Wednesday, March 29, 2006

After they jail Cardinal Mahoney in LA will they arrest the Chairman of the Board at Hormel?

HR 4437 has passed the House, and if enacted into law, makes it a felony to aid anyone who is illegally in this country to remain in this country. Cardinal Mahoney of the Catholic archdiocese in Los Angeles has indicated that he takes this bill to mean that the people at Catholic Charities would be violating the law when they provide assistance to people in need that have illegal immigrants as part of their family . He intends to have them continue to provide assistance to people in need regardless of anyone's immigration status. And he has stated he intends to do the same personally.

Here is the question I raise: Will those persons ultimately providing employment to undocumented workers ever have to face the music if this bill passes? Will they arrest the Chairman of the Board at Hormel because his actions are allowing undocumented workers to find employment in his company's packing plants, an act that aids them to remain in this country illegally? It's a ridiculous question ONLY because we know it will never happen.
The major corporations will argue that they follow the law and never knowingly provide employment to undocumented workers. It's a technically correct, but morally incorrect, assertion. Unless I'm totally out in left field the truth is that these corporations have simply shifted the way in which they engage the services of illegal immigrants since the passage of the last major immigration reform bill in the 1980's.
Prior to the bill in the 80's many corporations DIRECTLY employed a significant percentage of the undocumented workers in the US. They had their own version of "don't ask, don't tell." As long as they were not required to verify the citizenship or immigration status of an applicant they simply took every applicant's word at face value as to whether they had the legal status to be employed by the company. The reform bill of the 80's was supposed to dry up the pool of jobs available to undocumented workers by requiring employers to verify the status of job applicants. Without access to jobs, the argument went, illegal immigration would decline.
The reality is that the companies did not stop employing these workers. They simply shifted to INDIRECTLY engaging their services through contractors. To companies that were flying under the enforcement radar. The INS became overwhelmed by trying to keep track of an exploding number of records it had to check. So the enforcement process became draconian raids that NEVER exposed the corporations to any culpability in the act of employing undocumented workers. They were screened from accountability by subcontracting the work. It's the same process used to evade providing benefits under union contracts. Here, it shielded the corporate officers from the law.
But the bill passed by the House will change things. Under a one interpretation of the law we could hold corporate officers accountable if undocumented workers were found employed on their corporate premises. By providing the employment opportunity, even indirectly, they would be aiding a person who is illegally in this country to remain within the country illegally. Would we ever be able to get a conviction? Don't make me laugh. We'll never see the cuffs on a WalMart store manager, let alone a top officer in the corporation. This despite the fact that a number of WalMart's contractors who were providing janitorial services were found to be almost exclusively employing undocumented workers.
We are a nation of immigrants. It's an overused phrase, but true. There are very few of us who can claim to be indigenous. And even the Native Americans immigrated here from other parts of the world according to the theory that says their ancestors crossed the Bering Straits! So when are we going to stop listening to those who pander to our basest instincts -- appealing to our fears rather than truth? Our security is not enhanced by maintaining a system that is designed to exploit the most vulnerable portions of our communities. A system that increases the power and influence of those who circumvent the law (directly or INDIRECTLY!!!!)
And when are the advocates for undocumented workers going to understand that if we lose the ability to enforce our laws our civil rights are eroded? Our civil rights are sustained by how well we operate as a nation under law, equally and justly applied. Undermine the rule of law and you undermine our civil rights.
People desire to come to our land. And the vast majority of those who come are productive people who would be good additions to our citizenry. They are coming, whether we like it or not. Now how are we going to manage that flow of immigration? By opening our borders to realistic levels of legal immigration? Or by pushing it underground into unregulated channels where the most unscrupulous people benefit and good people are exploited, and even killed?
They're coming, and they're here. So get over it and deal with it! Responsibly. Intelligently. Compassionately. Because if we don't our problems are just beginning.

3 Comments:

Blogger Kurt said...

i had the responsibility to complete the I-9 employmeny eligibility forms for the restaurant i managed a couple years ago whenever i hired someone - usually parttime teen help. the other ("wet") employees were grandfathered into the company before i arrived. the form is a joke unless las migas (INS) shows up. then the person signing it as having seen the required documents is on the hook.

luis was the best employee we had. once, while we were eating dinner together, he asked me if i knew why "mojos" (his term, means wet, as in wetback or illegals) worked so hard. i didn't and so he told me, becuz there is opportunity in the US. they can be paid for their work. in mexico, he told me, they can work even harder and not make sufficient money. so it is understood when someone comes to this country what the point is. luis also told me it is much easier to be poor (really poor) in mexico, where there is family and friends and goverment services will help. and food is easy to come by. which is why he told me i will never see an illegal at an intersection with a sign that says "will work for food."

so luis was the best employee. what did that mean? it meant that luis was on salary and worked about 65 hours a week. his hourly rate (when overtime was factored in) was about $5.75. the owner of the restaurant was toting the note on the used suburban he sold luis. and on the used accord he sold him. he arranged financing for luis to purchase a house. the mortgage holder was one of the owner's former bosses.
luis can't wait until the bills are paid off, and he can work a couple more years and go back to mexico with his family.
but in the meantime, he is little more than an indentured servant, enslaved by an owner that considers the things he has done as both protecting his investment in the restaurant and beneficial to luis.

tough choices and a difficult situation. leadership not grandstanding will be required here too.

5:59 PM  
Blogger Rat In A Cage said...

The majority of our ancestors are immigrants ... legal immigrants.

I do not wish to debate this point. I had a shitty day.

I will say I have worked with some companies that are vendors for McDonald's. Ronald runs a tight ship & conducts personnel reviews of all it's vendors, not just its own employees & all employees of all their vendors have to be documented. I have seen numerous layoffs at companies to get in line with the wishes of Ronald McDonald. I would guess there are others. Nike learned the hard way using child labor oversees. It's a hot button issue.

I don't really care. Let it all burn to the ground.

8:31 PM  
Blogger Wake of the Flood said...

Kurt mentioned how Luis was working for the day when he would have saved enough to live comfortably back in Mexico. His story is why we need a good guest worker program in place. It needs to be one that prevents employers from exploiting the guest workers, and isn't used to drive down wages of domestic workers.

But the guest worker program only deals with half the issue; those who have come to the US simply for its prosperity. There are millions of others who are here illegally who have come to make this their new home. They're raising their families here, and their grandchildren will be every bit as American as any of our grandchildren will be. Not only are they here for the money, but they are here for what our country offers in terms of freedoms and protections. How do we welcome them into citizenship and still maintain the rule of law?

I encourage folks to read this editorial by Linda Chavez (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/opinion/30chavez.html?ex=1144386000&en=32c89ab7a526f936&ei=5070&emc=eta1). She has some sage advice for the immigration advocates.

1:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home