows so great a disparity in wealth between one side and the other, as that between the US and Mexico.  We should stop treating Latin Americans as our competitors; they are our neighbors, and we ought to want them to live well.  When they are happy, we will be happy.
   Hopefully the legislation regarding agriculture subsidies, to come into sight in 2007, will allow an opportunity for serious reform.  US relations with Mexico -- or, should I say, the lot of countless Mexican farmers who are now barely surviving -- would surely be improved if it were no longer possible to send under-priced corn into Mexican markets.
   And then there is cotton, a rather different story, but comparable: US cotton vs. West African.
   On immigration, the Democrats are indeed rather enigmatic.  I have no idea what game Edward Kennedy is playing; at least the bill he sponsored with John McCain is better than the alternatives.  As for Hillary, my own beloved junior Senator, it is a colossal absurdity of American politics that the Rush Limbaugh crowd can actually continue to portray her as a fanatical liberal banshee.
   Tom's characterization of CNN's Lou Dobbs uses quite the same language that I have used about that disgrace: really, he is as bad as anything on Fox.  I think I have written to another Gristmill thread, to say that Dobbs, and Congressman Tancredo of Colorado, another leading anti-immigrationist, are proving themselves to be hardly shining examples of Catholic virtue.  
   And Patrick is absolutely right to protest the widespread use of the term "illegal immigrants," as though it were morally neutral.  I made the same complaint to the Christian Science Monitor: the term implies that these people are up to no good, which is not the case at all, and is highly prejudicial.  At least, one of their editors was courteous enough to respond that he would take that into consideration.  But, alas, I fear this may be a quixotic battle.
   And don't get me started on "amnesty."
   Regarding border security, I am having a hard time understanding why it is pretty impossible to find in public discourse any decent distinction of three entirely separate groups: 1. destitute immigrants who want to work in the US; 2. professional criminals, especially drug smugglers; 3. jihadist terrorists in league with al-Qaida, on missions of destruction.  Our emotional reaction to each of these is strong, but distinct.  It is irresponsible of us to allow those emotions to flow together indiscriminately.  

   Permalink

4. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:15 am
   13 Apr 2006

   BordersWhat is the reality of a border in terms of the natural world?
   On the border with Mexico it is the difference between a devestated environment, on the US side, and a non-existent natural environment on the mexican side.
   A few more years with a government that serves only corporate power above all else and both sides of the border will look the same.
   And if the religious tradition of no reproductive rights for women continues it is inevitable that the impoverished over population in that border region will overwhelm the rest of the US.  Especially as global climate disaster makes southern areas uninhabitable.
   Individual northern states will have to control the migration north in a vain attempt to survive.  Climate change exacerbates the devestating problem of over population.  And then the police state will step in and turn migration into civil war.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

5. 

   dlondonx Posted 1:00 am
   13 Apr 2006

   short term and long term trendsIn the short run, I see Oil going past the $50/barrel point, making Venezuela the big cat with all the oil, once its Tar Sands get enomically viable to exploit.  This will prompt Washington to move ire from the Middle East to South America.  Here is where it might be useful to follow Tom's advice and promote better realtionships between the Southern N. American Countries by reducing our bloated Farm Subsidies, and maybe even fostering economic development there to promote consumption of US goods.
   
   In the long run, I see the demand for Ag Energy land outstripping the demand for Ag Food land, making the sustainable ag practices that Tom writes about and practices a necessity for providing the nations food supply.

   Permalink

6. 

   JoeSchmoe Posted 2:03 am
   13 Apr 2006

   ImmigrationHow come environmentalists abandon their "think globally, act locally" slogan when it comes to overpopulation? I'd think the true environmental response to immigration would be to call for the complete end to immigration to the country, except to keep population levels steady.

   Permalink

7. 

   paulhue Posted 2:55 am
   13 Apr 2006

   Illegal Immigrants "Disenfranchised"?Tom, please justify calling illegal immigrants, "a large disenfranchised army of undocumented workers". If you sneak into Canada, are you "disenfranchised" because the govt there won't let you vote until you meet its requirements to obtain citizenship? Your description is particularly absurd given the successful efforts of democrats and leftists to permit people with no IDs to vote, and to spend tax dollars printing ballots in spanish.
   When you legally lived and worked in Mexico City for a few years, were you "enfranchised"? Could you have voted without an ID? Would you have been able to obtain a ballot in english?

   Permalink

8. 

   paulhue Posted 2:56 am
   13 Apr 2006

   "Devistated" US EconomyWhy are so many hundreds of thousands of Mexicans annually expending so much hardship to enter a "devistated" economy?

   Permalink

9. 

   Tom Philpott Posted 3:15 am
   13 Apr 2006

   Disenfranchised workersPaul hue writes:
   
   "Tom, please justify calling illegal immigrants, 'a large disenfranchised army of undocumented workers.' "
   I mean only that they contribute huge amounts of labor for low wages and pay consumption taxes, yet have little legal legal protection or standing and thus are at the mercy of their employers. Their leverage to organize for wage hikes is near zero. putting downward pressure on blue-collar all wages.
   Did I call the U.S. economy "devastated"? Where?

   Permalink

10. 

    bookerly Posted 11:56 am
    13 Apr 2006

    About Immigration
    
      Some interesting comments.
      To Joe Schmoe.  Would you also stop all travel?  A traveller also uses resources (and middle class travellers use a lot more than a poor person seeking work).  Perhaps we should also stop birds from migrating?  And other species?  FWIW, there is nothing natural about a border, it is made by humans and most of them have changed quite a bit in the course of history.
      To PaulHue, bi-lingual ballots are for the benefit of those American citizens who read and understand a language other than English better than they do English.  The idea is to have a better informed electorate.  By your reasoning, I guess Republicans and conservatives don't want a well-informed electorate (joking!).  There is no national language in the United States (in case you didn't know).  People object to ids being required for voting because they are reminders of the era when Southern States used special ids and other devices to disenfranchise black Americans.  FWIW, there is no requirement to have an id in America, and some poor people who don't drive, may not have a liscence (I am not sure I will renew mine when it expires).  
       To Amazingdrx, did you know that the Mexican birth rate has fallen and the country has started to age, much like the United States?  In less than 20 years, they will need more workers to support their economy, and those will probably be immigrants!
    Patrick

    Permalink

11. 

    JoeSchmoe Posted 3:16 am
    14 Apr 2006

    re:Since none of your comments responded to my points, I feel warranted to declare victory in this argument.

    Permalink

12. 

    Tom Philpott Posted 10:27 am
    14 Apr 2006

    Joe Shmoe's Pyrrhic victoryJoe Shmoe's victory would likely prove Pyrrhic. He calls for an "the complete end to immigration." To achieve that goal, does he propose a wall and a bunch of uniformed thugs with clubs and guns? I'm sure there are plenty of aged Soviet apparitchiks who could lecture him about the probable long-term efficacy of that strategy. I suppose he's also prepared to see his food bill rise dramatically--and watch his property lose value when the Fed has to jack up interest rates.

    Permalink

13. 

    caniscandida Posted 2:35 pm
    14 Apr 2006

    environmentalist ethics?Joe Schmoe's ethics are dissatisfying and small-minded, and play into the hands of those who would discredit environmentalists by presenting them as really violent and inhumane fanatics.
    And what is it with declaring victory?  Are we playing a game here?  In a responsible discussion, as Socrates used to tell the sophists and their pupils, the point is not to win, it is to come to an agreement on the truth.
    The present disagreement is in fact closely related to Dave's search for a fundamental environmentalist vision.  It does not seem we have found that vision, if one of the tactics we recommend is pretty much to institutionalize a form of injustice.

    Permalink

14. 

    amazingdrx Posted 11:28 pm
    14 Apr 2006

    Huh?Victorious?  With this?
    "...the true environmental response to immigration would be to call for the complete end to immigration to the country"
    You are wrong, the only "true environmental response" is to support universal reproductive rights for women.  Since the problem of illegal immigration is due to overpopulation and the resulting poverty.
    If global climate change makes life impossible in the more equatorial regions of planet earth, the problem will become much, much worse.
    As technology advanced in exploiting the natural world, population expanded. Now that global climate change gives that exploitation limits, humans will either die before their time as the four horsemen ravage the planet or voluntarily limit population.
    I say we choose to limit population by letting those who actually give birth and care for children have control over their own bodies.  What say you shmoe?
    Should we let patriarchy based on religious brainwashing contine to destroy the earth until it produces a self-fullfilling phrophesy of armageddon?  That is Cheney's insane plan.
    As far as illegal immigration in the short term?  Enforce tax and labor laws and there will not be jobs for undocumented workers and they will stop coming across the border.  Remove the incentive by simply enforcing the laws already on the books.
    Hefty fines against employers who are paying below minmimum wage, working people on unpaid overtime, and failing to deduct social security and income taxes would turn the situation around for now.
    But only eliminating over population can solve this problem long term.  And if global climate change continues on it's present course, there will be no long term solution.  People fleeing natural dosaster for their lives will not be stopped with anything short of the horror of war.
    Whoops, I forgot, to the Cheney crowd war is considered a fun diversion.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

15. 

    JoeSchmoe Posted 11:49 pm
    16 Apr 2006

    re:"I suppose he's also prepared to see his food bill rise dramatically--and watch his property lose value when the Fed has to jack up interest rates."
    
    Again, it's funny that environmentalists of various stripes can advocate replacing all fossil fuels with renewable energy, replacing all commercial agriculture with organic methods, advocate everyone on Earth becomming vegan, advocate running the entire world auto fleet on ethanol or bio-diesel, advocate strict laws limiting greenhouse emmisions, advocate vast swaths of land be put off-limits to economic development--all of which I favor by the way--but when someone advocates ending population growth in the country, they get hit with criticisms of being "impractical" or "uneconomic."    

    Permalink

16. 

    accel2 Posted 11:57 pm
    16 Apr 2006

    Joe, you're wrongJoe, the fundamental fallacy that undermines your argument is the assumption that ending immigration somehow lowers population.  Forbidding Mexicans (for example) from entering the United States would not mean any less people on the planet -- only less people in the United States.  And what difference does that make?  May be it will have an impact (positive or negative) on our economy or society or environment in the United States, but not the overall planet's.  So, again, what's the difference?  Ending immigration to the United States will not result in reducing global population.  So why bother?

    Permalink

17. 

    JoeSchmoe Posted 12:20 am
    17 Apr 2006

    re:Environmentalists are constantly being hit by criticism from right-wingers that their proposals are uneconomic, impractical, or that me simply recycling, or buying organic, or eating less meat, or driving less, won't have an effect when others continue to do so.  I am pointing out that it is shocking to see those same criticisms that the right-wing like to haul out against environmentalists, being hauled out BY environmentalists on this one issue.  Accel2, your "why bother when others will continue increse population" is the exact attitude environmentalists have been fighting against for decades when it comes to recycling, energy conservation, pollution, and a host of other environmental problems.  "Think globally, act locally" is our answer to such arguments, and I think it is horrible to see it abandoned on this issue, it makes us look like hypocrites.  I am all for women's education, birth control, economic development, etc., in all countries.  But on this issue, I'm apparently the only one thinking glabally and advocating acting locally.

    Permalink

18. 

    Tom Philpott Posted 1:54 am
    17 Apr 2006

    But, joe..... how would you "end immigration"? By reforming the economic policies that make it inevitable? Or by building a wall to be monitored by armed brutes? The second solution has loads of practical problems. First, such a plan would be endlessly expensive. Second, without making economic changes, there would likely be a huge labor shortage triggering all manner of economic crisis. Finally, the solution would have no net effect on population; it's irrelevant from a pollution or resources perspective on which side of an arbitrary and historically fluid line people live. It would be a costly boondoggle, likely later to be repented by its advocates.
    Finally, in contrast to your pie-in-the-sky nativism, I offer a possibility that literally "thinks local": Create sustainable local and regional economies on both sides of the border. Your Berlin Wall solution--if that is what you advocate--is discredited.

    Permalink

19. 

    JoeSchmoe Posted 3:29 am
    17 Apr 2006

    re:Tom, the next time you see someone advocate moving to organic argiculture or calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emmisions, or stopping a housing subdivision, I expect to see you accusing their plans of having "loads of practical problems" or being "endlessly expensive," or "triggering all manner of economic crisis."  The next time someone advocates not logging a forest in North America, I expect to see you pointing out that "the solution would have no net effect on" deforestation since logging continues in Indonesia.  
    
    I thought environmentalists were in favor of solving environmental problems, and economics came second.  Animal rights activists don't care about the economic effects of ceasing meat consumption, forest defenders don't care if some loggers must lose their jobs, fish advocates don't care about the effects on fishermem, but now all of a sudden we're concerned with "labor shortages"?  It is true that in many cases we are helping fishermen in the long run by limiting catch, or loggers by protecting forests, but we've always been willing to accept short-term hardships in favor of long term sustainability.  Limiting immigration is no different than the above cases--short term hardships must give way to long-term sustainability, and just as in the long-term we are doing everyone a favor by stopping logging or overfishing, in the long-term we are doing everyone a favor by taking a stand on overpopulation.
    
    In America we have a great opportunity in that all population growth is the result of immigration, if we stopped immigration, we would have steady population, and then we could truly begin to learn to live sustainably and without the insane demand for constant growth. Population growth can not continue unabated, all other environmental issues are a subset of population problems.    
    As you must have noticed, I never advocated building "a wall and a bunch of uniformed thugs with clubs and guns," and I still don't.  Nor do I advocate ending all immigration since I have said that I wished to keep population steady.  This may indeed require continuing immigration in sharp contrast to "pie-in-the-sky nativism."
    
     

    Permalink

20. 

    Tom Philpott Posted 4:18 am
    17 Apr 2006

    Joe,"You write: "I thought environmentalists were in favor of solving environmental problems, and economics came second."
    That's vulgar environmentalism--an idea that exists mostly in the mind of simplistic critics such as Thomas Sowell. I reject your divisions and dichotomies. It's not that we have to choose between economic growth and protecting the environment (the Cheney view); it's that (in my opinion) the way we grow is ruining the environment. A policy of zero population growth, abstracted from other considerations and falsely separated from the economy, holds no appeal to me.

    Permalink

21. 

    JoeSchmoe Posted 5:18 am
    17 Apr 2006

    re:The next time I'm at a rally trying to stop logging, or raising money to stop a condo development, or trying to stop whaling, I'll be sure to let everyone know that we're being "vulgar environmentalists" by putting environmental protection before economic development.
    
    Actually, I'm not against logging if it is done in accordance to FSC standards, or fishing if it is done in accordance with MSC standards (so maybe we're not too far apart in that we both think economic activity is compatible with environmental protection).  Why is that?  Because FSC practices are sustainable, MSC practices are sustainable, organic food production is sustainable, but population growth is not.  There are no set of standards, short of colonizing other planets (but I wouldn't hold me breath on that) that can be applied to population growth that can make it sustainable in the long run.  When it comes to population, the only sustainable practice is no growth.

    Permalink

22. 

    CowsEatGrass Posted 9:29 am
    17 Apr 2006

    Hey Joe...I'm going to have to side with Tom here.
    You keep saying "sustainable," but what does that mean?
    
    To me sustainability is ecological, social, and economic all at once.
    If we don't propose solutions that are economically viable, they will never leave the ground, or will simply fail.
    Further, personal and social economic success are believed to lead to reduced population growth (I'm not going to back this up unless someone insists I do the footwork).
    I think the point is that all of these things are hopelessly connected and to "fight for the envirionment" (whatever that means) at the expense of people's financial well being or with no respect to thier cultural heritage or social status is destined to fail for it's insufficiency to grasp the entire problem instead of only one of it's syptoms.

    Permalink

23. 

    bookerly Posted 3:49 pm
    17 Apr 2006

    About stopping immigration
        Why would we even want to stop immigration?  Immigrants not only work in the fields, they also work in the laborotories doing research.  The United States has a shortage of nurses, without immigrants that shortage will worsen.  There is also a shortage of primary care physicians, particularly in rural and poor areas.  Immigrants are helping meet that shortage.
        We should be careful also to label all undocumented workers as people doing the lowest level of work.  Some are folks from Europe and Canada who do skilled work (Irish carpenters in places like San Francisco and Boston, for example.)  You may approve or disapprove of this, but they are not working for sub-minimum wage.
        As to Joe's argument that he is only trying to stop local population growth, he might also consider preventing any more people from moving to his town (city, suburb).  Population growth as he describes it occurs not only across borders, but insdie borders.  Tijuana is more part of San Diego's locality than New York City is.  By his logic, people inside the United States should also be prohibited from moving about the country.
        We should also keep in mind that there more Americans living abroad than there are undocumented immigrants, and if we end immigration, they might all have to come back home, resulting in a net population gain (at least for a bit).
        If environmentalists are labelled as anti-immigrant, then we will all lose.  A simple look at future demographics of this country should make that clear.
    Patrick

    Permalink

24. 

    JoeSchmoe Posted 11:13 pm
    17 Apr 2006

    CowsEatGrassIf a fishery was being overfished, Tom would have us "build communities" where we don't like to eat fish, I would mandate that the overfishing stop; if a strand of redwoods were threatened with logging, Tom would have us "build communities" where we don't need the wood, I would stop the logging; if a factory was spewing pollution across the landscape, Tom would have us "build communities" where we don't use the factory's products, I'd demand the factory stop polluting. Then we can begin to build communities where we get by without doing these things, but that should be only after we stop the harmful practice.  Which approach is more likely to immediately stop the environmental problem at hand?  The greatest successes of the environmental movement--the clear water act, the clean air act, the endangered species act--all succeed by having strict rules in place which mandate that the environmentally destructive practice end.  We should take the same approach when it comes to overpopulation--demand the the practice stop, then begin to build communities where we get by without the destructive process.  Tom would have it the other way around, an approach that I think is destined to fail.  

    Permalink

25. 

    Tom Philpott Posted 11:48 pm
    17 Apr 2006

    Huh?Joe,
    
    No. I support sustainable logging, and support--no, adore--the fruits of sustainable fishing. Clear cutting is asinine, and not part of any definition of "economic development" that I can fathom. Same with wholesale destruction of species. But properly harvested wood can sustainably be a part of a particular locale's energy/building supply, as can thoughtfully caught fish provide sustenance i a way that makes sense.
    Getting back to immigration, we've built a food system based around year-round supply of stuff like fruit and lettuce. That won't work without huge concentrations of ag in places like California, Arizona, and Florida. The system is built on cheap labor and cheap energy. Anyone bellowing against immigration should address that problem.

    Permalink