Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

let's stop making migration a crime

Expand Messages
  • David Bacon
    LET S STOP MAKING MIGRATION A CRIME By David Bacon Truth-Out oped, February 15, 2013 http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14569-lets-stop-making-migration-a-crime
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 15, 2013
      By David Bacon
      Truth-Out oped, February 15, 2013

      We need an immigration policy based on human, civil and labor rights,
      which looks at the reasons why people come to the U.S., and how we
      can end the criminalization of their status and work. While
      proposals from Congress and the administration have started the
      debate over the need for change in our immigration policy, they are
      not only too limited and ignore the global nature of migration, but
      they will actually make the problem of criminalization much worse.
      We need a better alternative.

      This alternative should start by looking at the roots of migration -
      the reasons why people come to the U.S. in the first place. Movement
      and migration is a human right. But we live in a world in which a
      lot of migration isn't voluntary, but is forced by poverty and
      so-called economic reforms.

      Our trade policy, and the economic measures we impose on countries
      like Mexico, El Salvador or the Philippines make poverty worse. When
      people get poorer and their wages go down, it creates opportunities
      for U.S. corporate investment. This is what drives our trade policy.
      But the human cost is very high.

      In El Salvador today, the U.S. Embassy is telling the government to
      sell off its water, hospitals, schools and highways to give U.S.
      investors a chance to make money. This policy is enabled by the
      Central American Free Trade Agreement, whose purpose was increasing
      opportunities in El Salvador for U.S. investors. It was imposed on
      the people of that country in the face of fierce popular opposition.

      Alex Gomez, a leader of Salvadoran public sector unions, came to San
      Francisco in February to explain what the consequences of this latest
      free trade initiative will be. He says if these public resources are
      privatized, tens of thousands of workers will lose their jobs, and
      their unions will be destroyed. They will then have to leave the
      country to survive.

      According to Gomez, four million have already left El Salvador. Two
      million have come to the US, not because they love it here, but
      because they can't survive any longer at home. These migrants come
      without papers, because there are no visas for two million people
      from this small country.

      The North American Free Trade Agreement did even more damage than
      CAFTA. It let U.S. corporations dump corn in Mexico, to take over
      the market there with imports from the U.S. Today one company,
      Smithfield Foods, sells almost a third of all the pork consumed by
      Mexicans. Because of this dumping and the market takeover, prices
      dropped so low that millions of Mexican farmers couldn't survive.
      They too had to leave home.

      Mexico used to be self-sufficient in corn and meat production. Corn
      cultivation started there in Oaxaca many centuries ago. Now Mexico
      is a net corn and meat importer from the U.S.

      During the years NAFTA has been in effect, the number of people in
      the U.S. born in Mexico went from 4.5 million to 12.67 million.
      Today about 11% of all Mexicans live in the U.S. About 5.7 million
      of those who came were able to get some kind of visa, but another 7
      million couldn't. There just aren't that many visas. But they came
      anyway because they had very little choice, if they wanted to survive
      or their families to prosper.

      Our immigration laws turn these people into criminals. They say that
      if migrants without papers work here it's a crime. But how can
      people survive here if they don't work? We need a different kind of
      immigration policy - that stops putting such pressure on people to
      leave, and that doesn't treat them as criminals if they do.

      What would it look like?

      First, we should tell the truth, as the labor-supported TRADE Act
      would have us do, which was introduced into Congress by Mike Michaud
      from Maine. We should hold hearings as the bill says, about the
      effects of NAFTA and CAFTA, and collect evidence about the way those
      agreements have displaced people in the U.S. and other countries as

      Then we need to renegotiate those existing agreements to eliminate
      the causes of displacement. If we provide compensation to
      communities that have suffered the effects of free trade and
      corporate economic reforms, that were intended to benefit U.S.
      investors, it would be more than simple justice. It might give
      people more resources and more of a future at home.

      It makes no sense to negotiate new trade agreements that displace
      even more people or lower living standards. This administration has
      negotiated three so far, with Peru, Panama and South Korea. It is
      now negotiating a new one -- the Trans Pacific Partnership. These
      are all pro-corporate, people-displacing agreements. We should
      prohibit these and any new ones like them. Instead, we need to make
      sure all future trade treaties require adequate farm prices and
      income in farming communities, promote unions and high wages, and
      don't require the privatization of public services.

      Increasingly these international agreements, like Mode 4 of the World
      Trade Organization, treat displaced migrants as a cheap and
      vulnerable labor force. Our trade negotiators call for regulating
      their flow with guest worker programs. This is exactly the wrong
      direction. We should ban the inclusion of guest workers in any
      future trade agreement or treaty instead.

      When diplomacy doesn't work, U.S. military intervention and aid
      programs are to support trade agreements, structural adjustment
      policies or market economic reforms. This has been U.S. policy in
      Honduras and Haiti, for instance. This also must stop. If the U.S.
      Embassy is putting pressure on countries like El Salvador to adopt
      measures that benefit corporate investors at the expense of workers
      and farmers, the Ambassador should be recalled and the interference

      Finally, we should ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant
      Workers and Their Families. This international agreement would give
      us an alternative framework for recognizing the rights of displaced
      migrants, and the responsibility of both sending and receiving
      countries for their protection.

      The failure of successive U.S. administrations to even present this
      agreement to Congress for ratification highlights the unpleasant
      truth about the real effect of our immigration policy. When millions
      of migrants arrive here, they are criminalized because they lack
      immigration status, especially when they go to work.

      Labor and civil rights advocates often fondly remember the 1986
      Immigration Reform and Control Act because of it had an amnesty,
      signed by President Ronald Reagan, which gave legal status relatively
      quickly to almost four million people. But the law also contained
      employer sanctions for the first time, which we often forget. That
      provision says that employers will be fined and punished if they hire
      undocumented workers.

      This provision was promoted by those who said that if work became
      illegal, then undocumented migration would end. This clearly failed,
      since the number increased many-fold in the years that followed.
      Compared to the pressure to leave home, criminalizing work was not a
      deterrent to those who sought work here so that their families at
      home would survive.

      This provision sounded like a law against employers, but it was not.
      It became an anti-worker law. No boss ever went to jail for
      violating it. The fines were not great. When the government agents
      seek to enforce it, employers who cooperate with them are forgiven.
      But over the last four years alone, tens of thousands of workers have
      been fired for not having papers. The true objects of punishment
      under this law have always been workers, not employers.

      Now Congress is talking about a new reform, and we have to use this
      opportunity to push to repeal this law. Some think that since a new
      legalization will hopefully give many undocumented workers legal
      status, sanction won't really affect anyone anymore.

      But even the most positive predictions about a new legalization still
      assume that millions of people will not quality because of stringent
      qualifications, high fees and decades-long waiting periods. Those
      people will still be subject to the sanctions law. And the day after
      a new reform passes millions more people will come to the U.S.
      because of the same pressures that caused past waves of migration.
      This is especially true if a new immigration reform ignores the need
      to renegotiate trade agreements and eliminate the huge displacement
      of people.

      These future migrants are not strangers. They are the husbands and
      wives, parents, and cousins of people already here - people who are
      already part of our communities. They come from the same towns, and
      are linked to neighborhoods here in the U.S. by the ties that have
      been created by migration, work and family. They will work in our
      workplaces, participate in our organizing drives, and belong to our
      unions. We need to keep the sanctions law from being applied to
      them, making it a crime for them to work. Unfortunately, however,
      Congress members aren't talking about getting rid of sanctions. In
      fact, they and the administration want to make the current
      application even worse.

      So let's do a reality check. Let's tell the truth about how has this
      law been used.

      One method for enforcing sanctions happens when an employer uses it
      to screen people it is going to hire, using an error-filled
      government database called E-verify. Congress and the administration
      are calling for making it mandatory for all employers to use this
      database, and refuse to hire anyone who it flags as undocumented.

      For people who are currently working now and have no papers, what it
      means is that if they lose their jobs, it will be much hard to find
      others. That will make people fear taking any action that offends
      their boss, like joining a union or complaining about illegal
      conditions. That's good for the boss, but bad for the workers.

      Employers today not only use this database to screen new hires - they
      also use it to reverify the immigration status of people who are
      already working. This is a violation of the law. Once it accepts
      the form filled out by a job seeker (called the I-9), along with
      their ID, the employer can't reverify it all over again at some point
      in the future. But they do. Sometimes it's convenient to get rid of
      workers who have accumulated benefits and raises over years of
      service, and replace them with new hires at lower wages.

      Reverification just happened, for instance, to three workers who
      belong to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union at Waste
      Management, Inc. in San Leandro, California. The union has gone to
      the Oakland City Council to protest these illegal firings, because
      WMI operates under a city garbage contract.

      Employers sometimes announce they intend to begin using the E-Verify
      database when their workers start to organize. That's what managers
      announced at the Mi Pueblo supermarkets in northern California.
      There E-Verify checks are being used to terrorize workers to keep
      them from supporting a union, Local 5 of the United Food and
      Commercial Workers.

      Another method for enforcing sanctions against workers is even more
      widespread. Immigration agents, working for the Immigration and
      Customs Enforcement (ICE), go into the personnel records of an
      employer. They then compare the information given by workers on the
      I-9 form to the E-Verify database, looking for workers who don't have
      legal immigration status. ICE then makes a list of those workers and
      sends it to the company, telling the employer to fire them.

      This is what happened at Pacific Steel Castings in Berkeley,
      California, last year. Two hundred and fourteen workers were fired
      as a result. Some had worked in the foundry for over 20 years. Many
      lost their homes, and their children's dreams of going to college
      were destroyed.

      Over last four years, hundreds of thousands of workers have lost
      their jobs in these enforcement actions, called I-9 audits. Almost
      five hundred janitors in San Francisco, and over a thousand in
      Minneapolis. Thousands of workers doing some of the hardest work
      imaginable in meatpacking plants around the country. Farm workers.
      Construction workers. But the employers all given reduced fines, and
      many immunity from punishment entirely, if they cooperated in firing
      their own workers.

      If unions and communities mount a fight that exposes the terrible
      human cost of these firings, it is possible to stop them. The young
      Dreamers showed that this is possible. These courageous young people
      convinced the administration to stop deporting students brought to
      the U.S. without papers as children. They forced the administration
      to change the way it enforces immigration law. It can be done for
      workers too, if there's a fight.

      But we must also change the sanctions law. Otherwise, our experience
      over the 25 years since it passed shows that immigration authorities
      will simply find another method for making working a crime for people
      who don't have papers.

      The other unpleasant truth about sanctions is that they are linked to
      the growth of guest worker programs. One of the main purposes of
      making it a crime to work without papers is to force people to come
      to the U.S. with visas that tie them to their employers and
      recruiters. These workers are often more vulnerable than the
      undocumented, since they get deported if they lose their jobs or get
      fired. Guest worker programs have been called Close to Slavery by
      the Southern Poverty Law Center and others who have documented their
      extreme exploitation. The sanctions law functions as a way to
      pressure people into choosing that path to come to the U.S. to work.

      When employer sanctions are used to make workers vulnerable to
      pressure, to break unions or to force people into guest worker
      programs, their real effect is to force people into low wage jobs
      with no rights. This is a subsidy for employers, and brings down
      wages for everyone. The sanctions law makes it harder for all
      workers to organize to improve conditions. This doesn't just affect
      the workers who have no papers themselves. When it becomes harder
      for one group to organize, other workers have a harder time
      organizing too.

      Some Washington lobbyists accept as a fact of life that the sanctions
      law will continue, or even worse, that E-Verify will become a
      mandatory national program for all employers. But for unions and
      workers who have had to deal with its effects , it would be much
      better to immediately repeal it, and dismantle the E-Verify database.

      The use of the sanctions law against workers and unions is what led
      the California Labor Federation to call for its repeal as early as
      1994, a position it continued to adopt in successive conventions.
      Other unions joined it including the garment unions and service
      employees. Finally labor councils in California and then around the
      country passed resolutions making the same call, and sent them to the
      historic AFL-CIO convention in Los Angeles in 1999. This led to an
      historic debate and the adoption of a new, pro-immigrant policy.
      Delegates at that convention believed that we have to stop enforcing
      immigration law in the workplace, because its real effect is to make
      workers vulnerable to employers, and to make it harder for all
      workers to organize to improve conditions.

      In addition to repealing the national sanctions law, we should also
      prohibit states from enacting copycat measures. These laws have
      passed not just in Arizona or Alabama or Mississippi. California
      passed a state employer sanctions law before the federal law took
      effect in 1986.

      What would really help workers to raise wages and improve conditions
      is much stricter enforcement of worker protection and
      anti-discrimination laws, for everyone. Funding used for immigration
      enforcement on the job should be given instead to the Department of
      Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
      National Labor Relations Board and other labor law enforcement
      agencies. It will be a good day for all workers when ICE agents
      instead become wage and hour inspectors.

      Threats by employers who use immigration status to keep workers from
      organizing unions or protesting illegal conditions should be a crime.
      That makes it necessary to overturn two Supreme Court decisions,
      Hoffman and Sure-Tan. In these cases the court said that if workers
      are fired for union activity and have no papers, the boss doesn't
      have to rehire them or pay them lost wages, because the sanctions law
      makes it illegal to employ them to begin with. But when there's no
      punishment for violating labor rights, workers have no rights. This
      also hurts other workers in the same workplace who want to organize a
      union, since it makes the undocumented so vulnerable. Instead, we
      should increase workplace rights by prohibiting immigration
      enforcement during labor disputes or against workers who complain
      about illegal conditions.

      To ensure that in the workplace we all have the same rights we also
      have to eliminate the way undocumented people get ripped off by funds
      like Social Security and unemployment. All workers contribute to the
      Social Security fund, but because undocumented people are working
      under bad numbers, they pay in but can never collect the benefits.
      This will come back to haunt us when those workers need disability
      payments or get too old to work - something that happens to us all.
      This is the reason we set up the Social Security system to begin with
      - because we don't want old people eating dog food, regardless of
      where they were born.

      Instead today the Social Security number has become much more a means
      to check immigration status, harming workers instead of providing
      them the benefits that were its original and true purpose. There is
      a simple solution to this problem as well. Social Security numbers
      should be made available for everyone, regardless of immigration
      status. Everyone should pay into the system and everyone has a right
      to the benefits those payments create. By the same token all workers
      should be able to receive unemployment benefits regardless of status,
      since they and their employers pay into the funds.

      In the end, we need an immigration policy that brings people
      together, instead of pitting workers against each other, as our
      current system does. During a time of economic crisis especially we
      need to reduce job competition, rather than stoking fears. In 2005
      Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston made an innovative
      proposal that would have set up job creation and training programs
      for unemployed workers at the same time that it would have given
      legal status to workers without papers. This proposal put unemployed
      workers and immigrants on the same side, giving them both something
      to fight for whether they were out of work, or working without
      immigration status.

      This proposal, and the others made here, are part of the Dignity
      Campaign, a plan for immigration reform based on human, civil and
      labor rights. In the last three years, local unions and labor
      councils in San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Alameda County adopted
      resolutions supporting the Dignity Campaign, arguing that trade
      policy is linked to the increasing vulnerability of immigrant workers
      because of the sanctions law and guest worker progrsms. The Labor
      Council for Latin American Advancement adopted a similar resolution.

      An immigration policy that benefits migrants, their home communities,
      and working people here in the U.S. has to have a long term
      perspective. Instead of just trying to please interest groups
      well-represented in Congress, we need to ask, where are we going?
      What will actually solve the problems that we experience on our jobs
      and in our homes with current laws and policies?

      We need a system that produces security, not insecurity. We need a
      commitment to equality and equal status - getting rid of color and
      national lines instead of making them deeper. We need to make it
      easier for workers to organize, by getting rid of what makes people
      vulnerable -- to end job competition we need full employment, and to
      gain organizing rights we need labor law enforcement together with
      eliminating sanctions and firings. It's not likely that many
      corporations will support such a program, so the politicians who
      represent us have to choose whose side they're on.

      Working people in Mexico, El Salvador, the Philippines, the US and
      other countries need the same things. Secure jobs at a living wage.
      Rights in our workplaces and communities. The freedom to travel and
      seek a future for our families, and the ability to stay home and have
      a decent future there too. The borders between our countries, then,
      should be common grounds that unite us, not lines that divide us.

      Coming in 2013 from Beacon Press:
      THE RIGHT TO STAY HOME: Ending Forced Migration and the
      Criminalization of Immigrants

      DISPLACED, UNEQUAL AND CRIMINALIZED - A Report for the Rosa Luxemburg
      Foundation on the political economy of immigration

      With Anoop Prasad on what's wrong with the current immigration reform
      proposals in Washington DC
      With Solange Echevarria of KWMR about growers push for guest worker
      programs. Advance to 88 minutes for the interview.
      At the Gandhi-King Youth and Community Conference, Memphis 2011

      See also Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and
      Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press, 2008)
      Recipient: C.L.R. James Award, best book of 2007-2008

      See also the photodocumentary on indigenous migration to the US
      Communities Without Borders (Cornell University/ILR Press, 2006)

      See also The Children of NAFTA, Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border
      (University of California, 2004)

      Entrevista con activistas de #yosoy132 en UNAM
      Interview by activists of #yosoy132 at UNAM (in Spanish)

      Two lectures on the political economy of migration

      For more articles and images, see http://dbacon.igc.org

      David Bacon, Photographs and Stories


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.