USA Today – Gone Tomorrow?


On July 22, Laura Parker wrote a
front-page article
in USA Today,
(a paper many people have a hard time taking seriously), mouthpiecing the benefits of immigration, legal
and illegal.

Entitled “USA
Just Wouldn`t Work Without Immigrant Labor
,
its subtext is that the American working man is idle
and stupid:


Who will do the hard jobs?



Immigrants—legal and illegal—now make up 13% of
the nation`s workers, the highest percentage since
the 1930s. They dominate job categories at both ends
of the economic spectrum. Immigrants hold 35% of the
unskilled jobs, according to the Center
for Immigration Studies
, a think tank in
Washington, D.C. They also command a significant share
of highly skilled technology jobs. At the height of
the dot-com boom, as many as a third of the techies
working in California`s Silicon Valley were from
Asia.

Most of the nation`s 17.7 million immigrant workers
toil, like those who preceded them, in jobs that
native-born Americans refuse to do. They work as meatpackers,
hotel maids, hamburger flippers, waiters, gardeners,
seamstresses, fruit and vegetable pickers, and
construction hands.



In fact,
native-born Americans can and will do those things –
if they`re paid decent wages, and given safe working
conditions. It`s true that the welfare state, (the
benefits of which are supposed to be unavailable to
foreigners), takes a number of lower-class Americans
out of the job market, because as Henry
Hazlitt

pointed out in Economics
In One Lesson,
if a man is paid $700.00 a
month for not working,
he`s not going to be interested in a job paying
$850.00 a month, because he`d be working 170 hours
to get a $150.00 a month increase.

That`s an
entirely separate problem, but when you consider that
in the midst of this immigrant jobs boom, and that there`s
still a lot of American unemployment, you realise that
the problem isn`t necessarily the workingman, but
the perverse incentives to not work created by the
welfare state.

Jobs in poultry plants across the South, once held
almost exclusively by American blacks, are now
dominated by Mexican immigrants. Textile plants run
largely on the labors of Hispanic workers. In the
Kentucky coal fields, mining companies are considering
recruiting miners from the Ukraine.



The Ukraine.
Where labor doesn`t organize. Where they`re not
too worried about work
safety
.

Plus USA
Today
is applauding the forcing out of black
workers in the poultry plants of the South…!!!

Wow.

The INS did
some raids
a while back, (Operation SouthPAW), in which they found
4,000 illegal workers in various Southern businesses.
Tyson Foods says
that they`re clean. I presume that means that they
have mostly legal
Mexicans.

Still,
according to Migration
News
,

In July[1997], the INS apprehended 72 Mexican and 33
Guatemalans at a Tyson Foods poultry processing plant
in Ashland, Alabama. The Ashland police chief
reportedly welcomed the raid, because the "town
was becoming overrun with illegal aliens." He
estimated that 500 of the 2,400 local residents were
immigrants. Tyson, with 1,100 employees, is the second
largest employer in Clay county, which has a
population of 13,600.




Meatpacking
plants employing native-born workers have closed all
over the country, and new ones opened employing
immigrant labor. NumbersUSA`s
Roy Beck testified before Congress
that:

The meat-packing industry offers a vivid example of
how losers are created. The industry today is
dominated by immigrant workers. The tasks of
disassembling America`s hogs, sheep and cattle are
nasty, tedious and risky. Most news stories I see
about these industries state that these are jobs
Americans won`t do.

But until this recent renewal of mass immigration,
those were jobs done almost entirely by native-born
Americans. Until immigration levels began rapidly
increasing in the late 1970s, they were jobs that
Americans not only would do but formed lines to get
hired to do.

Workers with few skills and little education could
earn up to around $18 an hour in today`s dollars.
Strong unions guarded the health and safety of the
workers.

People held on to their slaughterhouse jobs like
gold. And they pulled strings to get their relatives
and children into the plant. Because nearly all
packing companies offered handsome pay and benefits,
no company had trouble remaining profitable while
treating its workers well.

But by the 1980s, the pool of foreign workers had
grown so large that relatively new companies could use
them to undercut the established unionized firms. The
new corporations busted unions and slashed wages so
that the old giants of the industry – Armour, Swift,
Wilson and Cudahy – could not compete while honoring
their contracts to provide safe, middle-class jobs to
their workers. All four eventually got out of the
slaughterhouse business.

Jobs have so deteriorated that it is difficult to
keep workers – whether native-born Americans or
immigrants. Stress-related disorders and injuries
drive many workers off the jobs within months. During
the 1990s, annual turnover rates of 50 to 100 percent
have been common. Meatcutters now are injured 400
percent more often than workers in the average U.S.
industry. In terms of injuries, meatpacking in the
1990s had become the most dangerous industry in
America.

Immigrants,
above all illegal immigrants, can`t defend
themselves against abusive employers. Americans can.
They can sue, for one thing. It`s not that
Americans are afraid of hard work, but that they`re
unwilling to risk losing eyes and fingers for the
minimum wage.

The
availability of cheap labor is a temptation to
inefficiency. A friend of mine reported seeing an
interview with a Red Chinese official, who was asked
if there was unemployment in China. “Oh, no!” Said
the official. “How could there be unemployment?
There`s so much to be do!”

There was
indeed, but in spite of the fact that they had
everyone in China working on it, not much actually got
done. China`s average standard of living is much
lower than the US`s in part because
they have all this cheap labor, and thus don`t
feel the pressure to mechanise
industry.

Americans
could do those jobs, if they were offered
enough money. John Derbyshire said
that

Any economist will tell you that there is no such
thing as a labor shortage, only an unwillingness to
pay sufficient wages to induce people to work. My own
neighborhood here on Long Island is currently infested
by illegal immigrants from Mexico who work as laborers
for local contractors and landscaping firms.
"Nobody else will do the work," moan these
employers. Well, there is some level of wages at which
plenty of local people would be glad to do it. Heck,
for forty bucks an hour, I would do it.

Ms. Parker
also bangs the historical drum, saying that:

America`s reliance on immigrant labor is as old as
the country. European immigrants built, under perilous
and often fatal conditions, the Brooklyn Bridge and
other New York landmarks. Chinese labor gangs, paid
what were pejoratively called “coolie wages,”
built the railroads that connected the Atlantic with
the Pacific.

She`s
missed the point of that, which is that all this was very
bad.
Americans could have built the railroads,
but they were given no opportunity to do so, as
immigrants from pre-industrial China could undercut
their wages. The term “coolie” is used for
imported contract labor, in which the laborers are not
free to leave their employers and seek other work, but
must work for the people they`ve contracted to.

In history
we call this by various names such as serfdom,
peonage, or forced labor.

In modern
times, it`s referred to as an H-1B
visa. Free labor can`t compete.

The
countries that use this kind of labor tend to fail.
(The former Soviet Union, former Roman Empire, former
Imperial China, and the former Confederacy, which
entered a war without, as Rhett Butler pointed
out,
a single cannon factory.)

USA
Today
has also published
a Q
& A
on legalising 
illegal immigration, naming the usual suspects,
for and against.

Q: Who favors granting legal status?

A: Mexico,
Senate and House Democrats
and some Republican
senators from states with large populations of Mexican
workers. Additionally, certain employers, labor
unions
, immigrant
rights groups, and religious organizations, such as
the Roman
Catholic Church
.

Q: Who`s opposed?

A: Powerful Republican congressional leaders and groups
that generally oppose immigration. Sen. Phil Gramm,
R-Tex., says amnesty will pass over his "cold,
dead body."



One other
group should be mentioned as opposing immigration,
it`s the group that always gets left out of this
discussion.

One group
that whenever it`s polled, says it`s in favor of
restricting both legal and illegal immigration.

This group,
which by Beltway standards is considered a
“fringe”, comprises up to 70%
of the American people.

July 25, 2001