It’s hard to believe, but it seems that in this climate of fear and social conflict, Senate Democrats have decided to make life harder for those most struggling in our state. Targeting immigrants seems to be a bipartisan phenomenon these days, as the text of this bill demonstrates:
Under this bill, any company that has hired a person who is not legally in the United States is, for a period of seven years, ineligible to: 1) receive any income or franchise tax credit or property tax exemption; 2) enter into a contract with the state or a local governmental unit for the construction, remodeling, or repair of a public work or building, or for the furnishing of supplies, services, equipment, or material of any kind; and 3) receive any grants or loans from a local governmental unit.
The sponsors of this bill are Senators Answen, Wirch, Hoperin, Erpenbach and Carpenter. Presumably, this will lead to firings of undocumented workers and more “in the shadows” type of employment which leads to only more hideous exploitation. It’s one thing to capitulate, but it’s quite another to take the lead in this type of policy. My friend Yvonne Geertz from the Immigrant Workers’ Union hits on all the right points better than I ever could:
“The Democratic Party has a unique opportunity, a duty really, to engage the hundreds of thousands workers, amoung them undocumented immigrants, who went to the street to protest Scott Walker’s policies. During the uprising in Wisconsin, there is no doubt people had illusions that the Democratic Party would represent different policies than the Republican Party in power” says Yvonne Geerts immigrant rights advocate and organizer. “With this bill we can see the Democratic Party coming back to the old-electoral politics, not principles, not differences. It is painfully obvious that the Democratic Party wants no progress in Wisconsin, just to win the election even if it means to throw undocumented workers under the bus.”
Obviously, there are electoral considerations at play here, with three of the sponsors facing recall elections. And it’s no surprise that Tim Carpenter would be in on this, too; it was his maneuverings that kept undocumented immigrants from being able to acquire drivers licenses in the 2009 budget. Erpenbach’s participation is more disappointing.
I know that I’ve been critical of the WI Democratic Party in other posts, but this is really beyond the pale. How can this be justified? In this instance, electoral politics trumps people’s lives; immigrants are currently an unpopular group, and so advantage has been taken for the recall efforts.
But it’s worth considering. According to establishment opinion, the recalls are supposed to be the avenue by which we “take Wisconsin back.” How should immigrants feel about that? Should they, or their allies, be expected to work on the campaigns of the recalled Democratic Senators, the same Senators who are determined to “throw them under the bus?”
Kyle, why should non-citizens work on any political campaigns in this country? If the Democrats are dependent on non-voters to staff their campaigns, they are in big trouble. If you are lumping immigrant citizens in with undocumented immigrants in your argument above, you are making some very big (and possibly offensive) assumptions (that all immigrants and their allies support lax enforcement of US immigration laws).
Companies do not hire undocumented workers out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they are a vulnerable, easily exploited workforce. You seem to believe there should be no penalties for doing so.
I disagree that this bill will result in more “in the shadows” type of employment. Believe it or not, it isn’t easy to hide a large number of workers off the books. Companies that do so have not only the INS to contend with, but the IRS as well.
The “in the shadows” employment of undocumented immigrants is mostly in the domestic employment sector, an area which is exempted from all manner of enforcement (because the wealthy elites who run this country don’t want to lose their cheap housekeepers and nannies), and agribusiness, which has also been largely exempted from enforcement efforts due to its political clout.
Before you make moral judgments about people who want to discourage illegal immigration, ask yourself if you are willing to accept a reduction in your personal income in exchange for greater tolerance of undocumented workers. If so, how much of a reduction can you afford? That is the situation faced by many working-class people in this country (including legal immigrants). Allowing companies to hire undocumented workers depresses wages for everyone except the CEOs who benefit from such exploitation.
Jill, thanks for your comment.
Obviously, companies are not charitable organizations. But why I and other progressives find this bill so abhorrent is because of the negative impact it will have on immigrant communities. Objectively, it will hurt their livelihoods and make life even harder.
Jill, if you’re really concerned with exploitation and driving down wages, then let’s advocate for what immigrant supporters have been advocating for decades: stricter enforcement of existing labor practices. Make sure that companies do not avoid payroll and abide by proper workplace regulations. Perhaps we could go even further and mandate a living wage and healthcare for all workers. Doing so would completely eliminate the effect of suppressing wages due to undocumented immigration, a phenomenon usually exaggerated according to most studies I’ve seen on the subject.
The fact remains that Senate Dems are scapegoating immigrants for political purposes. This type of right-wing populism (and, dare I say, racism?) is always the easier, short-term way of rallying many white workers to your side, but it only ends up making the state a worse place to live for everyone. A bold, progressive economic agenda would take more courage in advancing, and it’s too bad state Democrats have no interest in taking up such issues.
Or perhaps they are doing something to undercut the arguments in favor of Arizona-type anti-immigration legislation. Your view, that those who enter this country illegally should face no penalties or hardships for doing so, is in the minority. Most Americans feel that _something_ should be done. This is something. It is far from the xenophobic and racist policies they are pursuing in Arizona, and will hopefully innoculate Wisconsin from the possibility of that sort of thing passing. Really, all this law does is say that the state cannot reward bad actors by giving them contracts. It encourages companies to follow the law. You make it very easy for right-wingers to portray Madison liberals as having contempt for the law and wanting their tax dollars to encourage illegal immigration.
I absolutely agree that we need to enforce labor laws. Democrats in
Congress have tried to change the bankruptcy code to give payroll priority over other creditors (Republicans blocked that). It is Republicans who rolled back child labor laws. To pretend that the two parties are the same on these issues is ridiculous.
Fair points, a couple of things:
Yes, “illegal immigrants” are not a popular group in this country these days; yes, many Americans would love to see them deported and/or punished. They’ve become a scapegoat for the economic crisis, distracting attention away from the banksters and other elites responsible for people’s hardships. Public opinion on a lot of issues is pretty fluid, though, and I hardly think giving into people’s cruder impulses – even if they are in the majority – is necessarily the right thing to do.
You state that all this does is “encourage companies to follow the law,” but it’s undeniable that it will also make life harder for the undocumented. You may see this as simply incidental; I can’t.
You say that the position I hold makes it “easy for right-wingers to portray Madison liberals as having contempt for the law.” The law is not always just and I give the mostly white, native-born people of this state more credit; when the right-wing propaganda is cut through and the raw humanity of this issue is made apparent (these are people’s lives we’re talking about), even most right-wingers come around, in my experience.
You claim that this bill is potentially a way to circumvent a harsher policy such as the Arizona one. So, this is really for the good of the immigrants! Of course, the immigrants rights’ groups and advocates themselves – UTI, Voces, etc – are all against this piece of legislation. A lesser evil is still an evil. What’s more, by conceding ground to the anti-immigrant forces, it’s hard to say what good this really does. I’m inclined to think that, if your position is really the moral and just one, it’s best to stick with it.
The lack of differnces between the two parties on basic economic policies runs so deep that it’s really pointless to get into it here. Although there are many Republicans who are beyond the pale these days, Obama’s policies on the economic front are all traditionally Republican ones.
In sum, I think it’s important to acknowledge the full humanity of immigrant populations, documented or otherwise. In so doing, we only strengthen our case for a change in policy that benefits both documented and undocumented workers.
Zamarripa wrong on SB 137
by Robert Miranda
“Taking Sides”
Spanish Journal
July 15, 2011
Wisconsin’s first Latina State Representative JoCasta Zamarripa was way off base in her attack of a state bill introduced by State Senate Democrats, Dave Hansen, Robert Wirch, Jon Erpenbach, Jim Holperin and Tim Carpenter and one State Representative Tony Staskunas (Co-author).
Senate Bill 137 would keep state funds, contracts, loans and grants from
employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It would also allow penalties of up to $10,000 fine for each illegal worker hired. The bill was introduced in the
Labor, Public Safety and Urban Affairs Senate committee.
Zamarripa other than saying the bill is divisive and does not address the issue
of undocumented immigration, which is to say that Zamarripa has no practical
alternative nor a vision of her own as to what to do about the undocumented
immigration crises, believes the bill should be scrapped.
Well, she is wrong.
There is ample evidence, research and studies that clearly indicate that the
hiring of undocumented immigrant workers increases economic hardships on
low-skilled documented workers, takes away opportunities for documented workers and creates an imbalance in the U.S. labor standards.
One report released by Wharton School and Cornell University argues that U.S. businesses in the construction, food service and delivery industries hiring undocumented workers is not only the norm, but a requirement in an increasingly competitive economy that constantly forces companies to cut
costs while adding profits.
The Wharton/Cornell report maintains that undocumented workers exert downward pressure on wages and reduce job opportunities for low-skilled U.S. citizens and immigrants who are in country with valid documentation. The report goes on to say that not holding American employers accountable for hiring undocumented
workers severely compromises the labor standards for U.S. citizens and
documented immigrants.
To not hold employers who hire undocumented workers accountable is to support the actions of these employers who only hire these workers to exploit their labor and mistreat them at the work place. Removing undocumented immigrants out of the labor force is a first order of business for policymakers.
Zamarripa, however, made friends with these corporations and their allies who
balk at the prospects of agreeing to better union contracts and added benefit expenses for workers, thus often demanding concessions from U.S. citizens and documented workers.
Voces de la Frontera will condemn this article and say that it is divisive and
anti-immigrant, but I differ with the more irrational and counter-productive
views of this organization’s leadership. They argue that undocumented workers often perform jobs Americans refuse to do, including hazardous jobs, menial
labor, and low-wage work.
This is a myth. Undocumented immigrants are hired for these jobs not because
Americans refuse them, but because Americans are not willing to perform such tasks where the wages are lower than they would be if such cheap source of labor were not available.
Look, the undocumented worker brings good work ethic to the American labor
landscape; they work hard, did not come here to receive welfare, and should be
allowed to remain in the U.S. after paying penalties.
Companies will continue to hire undocumented workers because they do not have to abide by established labor laws, provide adequate working conditions and invest in capital improvements. Hell, some undocumented workers are working basically as slaves in some areas of the country.
To just come forward to say that SB 137 is “divisive” indicates lazy research
and innate ignorance of the issue of undocumented immigration.
Turning a blind eye to undocumented workers, as U.S. immigration authorities have done, harms U.S. citizens, documented immigrants and the undocumented.