Matt Yglesias

26 Responses to “The Jobs Americans Won’t Do”

1. yave begnet Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

   I’d feel better about this story doing Smith partisan damage if I felt the Democrats were really going to fight for immigrants’ rights.

   But common use by Democrats and the media of the term “illegal immigrants” is indicative of their adoption of the right-wing framing of this issue. “Illegal immigrant” is not a legal term, it’s found nowhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act and is not used by immigration judges, generally the only decisionmakers authorized to make final determinations about immigration status. I wish liberals would agree to stop using the phrase–it is simply another accommodation to restrictionists.

   It’s true that Smith and much of the GOP stood in the way of comprehensive reform and a humane resolution to the current impasse. But reading this article, I get a sense less that it is geared toward improving the immigration system in a fair way than toward inflicting political damage to Smith. Smith’s rejection of e-Verify is completely justifiable. It’s a flawed system that would lead to termination of many U.S. citizens on the basis of race or nationality. And I’d feel better about Democrats leading the charge against GOP hypocrisy on immigration if, for example, leaders like Barack Obama hadn’t voted for the border wall a couple years ago.

2. Stephen Judkins Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

   I predict he will still win. He has a tons of cash on hand, and Merkley isn’t running an especially inspiring campaign.

   Still, I will be canvassing for Merkley in the coming weeks. He’s a good guy and would make an excellent senator. Maybe this story is something that will make a difference in what so far seems to have a pretty static race.

3. laborlibert Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

   I think the title of this post was meant to be ironic (in keeping with Matt’s hipster origins). Working in a food plant, particularly where the plant is unionized, is a job that many american citizens would happily do.

4. Matt D Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

   WW sometimes does some great reporting, but this is definitely not one of those instances. The take away from the article I guess is supposed to be that Smith made his millions “on the backs” of illegal immigrants, abusing and demeaning them in the process, but there’s very little evidence of that presented in the article. All there is to the story is a couple innocuous facts ominously asserted (the signs are in Spanish! workers may be fired for being late too frequently! they only make barely more than minimum wage!) along w/ thinly-sourced anecdotes.

   I mean, if the company were actively recruiting illegal immigrants, there might be a story. Or if it were paying them sub-minimum wage below the table, or forcing them to work unpaid overtime, or something. But the mere fact that jobs at his plant are crappy and low paying and that some people will nonetheless lie to obtain them doesn’t reflect poorly on Smith, especially since I would assume he’s not even all that involved in its day to day operations at this point.

5. Matt D Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

   Also, I live in Portland and am unlikely to vote for Smith anyway. But the article still stinks.

6. cmholm Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

   I agree that the article lacked rigor. I would assume that the plant workers talk, and probably have an excellent idea as to how many of their coworkers are undocumented.

   However, I wouldn’t let Smith off the hook just because he’s “not all that involved”. We’re not talking about a GM-sized enterprise.

   Also, claiming the term “illegal immigrants” synonymous with right wing thinking and “bad” because it’s not a legal term is just goofy. Like labeling someone sentenced for “unauthorized propulsion of a motor vehicle” a car thief, there’s a value judgement, but it’s not inaccurate.

   I reject the idea that a progressive has to be an “inclusionist”. It all depends on how wide one chooses to cast their net when fighting for the interests of wage earners.

7. 24AheadDotCom Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

   I didn’t bother reading the article, but the Democrats’ interest in our laws is definitely touching.

   To fill space, I’ll correct two of the statements made by (IIRC immigration lawyer) Yave Begnet.

   First, for the actual truth about terminology, see the links here and do the searches yourself.

   Second, the idea that “reform” is “humane” is at best a cruel joke. It would lead to even more people trying to cross the desert and even more mixedstatus families and all the rest.

   See my archives if you want to learn all the things about this issue that MattY and other Dem hacks don’t know.

8. George Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

   Perhaps this will help crumble Mr. Smith’s hold on the senate seat. I will vote him out, but I need a bunch more of my fellow Oregonians.

   This argument can always be made. I offered to pay $2.30/hr and I could not find anyone who would do the work. If he offered $100/hr he would be inundated with people. The market basis says he needs to set the wage were he does find adequate workers. Otherwise we are really saying that we want a free-trade global labor market.

   Of course minimum wage laws do not adequately define this pay level and often can be worked around anyway.

9. Ed Marshall Says:
   September 10th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

   Remember the distant days of two months ago, when an immigration post would stir up every last yahoo on the internet to freak out about Mexicans?

   Now they are all too busy fluffing, Juan McCain, the amnesty guy to notice. Funny how that works. It’s almost like they are worthless idiots.

10. yave begnet Says:
    September 10th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    24Ahead, the provisions in the Code you cite to are not part of the INA and mean little to an immigration judge. They are mostly ancillary provisions that the right-wing Congress enacted during the ’90s to appear tough on (mostly nonexistent) immigrant crime. Show me where in the INA the term “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” is used. “Alien” comes from the constitution; “illegal alien” is a construction of nativists to inspire fear and hatred of newcomers. That includes members of Congress like Tancredo and Bilbray.

    Also, claiming the term “illegal immigrants” synonymous with right wing thinking and “bad” because it’s not a legal term is just goofy.

    Right, it is what it is … you’re just calling it like you see it. By using terms like “migrant” or “undocumented,” left-wingers are just throwing sand in your eyes. It doesn’t matter that many of these so-called illegal immigrants have been following seasonal migration patterns that predate the current laws and even the current borders. That many of these “illegals” have indigenous roots and families who have lived on this continent millennia before Europeans came. That some permanent residents who’ve lived here for decades have had their status revoked and are now “illegal” for minor crimes (like possession of marijuana) committed in their youth under retroactive laws that were enacted years after commission of the crimes. That the great majority of immigrants who came through Ellis Island would be excluded from the U.S. today, wouldn’t even be able to wait in the imaginary line that politicians pretend exists outside the country.

    I guess none of that matters because “illegal means illegal.” End of debate. Just don’t pretend that you’re not parroting right-wing dogma when you buy into the Tancredo/Tanton paradigm. And no, I don’t think Heath Shuler is much of a liberal.

    Ed, I’m also wondering when the press is going to start asking McCain about his immigration flip-flops. Right now it’s anybody’s guess as to what he’ll actually do if elected, and that suits his campaign just fine.

11. Ed Marshall Says:
    September 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    Just don’t pretend that you’re not parroting right-wing dogma when you buy into the Tancredo/Tanton paradigm

    I”m not Tancredo or anything. I’m not union anymore, but I was in my youth. My dad was a shop steward, my grandfathers on both sides were shop stewards. If there is a strike on, I don’t have the slightest problem telling a scab “You know, this is a dangerous job, I’d quit you might get hurt.” That asshole is taking food off my families table, and fuck him.

    There is no way to square that with thinking the current way migratory labor works is a good thing. I think it’s a bad thing all around. I think it’s bad for the migrants, it’s bad for working class Americans.

    Coming from that position, I don’t want to build a wall around Mexico because that’s not how it works anyway. People overstay visas. I don’t see any utility in ICE raids, I think it’s theatre and cruel theatre for those involved. Amnesty proposals are fine with me, but for those people who imagine this is all positive effects for everyone, that’s wrong. I’ve watched union carpentry shops go under competing with an immigrant work force working under illegal conditions.

12. yave begnet Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 8:23 am

    Amnesty proposals are fine with me, but for those people who imagine this is all positive effects for everyone, that’s wrong. I’ve watched union carpentry shops go under competing with an immigrant work force working under illegal conditions.

    That’s why it’s important to give immigrant workers the tools they need to push back against employers who push down their wages, institute abusive working conditions, and threaten to call ICE on them. Agriprocessors in Iowa was facing a state labor dept. investigation, so what did management do: they called ICE and got their problem solved by having the workforce deported (looks like now that plan may not work out for them as the investigation finally got back on track recently).

    When you have a very low floor as far as labor conditions and wages because those workers at the bottom have essentially no legal personage and can’t enforce even basic rights, then that is going to affect the rest of the workforce. The restrictionist solution is simply deport all those immigrant workers, or else make conditions here so hellish for them that they leave on their own. The pro-migrant solution is to give those workers legal status and reform the system so that unskilled workers have a way to enter legally like they did 100 years ago. This would allow these workers to assert their rights, prevent employers from taking the easy way out, and raise labor conditions and wages across the line.

    More from that angle here and here.

13. 24AheadDotCom Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    I should have pointed out that Yave Begnet (”YB”) was being very specific above. The fact is that “illegal alien” is used in the U.S. Code; it’s not like some made-up phrase.

    YB writes: It doesn’t matter that many of these so-called illegal immigrants have been following seasonal migration patterns that predate the current laws and even the current borders.

    My first response was “that’s too [expletive] bad”. Let me clean that up a bit: We – the U.S. – own that territory now, and we set the rules. See this for a longer response relating to similar remarks to those above made by BHO. Yes, that’s right: BHO has made reconquista-style comments.

    Discussing the other issues with the statements by YB is left as an exercise. Once again, anyone who wants to know all the things that hacks won’t tell you should scan through my archives.

14. yave begnet Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    My point about the term “illegal alien” is that it’s essentially irrelevant to immigration law; it’s a phrase invented and used with political ends in mind. It’s not useful in the context of immigration court because it just doesn’t tell you much about the legal issues involved in determining immigration status. For this reason, even ICE attorneys–the government lawyers tasked with deporting immigrants–don’t generally use the term.

    The Reconquista is a nativist fantasy, one that could only appeal to the same paranoid, underinformed minority that is still convinced Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and the Iraq War was a justifiable defensive measure.

    But I read your piece, and I agree in part. Technically, everyone in the Western Hemisphere–even indigenous people–migrated here at some point. Whether it was 10,000 years or 200 years ago does make a big difference, but the fact is that everyone alive today descended from migrants at some point.

15. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!

16. xanax Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 5:25 am

    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
    xanax

17. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!
    tramadol

18. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am

    tramadol
    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

19. buy viagra online Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am

    buy viagra online
    I want to say – thank you for this!

20. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so!
    buy cheap viagra

21. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 6:24 am

    Great site, Good info viagra