Thursday, April 28, 2011

Big Labor’s Trumka To Obama: Ignore Immigration Enforcement

Historically, the labor movement in America has resisted immigration. Its leaders tended to see immigrants as low-wage competition for their members and therefore they generally supported restrictionist policies. Some had even viewed immigration as a corporate scheme to weaken unions.

That changed in the 1990s. While Big Labor’s overall membership dwindled, it began having more success organizing immigrant-heavy employment sectors, especially in the service industry. A gradual replacement of labor’s older, more culturally conservative leadership with people more in tune with modern liberal thought also played a part.

Just how far the labor movement has gone in the pro-immigration direction became apparent in a commentary by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, posted online today. It’s part of a larger push by liberal groups to put immigration reform back on the political agenda. Trumka added a few thoughts about what President Obama could do while Congress wrestles with the issue:

While President Obama’s commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is vitally important, so much more can and should be done now to help ensure a solid foundation for tomorrow’s new Americans. The president can announce a policy of allowing Dream Act-eligible young people to stay in America until Congress passes comprehensive immigration legislation — so we can stop deporting the next generation of America’s doctors, teachers and engineers.

President Obama can direct ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) not to interfere in workplaces where workers have fought to improve conditions or are currently doing so. ICE should target employers that exploit workers, not employers trying to do the right thing. And the president can implement a humane and common-sense new prosecutorial discretion policy in keeping with ICE’s existing enforcement priorities.

Under Trumka’s framework, it appears the only enforcement ICE could do ... would be fining employers.

No comments: