About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right wing discovers long-established Labor Dept. policy on unauthorized workers

June 22, 2010 4:22 pm ET — 71 Comments

Right-wing media have denounced Labor Secretary Hilda Solis' campaign informing vulnerable workers, including the undocumented, about the wage standards to which they are entitled. However, the Labor Department's policy of enforcing labor laws without regard to immigration status long predates the Obama administration; moreover, the enforcement of labor laws is widely seen -- even by those who advocate for greater restrictions on immigration -- as a key to discouraging employers from hiring unauthorized workers.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Right-wing media shocked that Dept. of Labor wants to crack down on exploitation of workers, including the undocumented

"We Can Help" campaign aims to inform workers about "the broad array of services offered by the Department of Labor." Solis announced the "We Can Help" campaign on April 1. A Labor Department press release states, "The effort, which is being spearheaded by the department's Wage and Hour Division, will help connect America's most vulnerable and low-wage workers with the broad array of services offered by the Department of Labor." Contrary to the suggestion made by some bloggers that the campaign and hotline were created solely for undocumented workers, they are aimed at all vulnerable workers, regardless of immigration status.

Fox & Friends: "That's crazy" and "unbelievable." On June 22, Fox & Friends aired the Labor Department's public service announcement for the campaign, which has been on the Internet since April 1, but was only recently discovered by the right-wing media. In the video, Solis states, "Remember, every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not." Co-host Brian Kilmeade stated, "Is that unbelievable? That's the most flagrant --" and co-host Steve Doocy added: "That's crazy. That's a public service announcement made by the federal government of the United States of America."

Perino: "[M]ost of your viewers probably just fell out of their chairs as they watched that video." On June 21, Fox News' Greta Van Susteren aired the public service announcement and Fox News contributor Dana Perino responded: "I think that most of your viewers probably just fell out of their chairs as they watched that video." Perino went on to suggest that the Labor Department should not "turn a blind eye to your immigration status" while enforcing labor standards, despite the fact that during the Bush administration the Labor Department also said it would "enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act without regard to whether an employee is documented or undocumented." During the segment, Van Susteren added, "[T]he whole concept of sort of picking and choosing what laws we're going to enforce is rather awkward."

Fox Nation: "Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages." On June 21, The Fox Nation posted the public service announcement under the headline: "Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages":

Hot Air: "The only interest that the government should have is enforcing the border and immigration laws." Linking to The Fox Nation, Hot Air blogger Ed Morrissey stated, "Now suddenly Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has established a hotline number, not for people to tip the government to employers breaking the law, but to act as an agent for illegals to make sure they get paid 'fairly.'" Morrissey added, "Instead of enforcing the law - which is, after all, the raison d'être of the executive branch -- they're conspiring to help people break it, and with our tax dollars, no less," and asserted that "[t] he only interest that the government should have is enforcing the border and immigration laws."

The Daily Caller: "White House wants illegals to be paid 'fairly' for their work." The Daily Caller posted the video on June 22 under the headline, "White House wants illegals to be paid 'fairly' for their work." The post further stated: "Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis says in a new public service announcement that, 'whether documented or not,' workers in the United States has [sic] the 'right to be treated fairly' and paid for their work. To that tend, the administration has established a telephone number that allows immigrants to report their working conditions."

Applying labor standards to undocumented workers is established practice

Legal experts: "Regardless of their legal status," workers are protected by Fair Labor Standards Act. The Associated Press reported on June 7, 2006, that a study by professors at Tulane University and the University of California at Berkeley found that immigrant workers involved in post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction are "vulnerable to exploitation." The article further noted:

Under federal labor law, illegal immigrants are afforded the same health and safety protections as documented workers. Regardless of their legal status, laborers can sue most employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act for violation of the minimum wage law and overtime regulations, the researchers said.

Courts have said FLSA applies to unauthorized workers. Dennise A. Calderon-Barrera wrote in a 2003 article for the Harvard Latino Law Review that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) "makes it unlawful for an employer knowingly to hire or continue employing unauthorized aliens or to fail to verify the identity and work authorization of an individual hired for employment." Calderon-Barrera added, "Courts, both before and after the passage of the IRCA, have recognized that undocumented workers are employees as defined" in the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

Congress did not intend for 1986 immigration reform law to "undermine or diminish in any way labor protections." Calderon-Barrera also noted that in 1986, the House Judiciary Committee said it did not intend for employer sanctions to limit the power of labor standards agencies "to remedy unfair practices committed against undocumented employees":

It is not the intention of the Committee that the employer sanctions provisions of the bill be used to undermine or diminish in any way labor protections in existing law, or to limit the powers of federal or state labor relations boards, labor standards agencies, or labor arbitrators to remedy unfair practices committed against undocumented employees for exercising their rights before such agencies or for engaging in activities protected by existing law.

Calderon-Barrera also wrote that the House Committee on Education and Labor "recognized that limiting the powers of labor agencies 'to remedy unfair practices committed against undocumented employees for exercising their rights before such agencies or for engaging in activities protected by these agencies . . . would be counter productive of [Congress'] intent to limit the hiring of undocumented employees.' "

Bush Labor Department reportedly acknowledged that FLSA protects workers "without regard to whether an employee is documented or undocumented." The Bush administration has been criticized for "lax enforcement of labor laws." However, Bush Labor Department officials acknowledged in interviews that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not mention immigration status. On January 17, 2006, The Dallas Morning News reported on labor law violations by companies involved in Hurricane Katrina clean-up. The report noted:

The Labor Department said it "recognizes that many workers are reluctant to file complaints because of their immigration status."

Its wage and hour division enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act, which provides for minimum wage and overtime pay "without regard to whether an employee is documented or undocumented," [spokeswoman Dolline] Hatchett said.

 From a February 26, 2007, Rocky Mountain News article:

The Davis-Bacon Act, which applies to all federal construction projects, requires that workers receive prevailing wages plus fringe benefits, which is money that normally goes to an employee in the form of health insurance and other perks.

The law applies to all workers, whether in the country legally or not, said Alex Salaiz, district director of the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division in Denver.

All employees who work for companies that generate at least $500,000 in gross sales must pay minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Salaiz said.

Bush Labor Department: "[O]nly DHS has the authority to enforce the employer sanction provisions." In Congressional testimony on July 25, 2006, Al Robinson, then-acting administrator of the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) explained that the Immigration and Nationality Act "provides DHS with the responsibility for investigating compliance" with the employer sanctions provisions and that "no such statutory authority with the I-9 is provided to the Department of Labor."

Bush Labor Department: Labor Dept. responsibility "is the effective enforcement of labor laws to ensure that all covered workers, irrespective of their immigration status, are afforded full benefits and protections." In his testimony, Robinson stated that "WHD's primary responsibility is the effective enforcement of labor laws to ensure that all covered workers, irrespective of their immigration status, are afforded full benefits and protections. Labor law enforcement not only helps ensure fairness and acceptable workplace standards, but also helps foster a level competitive playing field for employers who seek to comply with the law." Robinson also stated that the Department of Labor does not enforce the law prohibiting employers from hiring unauthorized workers "so as to not discourage workers, regardless of their immigration status or that of their co-workers, from reporting potential violations of employment standards." From the hearing:

The INA provides DHS with the responsibility for investigating compliance with the I-9 requirements, assessing civil penalties and initiating appropriate legal proceedings. No such statutory authority with the I-9 is provided to the Department of Labor (DOL).

[...]

WHD's primary responsibility is the effective enforcement of labor laws to ensure that all covered workers, irrespective of their immigration status, are afforded full benefits and protections. Labor law enforcement not only helps ensure fairness and acceptable workplace standards, but also helps foster a level competitive playing field for employers who seek to comply with the law. The INA provides only a limited role for DOL in reviewing the I-9 forms. As noted previously, only DHS has the authority to enforce the employer sanction provisions of the INA. These respective roles of DHS and DOL are reflected in the MOU [Memorandum of Understanding].

The MOU obligates WHD's investigative staff to perform two activities to assist DHS in its enforcement of Section 274A of the INA. First, during any onsite visit to an employer's premises, WHD's staff advises employers about their legal responsibilities to verify the employment eligibility of potential employees; advises employers about the anti- discrimination provisions of the INA; and provides employers with a copy of the DHS publication Handbook for Employers: Instructions for Completing the I-9 and information from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.

The second activity WHD performs is an inspection of the I-9 forms. WHD conducts such reviews of completed I-9 forms only in non-complaint-based investigations under the FLSA and other laws it enforces so as to not discourage workers, regardless of their immigration status or that of their co-workers, from reporting potential violations of employment standards. In other words, these reviews are limited to directed investigations that are initiated by WHD.

Enforcement of labor laws is widely seen as disincentive to hiring undocumented workers

Study: "Workplace Violations Are Severe and Widespread in Low-Wage Labor Markets." A 2008 survey of 4,387 low-wage workers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City found that many employment and labor laws are regularly and systematically violated, impacting a significant part of the low-wage labor force in the nation's largest cities." As The New York Times noted, "The study found that women were far more likely to suffer minimum wage violations than men, with the highest prevalence among women who were illegal immigrants."

Labor Department: "No employer should have an unfair advantage because he employs undocumented employees and doesn't pay them." The Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department states on its website: "WHD will continue to enforce the FLSA and MSPA without regard to an employee's immigration status. No employer should have an unfair advantage because he employs undocumented employees and doesn't pay them."

Krikorian: "[T]he more it costs to hire illegal aliens, the more employers might turn to legal workers." An April 23, 2006, New York Times article reported that Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors greater restrictions on immigration, said of centers helping unauthorized workers file labor complaints: "The bad part is these groups become lobbies for illegal aliens ... On the other hand, they help people stiffed out of their wages. That can serve a purpose because it raises the price of hiring illegal aliens, and the more it costs to hire illegal aliens, the more employers might turn to legal workers." A March 2, 2005, Dallas Morning News article (accessed via Nexis) also quoted Krikorian:

"It is good that labor laws and wage and hour laws apply to illegal immigrants," he said, noting that if the laws didn't apply, such workers would be even more attractive to employers.

"But the illegal alien needs to be deported after he gets compensated," Mr. Krikorian said.

Bush admin: Enforcing labor standards "will help to reduce the economic incentive for such illegal employment practices." The Bush administration's 2003 budget states:

The Budget maintains resources for the Wage and Hour Division which are assigned to areas where employment of illegal immigrants is most prevalent. The targeting of labor standards enforcement efforts in those industries and geographic areas where authorized workers are most prevalent will help to reduce the economic incentive for such illegal employment practices and will, in turn, help reduce illegal immigration.

Drum Major Institute: Punishing workplace violations protects American workers from wage theft. Amy Traub, research director at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy wrote on April 8 that cracking down on workplace violations is "the best way to protect U.S. citizens both from blatant wage theft and from the more insidious downward pressure on wages, benefits, and working conditions that comes from having a large population of workers who cannot effectively assert their right to the minimum wage, overtime, and other fundamental workplace protections." Traub added:

As I noted last year in The Nation:

Because undocumented workers are often too afraid of deportation to speak up about workplace abuses, unscrupulous employers can cut immigrants' wages and benefits and degrade working conditions with impunity. Exploiting undocumented workers can drag down wages for other workers, especially those with little education: as their employers are forced to compete with companies that exploit immigrants, entire industries may see wages decline.

Unauthorized workers "accept whatever wage is offered," "don't protest out of fear of being fired or deported." Jennifer Gordon of Fordham Law School wrote in a March 9, 2009, New York Times op-ed that "millions of undocumented immigrants accept whatever wage is offered. They don't protest out of fear of being fired or deported." Gordon has reportedly said that increasing enforcement of wage and safety laws "would reduce the incentive to hire the undocumented, and raise standards for all workers."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by southerngal (June 22, 2010 5:16 pm ET)
      2 15
      Employers will continue to exploit and hire illegal immigrants at dirt cheap wages, while displacing and firing American workers, as long as the Wall Street Journal Republicans slurp up the profits made with the decreased labor costs. Very little political will to change or prosecute said employers.

      Far left open border advocacy groups will continue to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, while tacitly encouraging the illegal influx and pushing for some useless comprehensive plan that grants amnesty. The "pay a fine" and "back of the line" nonsense is just that. It will never be enforced, just as many immigration laws are left unenforced now. Very little political will here either.

      Which is why states and communities are left having to deal with this problem our federal government doesn't have the political will to fix.

      Pathetic.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (June 22, 2010 6:03 pm ET)
        11 2
        Your imaginary far-left open border advocacy groups? Name one.

        See, I know that you can't. They don't exist except in the minds of crazies like you who distort and deceive.

        Those groups on the left that recognize that we need more legal immigration don't support open borders.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (June 22, 2010 6:15 pm ET)
          2 13
          Look at the links congero provided on the earlier thread today. Great example there.

          La Raza.
          Catholic Church.
          MALDEF.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by phredicles (June 22, 2010 6:47 pm ET)
            8 1
            The Catholic Church is a far left organization? For once I'm wondering what BJ Fan would say whilst reading such a statement.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by rumpleteasermom (June 22, 2010 6:47 pm ET)
            10 2
            Can you provide any links to statements on their websites indicating that your allegations are true?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (June 22, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
                10
              Go to their websites if you're interested.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (June 22, 2010 7:06 pm ET)
                12 1
                You could have just said, "No." It would have been easier.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by rumpleteasermom (June 23, 2010 11:48 am ET)
                2 2
                Go to their websites if you're interested.

                I've been to their websites, and I find nothing of the sort. Which is why I asked you to provide links to specific pages.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 11:51 am ET)
                  2 3
                  So the next time a liberal says this so and so is a racist or this secure border advocate organization hates brown people I will wait for you to ask for specific links to document that charge. I will wait.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 12:45 pm ET)
                    3  
                    When was that not done?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
                        3
                      You phony hypocrite. Look at thread from yesterday where you called people racists, nativists, and on and on. Show me where that is on their "web page"?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
                        3  
                        No you made the allegation now back it up with an example. Those charges were not made in the abstract examples were provided show where they were wrong.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:21 pm ET)
                            3
                          Your incoherence is showing, your post doesn't even make sense. You back up your endless charges of racism and nativism with some admission of it on their website.

                          The above groups I listed are absolutely for open borders and amnesty, look at their propaganda and their intentions and their missions. If you don't buy it, I couldn't care less.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:31 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Whatever dude. You said my post called people racist and nativist without proof or examples of what they were talking about. You have yet to provide an example where that was done and it was not backed up.
                            Your ranting and name calling means nothing to me show in the links I provided that those they named and the policies they critiqued were not backed up.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:35 pm ET)
                                3
                              Huh? You made the racist and nativist charges, it's up to you to prove them. Not just with your own barometer of them being for secure borders first. That is the extent of your "proof". As I said, you are a hypocrite, and a phony.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
                                2  
                                I did.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
                                  3  
                                  The links I provided backed up their claims they didn't just throw those charges around as I said before examples were provided. You on the other hand have not proved me wrong. You care to refute it or most likely continue your temper tantrum.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
                                      3
                                    Your only proof is because they want secure borders first before anything else that makes them racists and nativists. That's your proof.

                                    That is no proof.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
                                      3  
                                      lol. Your purposeful distortion of the series just shows you got nothing. You have yet to offer proof and quite frankly your're becoming quite the bore with your temper tantrums. It seems like you might need to a "Depends" change. I heard wet diapers can make one quite irritable.
                                      Report Abuse
                              • Author by tinka (June 23, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
                                3  
                                growup right(wrong)ON
                                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tbone Slickens (June 23, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
                  1 2
                  Been to this one?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (June 23, 2010 2:45 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    That group doesn't support open borders.

                    The whole POINT of my post challenging RightON to provide evidence of far-left groups that support open borders!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
                        2
                      He just did, they have no use for borders. You are either incredibly naively clueless, or just dishonest. You tell us.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
                           
                        You prove the axiom true: "Ain't no fool like an old fool." Again no proof of what you allege by this Catholic group.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 3:10 pm ET)
                            2
                          Your insistence for iron clad admissions as proof for "right wing" claims is mirrored by your sloppy challenges for any proof for "left wing" claims. For you not to be able to at least recognize that is all anyone needs to know about your credibility and your "claims".

                          Carry on.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
                               
                            I like the progression now it's iron clad proof. No grumpy just asking for proof of what you claim.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 5:02 pm ET)
                                2
                              Well I guess if you are looking for something like "WE WANT NO BORDERS" in big bold letters on their websites, then if you were intellectually honest you would look for "I HATE BROWN PEOPLE" on those of the people you are speaking of.

                              But you aren't, so you won't.
                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
                        2
                      Sue, You are just once again ticked off because when you asked for one example, I gave you three. And here you are again with egg on your face and you won't wipe it off.

                      It's what happens when you "scramble" yourself up and can't get loose.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by rumpleteasermom (June 24, 2010 10:14 am ET)
                           
                        And I'm still waiting for your to be done bickering with DD and provide ME links to where these groups are promoting open borders.

                        I'm beginning to think that you don't understand the difference between comprehensive immigration reform and no immigration laws at all.

                        Oh, and re:
                        So the next time a liberal says this so and so is a racist or this secure border advocate organization hates brown people I will wait for you to ask for specific links to document that charge. I will wait.
                        So you are saying that because *I* personally and specifically, am asking *YOU* personally ad specifically, to back up what YOU have stated, I must in turn back up everything ever stated by someone you don't agree with? Am I reading that correctly?
                        Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (June 23, 2010 12:13 am ET)
            4 1
            They don't support open borders.

            Massive Fail!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (June 23, 2010 12:57 pm ET)
                3
              Are you referring to Catholics? If so YOU fail.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
                  3
                Absolutely. The Catholic Church sees future parishioners, which means more money. It's simple. Thanks for the link.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:24 pm ET)
                2  
                I don't think you read your own material. This organization is calling for comprehensive immigration reform where are they advocating open borders?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:26 pm ET)
                    3
                  You are so phony it's incredible. You can't even be honest about what you want. I would definitely put you in the open border far left loony crowd. You have said you don't differentiate between illegal workers in this country and American citizens, did you not? You have no use for a border, and you know it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
                    2  
                    You rant and rant but offer no proof. Your rants put you in the loony right-wing lunactic fringe. I could give a rats behind what you think about me or this issue. This ain't about me but solving this problem but wasn't it you who posed this question yesterday between illegal and legal immigration? I wasn't aware that all who are here legally were American citenzens. Show me my statement where I juxtaposed the two.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
                        3
                      "This ain't about me but solving this problem"

                      But this is us discussing our opinions.

                      Forget it.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Yes you need to take a nap with your informed opinion that Catholics are looking for more parisherners concerning the immigration issue. Next you will tell me this is not about brown people but securing our borders. I can see why you are so defensive.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 1:57 pm ET)
                            3
                          "Next you will tell me this is not about brown people but securing our borders"

                          LOL! If you weren't so simple, this would be hard.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
                            2  
                            Must be an inside joke among you kooks. You were the one who brought up the Catholic church was for immigration reform because it would increase their base. I think the bishops saw it as a moral issue which they say at the site provided by your compadre. You on the other hand make a claim totally unsubstantiated and quite frankly disgusting and now when called on it you want to play it off. You should have thought about that before you pressed the save button.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
                                4
                              So now open disappearing borders are a "moral issue"? Well now that is a kicker. LOL
                              Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (June 23, 2010 12:16 am ET)
            4  
            Hmmm, who has the responsibility to provide the links that back up what you say?

            Duh.... that would be YOU, RightON, not someone else.

            If the links were provided on another thread, FIND THEM and put them here.

            Or Massively Fail, like you did.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (June 23, 2010 12:21 am ET)
            4  
            And what does MALDEF, for example, say on their own website in response to charges that they and other groups support "open borders"? In response to an allegation by Lou Dobbs labeled under "truth in immigration", they said

            That Dobbs decided to go back on such heinous statement is encouraging, but the fact that he continues to characterize the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, as well as numerous other advocacy groups, as “open borders” continues to be unacceptable. Nearly every major Hispanic advocacy organization supports comprehensive immigration reform, which has always included measures to strengthen border security. To call these groups “open borders” is a factual lie, and it must stop.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 22, 2010 6:13 pm ET)
        6  
        Far left open border advocacy groups will continue to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, while tacitly encouraging the illegal influx and pushing for some useless comprehensive plan that grants amnesty.
        That's not just a description of far left groups (not that I can think of any far left groups that even espouse that position). It is a central Libertarian (and some folks think the TeaPartiers are supposed to be Libertarians) idea though.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Disputed Zone (June 23, 2010 2:27 am ET)
          2 1
          The open borders crowd is tough to find. I haven't seen a poll that asks directly, but in a recent Gallup poll, 10% of Americans said it was “not that important... that the government take steps this year to deal wi... [c]ontrolling U.S. borders to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S." Open borders advocates are small fraction of that 10%.

          But the actual meanings of words don't seem to matter when a conservative's hot buttons get pushed. Open border advocate becomes anyone who doesn't think we need to do more to secure the border, now. There is an implicit disdain for the people working the line today in this conflation.

          And because of this abuse of the language, it's hard to find real open border supporters on the net. Search "open borders advocate" and you get page after page of conservatives falsely claiming some liberal or some other conservative is for open borders. The real advocates I did come across were Libertarians, though ones with more consistency than Tea Partiers typically exhibit.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 11:17 am ET)
            2 4
            That's funny though. Because anytime a liberal posts here about some group or some person who is a strong advocate of secure borders and strict enforcement of our immigration laws, of course they are xenophobes and racists and hate brown people. That is a given here, never challenged.

            "But the actual meanings of words don't seem to matter when a liberals hot buttons get pushed. Secure border advocate racist xenophobes becomes anyone who thinks we need to do more to secure the border, now"

            Funny, isn't it?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 12:49 pm ET)
              2  
              Funny how you don't provide any examples of what you say. When those charges are made they are backed up with documentation.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
                  2
                LOL!!!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 1:48 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  lol.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (June 23, 2010 2:48 pm ET)
                  1  
                  It's funny that he caught you failing to provide a SINGLE example backing up what you say when the point is that you failed to back up what you were saying earlier?

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (June 22, 2010 6:24 pm ET)
        9  
        Employers will continue to exploit and hire illegal immigrants at dirt cheap wages, while displacing and firing American workers,etc

        OK, I agree with that. (That's a little unusual)

        Far left open border advocacy groups will continue to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, while tacitly encouraging the illegal influx etc

        Opps, now you lost me again.
        I can't seem to find any advocacy groups for Open Borders, although there does appear to be a lot of anger about open borders on the right. What I find curious is this line out of the Wikipedia entry:

        1. Nation-states and closed borders are a relatively recent development in human history, and serve primarily to protect the interests of ruling elites.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by newzhound (June 23, 2010 8:53 am ET)
             
          I've posted this before this will be a very brief summary: Look at the history of illegal immigration into our country and the rise of Caesar Chavez's United Farm Workers union.

          We didn't have this influx until the UFW gained some basic rights for its members.

          And when folks yell about amnesty not working, what went wrong the last time it was tried?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by RedChocobo (June 22, 2010 7:12 pm ET)
        3  
        Your first paragraph is spot on. Unfortunately we have a system that allows illegal immigrants to be victimized while at the same time appearing beneficial. Just like all groups of people, there are good ones and there are bad ones but we have to ask ourselves, why don't we care about Canadian illegal immigrants?

        The solution to this problem will require both liberal and conservative viewpoints but whatever solution is taken will be highly polarizing. Therefore, it won't get touched with a 10-foot pole.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (June 22, 2010 9:50 pm ET)
          1  
          Just like all groups of people, there are good ones and there are bad ones but we have to ask ourselves, why don't we care about Canadian illegal immigrants?

          Because Canadians aren't willing to work for $5/hour working as a fish gutter??
          Report Abuse
          • Author by newzhound (June 23, 2010 8:49 am ET)
               
            Perhaps because it would be very difficult for a cop in New York, Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota to pull over someone suspected of Driving While Canadian.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (June 22, 2010 6:24 pm ET)
      6  
      You mean that enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act against employers will make it less likely that they will hire illegals?

      Doh.

      This is a shock to somebody? I think that employers ought to have to pay the illegals' required wages if they're caught hiring them, and then make a payment in the same amount to the government. The issue of illegal immigration has always been one for Republican constituencies wanting to exploit workers, and this just illustrates that vividly.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Jose4 (June 22, 2010 9:59 pm ET)
        7
      First generation undocumented workers are more desirable than documented workers for manual labor even at the same wage because they are stronger and work harder.

      After they become Americanized no one wants to hire them for manual labor even at the same wage. There are exceptions but not many.




      Report Abuse
      • Author by bilbo_dies (June 23, 2010 11:03 am ET)
        2  
        WTF!!!

        Are you saying that living (or growing up) in America makes you weak?

        Or are you really trying to say that it is easier to take advantage of someone who doesn't understand the laws of America and might consider working fo $5/hour a good thing when they only got $2/day back home??
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RedChocobo (June 23, 2010 1:43 pm ET)
          1  
          Yep, I think that's pretty much what he's saying. It's like dual edged racism at its best.

          "might consider working fo $5/hour a good thing when they only got $2/day back home??"
          I touched on this in a previous post, if we stop the exploitation of immigrants than we will actually make some headway into the immigration issue. We just need to stop dancing around the fact that there is a huge base of Latino people in this country that are just as American as the rest of us and we should respect them as we respect all Americans.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
             
          I'm saying that someone who grew up on beans and rice with hard work is stronger than someone growing up on Big Macs and TV.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
               
            How about someone who grew up on beans and rice and TV? Would the person who grew up on Big Macs be stronger than the person on beans and rice but watched TV if they cut out the TV? How about if instead of TV they both ate beans and rice but added Big Macs who would be stronger then? lol. What a kook.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
                 
              It is clear that you don't know much about immigrant laborers.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
                   
                It's clear you don't know much about anything.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
                    1
                  I'll bet you are one of the over weight Americanized workers.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 23, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
                       
                    Like I said it's clear you don't know much about anything.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (June 23, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
                       
                    Why do you hate America?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Jose4 (June 23, 2010 7:40 pm ET)
                        1
                      I like America, I don't like where it is going.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2010 5:25 pm ET)
                           
                        We all have to wait through administrations we don't particularly care for. I had to wait 8 years for the country to return to sanity. You get no sympathy for me because the government isn't quite as fascist or libertarian as it seems you prefer.
                        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (June 23, 2010 2:53 am ET)
      2 1
      I am sick and tired of English-illiterate Mexicans taking all our jobs that require a 4-year college diploma and superior communication skills.

      Next thing you know, they'll take Stephen King's job! I don't want Mexicans writing 1,000 page novels in a language they haven't mastered! Where's the justice in that?

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by newzhound (June 23, 2010 8:50 am ET)
        2  
        Not to mention all those Caribbean and South American baseball players on I-9 (I believe that is the correct designation) visas taking jobs from American baseball players.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.