There's a bit of a difference between "full-scale guest worker program" and slavery.
Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation.
Guest Worker Programs are a type of immigration policy that grants foreign workers temporary immigrant status so they may enter the country for the purpose of working. The defining feature of a guest worker program is that the immigrant’s legal status, or visa, is contingent on employment with a specific employer, or tied to a specific contract. The inability to change jobs without loosing legal status gives a great deal of power to the employer, and in practice has lead to extensive abuse of guest workers and violation of their labor rights as well as the terms of their contracts.
There are slight similarities between the two, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!
Bruce --
So what do we do with the estimated twelve million illegal immigrants in this country? Try to toss them all out? How many police are you going to have to hire to do that? How long will it take to train them, and how much money will it cost to equip them to do a job that might, in the long run, prove to be impossible anyway?
And what do we do with those industries, especially agriculture, that depend on migrant labor? Do we let them die, or contract to the point where the rest of the economy suffers? Can we do this now, at a time when the economy is already in the dumper?
I would posit that a wholesale revision of our immigration policy might be in order, to take into account the fact that, when the world's largest economy exists in the same hemisphere with some of the poorest economies, there will inevitably be people who cross borders to find work that will enable them to live. But I doubt that the GOP would be willing to entertain the notion of such a change in policy.
I understand the reasons you argue against a guest worker statute. Theoretically, you're right that such a law might lead to huge discrimination down the line. But doing nothing does not seem to be a viable alternative. Isn't there some way that a guest worker law could be tailored to avoid the excesses you fear?
Thanks for writing Chaos --
First, I would say that a guest worker program, in the United States, has typically been targeted at the other end of the job spectrum. Like when our law school had a need for someone to teach Canadian Labor Law.
We have no experience as a country, with a slave-holding past, of signing millions of people up to agreements written in languages they don't understand (they can't read their own languages), and will be unable to enforce.
The guest worker contracts, as a practical matter, and probably as a contractual matter, will contain many of the features that you attribute to slavery -- workers will be unable to leave, they will be unable to refuse to work, and they will, as a practical matter, receive no compensation --
Just like sharecroppers.
Just like owing your soul to the Company store.
Suppose I sign a guest worker contract in Missouri with Aunt Polly, and Aunt Polly decides to sell her business to Simon Legree. Simon decides to ship all the guest workers down to Mississippi. Wives and children not included. I can't refuse to go, because then I will be in violation of my agreement.
If I was subject to a true employment contract, I would be in breach, and be liable for money damages to my employer. He may even be able to prevent me from working where I like, but he will not be able to force me to go where I don't like.
According to the implications of what John McCain is saying, if I break a guest worker contract, I will be an illegal alien -- a criminal. There is only one class of workers in American History that were considered criminals if they left their jobs -- fugitive slaves.
Obviously, Chaos, neither you nor I have seen the actual legislation. However, working through these issues with you makes me see more clearly how a guest worker program can be the same as slavery, almost immediately.
Blue Mind --
I've mentioned this before, and I don't know if Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas would see it the way I do, but the Constitution has an amnesty plan -- it's called the 14th Amendment.
People who are born here are citizens here.
So when you talk about deporting illegals, you are oftentimes talking about deporting the parents of American citizens.
And I have nothing to offer people who will force American-born children to leave this country but the 7th circle of hell.
I don't know how to answer your question about the problems of big agriculture. I am not very sensitive to their complaints about the "need" for cheap labor.
Anyway, if we have all these agricultural jobs, then perhaps the solution is to allow for more legal immigration.
I guess, if it were up to me, I would:
a. Seal the borders tight, and let no one in.
b. Agree that we are not deporting families where the children are born in the U.S.A.
c. See if we really are talking about 12 million people then. Are we finally at a number that we can give an amnesty to without wrenching oursleves up?
d. Keep our borders sealed tight, but agree that we can take in a lot more legal immigrants -- refugees from our wars, refugees from global warming, refugees from everywhere. And if my view of a good immigrant pool is not popular, if there is a political census around the Patrick Buchanan view of what American citizenry should look like -so be it. Take in all the Europeans you want. Just don't complain about the price of bread.
e. It is very important to keep the borders sealed. No one has a right to be here. Certainly not illegally. Those are the breaks.
f. If we have an immigration policy that isn't working, then everyone just has to wait at the gate until we figure it out. On the other side of that, immigration policy is foreign policy. Local sheriffs have no business butting in.
g. All the people who are here should have a perfect right to make their way in the free world. I can live with certain restrictions -- like a different minimum wage for non-citizen farm workers. But a permanent guest worker program for 4,000,000 migrants or 44,000,000 migrants. I don't understand that at all. That's just not America.
h. Illegal immigration causes a corrosive disrespect for the rule of law.
i. A permanent underclass goes against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
More blather anon.
Lots of good points. Let me focus on just one. How do you seal the borders tight? Most of the border with Mexico is wide-open desert country. Are you proposing to build some sort of Berlin Wall type barricade? Are you aware of the tremendous financial and practical problems that would impose? It's never been done before on this planet to the extent that it would be necessary with a border the size of what we're talking about. I just don't think it could be done.
Today, there are more Border Patrol, DEA, ATF, and other federal and local law enforcement patrolling the border than ever before. And still the illegals come in by the hundreds every day. Are you proposing hiring thousands of more law enforcement officers to do the job, and if so, how do we pay for that?
It's just not that easy to seal the borders tight. Frankly, I believe it's impossible.
David:
I'm not so concerned about the money somehow -- if we can pay off all the banks, we can pay to secure our borders.
I'm more worried that too many police makes for too much police state.
What about the solution that you sometimes here floated that we should just leave the borders relatively open, and make it easier for everyone coming north to simply to go back and forth.
You wouldn't need a guest worker program since everyone would be a day laborer (or a seasonal laborer).
Is that at all practical?
Bruce --
I totally agree that a more liberal policy of legal immigration would be a good step to take. I wish it was politically viable, but there's the little problem of racism, which underlies so much of this issue, and that hasn't gone away, even in the Age of Obama.
I also agree with you that it would be ridiculous and inhuman to deport the parents of American-born children. It would be simply unacceptable on any terms.
The idea of granting amnesty to those illegals who are already here would set off a political firestorm, although I concur that it is probably part of a solution in the long-term.
I would love it if we could seal off the borders as you suggest, for national security reasons, as well as to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. But as George S. Patton once said, "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." And as many people, including ex-AZ gov Janet Napolitano, have said, if you build a fifty-foot fence, someone will just build a fifty-one foot ladder. David in AZ is in a position to watch what's happening along that border more closely than any of us, and I think he's right: sealing the borders that tightly simply isn't practical. And I'm not sure it's possible even if we were to spend an immense amount of money on the problem.
This is one of the most intractable problems facing the country, both because of the practical obstacles and the potential political fallout of almost any plan to deal with the situation.
Blue Mind Overseas
You say there's the little problem of racism dealing with illegal aliens.
So I have a question for you.
What "race" do illegal aliens belong to?
David
On sealing the border, I would suggest something like the Moroccan Wall but taller which lie in uninhabited or very sparsely inhabited territory. They consist of sand and stone walls with bunkers and fences.
You don't need to to build a wall from coast to coast. Make the desert country even more inhospitable in order to force any illegals trying to cross to head towards easier crossing areas, in those places you have federal and local law enforcement.
It would save lives and make it easier to apprehend smugglers and border crossers .
Commenting by HaloScan
