The lower middle class and the second generation immigrants are so divided over the issue of immigration that they are unable to think about policies that would be beneficial to both their causes. Yes, contrary to what it may appear, the interests of second generation immigrants is not completely contrary to the interests of those feeling the negetive employment impacts from immigration. First, let me be specific. "Second generation immigrants" in this thread is mainly dealing with hispanics (in the USA) and muslims (in the UK) that typically take up low paying jobs under poor working conditions. Of course, this is a simplification because the situation is much more complex than that, but this is mainly what the immigration debate is about so let us not derail this discussion from the main phenomena going on. The first thing we should remember is that the corporate donors to the political parties want the availability of cheap labor to increase their profits, and to reduce the power of workers unions, which cause annoying problems for businesses. There are other ideological reasons political parties may have for allowing high levels of immigration, and the liberal parties are happy to get more votes from second generation immigrants, but the most important reason is cheap labor. So now to discuss what common ground second generation immigrants have with those who are against immigration. The underpaid workers, many of whom are laboring under poor working conditions for long hours, want higher wages and the ability to form their own worker's unions to help protect their interests. In the USA, workers who are illegally in the country want protections from being deported if they try to unionize. Here are some proposals: 1. Government laws that would be very favorable towards, and make it easy to form, worker's unions. Such laws would only apply at businesses that employ illegal labor. Companies that do not employ illegal labor would be exempt, and the burden of proof would be on the company to show that it is not hiring workers that are illegally residing in the country. 2. Higher minimum wage based on regional cost of living. This needs to be implemented at the highest levels of government. The local governments cannot be relied upon because the different regions are competing economically with eachother. If most of the regions raise the minimum wage, while a few regions do not, the regions with the lower minimum wage will divert business away from the higher-wage regions. It would be like trying to ban gambling in the city. Local ordinances are completely useless because the people can just go to another nearby city to gamble. And cooperation amongst local cities will often not work, because it only one of the cities is likely to want all the tax-revenue/gambling business from residents of the other cities. Another example is local government welfare. If any local government gives out too much welfare benefits, it will just attract more poor people from other areas. That is why welfare needs to be administered at the nation-wide level. There should be minimum wage exceptions for teenagers/young adults, physically/mentally challenged people, and elderly workers. This is to prevent a high minimum wage from pushing them out of the labor market. Since unemployment rates are extremely high amongst the young and amongst the elderly, it would also be a very effective form of non-racially based affirmative action. In both Britain and the USA, it has been these workers that have been most effected (displaced from employment) by all the immigrant labor. 3. In the USA, companies should pay for a fraction of the healthcare costs for their illegal workers. Many of these underpaid illegal workers cannot afford to see a doctor. It is actually not uncommon for them to go to an emergency room for treatment when one of their children gets a bad cold! The taxpayers end up paying the cost of cheap labor for the businesses which hire illegal workers. If you are against illegal immigration, your instinctual response is probably, "Then the government should start enforcing its own laws and deport the illegals!". But this has not happened, nor is government policy likely to significantly change. So please consider the message in this thread without getting distracted by what you think the ideal solution would be. Even if you strongly oppose immigration, you should nevertheless still support a law that would force employers to pay for the medical costs of their illegal workers. Someone has to pay for these costs. Why should it be the middle class taxpayers instead of the corporations that are benefitting from the illegal labor? If the employer was even just forced to provide basic primary care health services to the families of employees, this would cost the employer far less than what the taxpayers have to pay to provide such treatment at the emergency rooms. Even if you think the government should just stop treating illegals in the emergency rooms, there are a number of reasons that would make it difficult to stop. Again, please do not get distracted from what is being proposed here. If you want, you can go try to stop illegals from having access to medical care, but do not let that stop you from also supporting the proposal here, which is more politically viable. Consider that this proposal would help "punish" businesses that hire illegal laborers, and it is much more politically viable than the exact policies that you might ideally want. The federal and state governments are trying to cut their budgets, making employers pay for a fraction of the health care costs of their illegal workers should seem like a good idea for them. Second generation immigrants (who vote) should also support the idea if it gives other illegal workers of their same ethnicity better access to a primary care doctor. For example, an employer might be required to pay for a plan that allows the illegal workers to be able to see a doctor twice a year. 4. The (USA) federal government has been doing virtually nothing to punish businesses that hire illegal workers. Even if you want the USA to start enforcing its own laws, perhaps you should consider a temporary solution that would be more politically viable. Get the government to cooperate and not investigate any the illegals at companies where the workers are unionized, or have just begun to try to unionize. This proposal would only apply to industries that typically employ large proportions of illegal workers. If workers did not fear deportation they would be much more likely to form unions. The employer would not be able to use tip offs to the Immigration Department, and thus the threat of deportation, as retribution against workers that tried to unionize. The real reason that the Republican Party lets in illegals, but refuses to give them legal working status, is to prevent them from being able to unionize. This proposal would no doubt gain support from Hispanic voters, but it also should be acceptable to most of those against illegal immigration. If the ability of corporations to exploit desperate illegal immigrants is lessened, perhaps the corporations will be a little less inclined to hire illegal workers instead of legal workers. Corporations absolutely hate unions. This is one of the main reason that illegal immigrants have been allowed to work in the USA. Helping illegal workers to form unions would both punish corporations for having employed illegals, and perhaps reduce the draw that businesses have toward illegal workers.
Here are some of my suggestions for basic immigration criteria that we should all be following. Both sides of the political divide benefit short term from over supply of immigration. The rich benefit from a crowded work force, and supply, accomodation, and infrastructure demands, the unions also benefit from a hungry work force. In today`s technical world, it`s much harder for immigrants to adjust than it was in the past, a higher percentage of immigrants need support and assistance now. 1. Only take in immigrants of cultures compatible with western lifestyle. 2. Establish benign assimilation programs that assist immigrants in settling in to their new environment, don`t just dump them in a rut. 3. Only take in mumbers of immigrants that can be placed in employment for the forseeable future. 4. Place reasonable obligations on all immigrants to stay in employment.
