The anti-immigrant tactic of pitting worker against immigrant worker really bothers me. It is a play on fear and an obvious attempt to stir up animosity against immigrants (who are the most vulnerable portion of our society). But, let me take a deep breath and discuss this rationally.
The idea that there is a "zero sum game" where immigrants must suffer (or be deported) for Americans to prosper is simply false. An example of bad economics in the cause of a dubious political point.
I would like to make two points.
- The economics used to makes these claims against immigrants is simply wrong.
- Anti-immigrant policies hurt low-income Americans far worse.
Bad Economics
First, let's tackle the bad economics inherent in this anti-immigrant argument.
To have, as is claimed, a zero-sum game. There must be a fixed number of jobs that is not affected by the number of people. For example if there are 10,000 construction jobs in a market with no immigrants, and 10,000 jobs in a market with immigrants (of which some will be taken by the immigrants)... well that would be a zero-sum game.
Of course, this is clearly not the case. The immigrants need houses and groceries and hair cuts and all kinds of goods and services. This is not even close to a zero-sum game.
Add to this that restricting labor in many cases means a loss of American jobs. Goods can cross the border freely (whether you think this is a good thing or not is another issue, but the fact is they do). This means that you can get cheap socks or lettuce or toys (all of which would not be possible with American labor). The idea that you can save jobs by walling out (or deporting) human beings, while goods cross the border freely is simply ridiculous.
In many industries (including mine, I am a software professional) the US has benefited greatly from immigrant labor, which is crucial for us to compete in a global market. I have heard (although I don't have the same personal knowledge) that the same is true for agriculture.
Economists from respectable organizations suggest there may be a small wage depression (under 1%) for workers without a high school diploma due to immigration, although others point out that there are other far more significant factors(1). (CIS which is quoted too often in anti-immigrant DailyKos diaries is a right-wing anti-immigrant organization that the SPLC labels a "hate group"(2)).
Anti-"illegal"-Immigrant Policy hurts workers
There is a reason that the labor movement (along with most progressive organizations) supports progressive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. It is abundantly clear that having workers without rights depresses wages and hurts all wages.
Any worker should have the ability to change jobs for higher pay, join unions and demand their rights when they are mistreated. Keeping workers from a path to citizenship is unquestionably bad for all workers; American and immigrant alike.
This is an anti-labor position.
A better society for all
What gets me riled up in this discussion is the idea that we need to pit one set of workers against another (and this is usually two vulnerable groups). When this it happens, neither of the two sides benefits (although someone else will benefit).
This anti-immigrant rhetoric leads to broken communities (where predominantly low-income Americans suffer). We have full jails, broken families and immigrants targeted for crime.
There is a reasonable progressive immigration policy that addresses social and economic needs without pitting vulnerable groups of people against each other.
You don't get there with bad economic-based attacks on immigrants.
----------------------
(1) http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/...
(2) http://www.splcenter.org/...