Hasty Call for Amnesty

New York Times, February 22, 2000

The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s call for the government to grant amnesty to an estimated six million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States and to eliminate most sanctions on employers who hire them in the future was a surprising turnabout. Until now, organized labor has fought hard to keep illegal workers from taking jobs from higher-paid union workers.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s proposal is attractive to many groups. Unions welcome the chance to go after a huge new pool of unorganized workers. Employers welcome the chance to hire cheap labor without fear of criminal liability. And illegal immigrants who have worked hard for years and raised families under harrowing circumstances would welcome access to medical care and other services denied to illegal aliens.

But the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s proposal should be rejected. Amnesty would undermine the integrity of the country’s immigration laws and would depress the wages of its lowest-paid native-born workers.

Back in 1986, Congress granted amnesty to an estimated three million illegal immigrants as part of a law that also promised to crack down on further illegal immigration by imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly violated the law. At that time, this page endorsed amnesty because it was tied to measures that promised to keep further rounds of illegal immigration in check. But 14 years later there are twice as many illegal workers, and employer sanctions are widely deemed a joke. {snip}

The primary problem with amnesties is that they beget more illegal immigration. {snip}

It is also unfair to unskilled workers already in the United States.{snip} The better course of action is to honor America’s proud tradition by continuing to welcome legal immigrants and find ways to punish employers who refuse to obey the law.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Erasmus

    The AFL-CIO, a bunch of traitors, just like the dems and the GOP.

    • Bill

      Ya gotta wonder how the MEMBERS feel. Do they realize the stubbies will be replacing Americans? Or is the AFL-CIO under the impression these stubbies, if legalized, will JOIN unions? Rather, they will continue to work under the table, suck up social bennies, send their money home (what they don’t spend on child prostitutes), and take jobs from union employees working under the table. They just won’t have to run any more when somebody shouts “IMMIGRACION!” Unions. No longer for the working man. All part of the Socialist elites trying to ruin and rule over America at the same time.

  • sbuffalonative

    But the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s proposal should be rejected. Amnesty would undermine the integrity of the country’s immigration laws and would depress the wages of its lowest-paid native-born workers.

    My goodness. Where did this come from?

    At that time, this page endorsed amnesty because it was tied to measures that promised to keep further rounds of illegal immigration in check. But 14 years later there are twice as many illegal workers, and employer sanctions are widely deemed a joke.

    This has been one of my main points against this second ‘one-time-only’ amnesty.

    We were told (or sold a lie) that the first amnesty would stop illegal immigration because businesses would be required to only hire legal residents. If this one rule had been followed, there would be few if any illegal aliens in the country.

    Few if any businesses were ever prosecuted and they knew they didn’t need to require proof of legal residence.

    Now they tell us e-verification will work. Why should we believe them? They lied before and what proof do we have this time that the government will enforce e-verification and prosecute those who break the law?

    • The__Bobster

      But 14 years later there are twice as many illegal workers, and employer sanctions are widely deemed a joke.
      ___________

      Only twice? Get real.

  • The__Bobster

    The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s call for the government to grant amnesty to an estimated six million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States and to eliminate most sanctions on employers who hire them in the future was a surprising turnabout.
    __________

    Now it’s down to six million squat monster invaders? Hell, if we wait long enough, there won’t be any of the stubbies here.

    • Jefferson

      Six million is a major under count. The real number of squat monsters in this country is most likely larger than the entire population of the state of Florida.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      The New York Times wrote this in 2000, when the official estimate was six million.

  • snake oil salesmen

    What the hell is immigration reform? There is no such thing. This is a crock.

    There are laws and there are law breakers only. Smoke and mirrors reverse psychology at play here. Dont buy this snake oil.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/rush-asks-rubio-if-gop-is-committing-suicide-through-immigration-reform.php?ref=fpa

  • bigone4u

    Amren almost fooled me with this one. The NY Times against amnesty? I kept looking and then I saw the date: February 2000. Hey, thirteen years later they’re for it. They were against amnesty before they were for it, as John Kerry might say in Kerry-speak.

    • RHG

      Of course they’re all for it now, since they are the mouthpiece for the Democrat Party they now see how advantageous it would be the Democrat Party to have these illegals now given citizenship and the right to vote.

  • NYB

    The AFL-CIO resolution calls for an immediate amnesty for Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans and Haitians who fled their countries in the 1980s and early 1990s. Other beneficiaries of the immediate amnesty would be Liberians in the US who fled the recent civil war in their home country, and as many as 350,000 long-term US residents who were denied amnesty in 1986.

    The spokesperson for labor is a Mexican woman. Linda Chavez-Thompson is the Executive Vice-President of the AFL-CIO.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      El Salvador and Honduras are already under TPS status, as is Haiti, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Syria. TPS means “Temporary Protected Status,” and it allows illegal immigrants from the above countries to stay in the U.S. and work legally.

      It’s called ‘temporary,’ but it never actually ends. It just gets reauthorized, over and over, until liberals can say “But they’ve established lives here, put down roots! We can’t send them back now!”

      I’m surprised anyone is still bothering to lobby for amnesty for people from these countries. They don’t need it. The work permit is the amnesty, and they already have that.

  • George White

    This is by far the craziest endorsement of all….labor LEADERSHIP saying yes to making legal MILLIONS of invaders who will work for pennies, while DESTROYING the very membership of the unions themselves. This is total and complete insanity.

  • Bobby

    Oh, that’s funny, the Unions are a Democrat party thing, aren’t they. And doesn’t the democrat party support the “working man”? Yes, the non-white working man, is what the democrat party supports.

    • Alexandra

      My understanding is it used to, until it was hijacked by feminists, gays, and other left wing nutjobs.

      • Bobby

        Alexandra, thank you for pointing out the role of gays and feminists in the destruction of unions. I had forgotten about that!!

  • ATBOTL

    It’s because the GOP is so hostile to the very existence of unions that the union leaders feel they must going along with whatever the Democrats want. If the GOP showed any indication that it didn’t hate America workers, the Democrats would be in much worse position. The Stupid Party are too stupid to figure that out.

  • JackKrak

    This is easy –
    Big Labor knows they need to keep the Dems in power to matter what & they can achieve that by importing the Third World.
    We’ll all live in local versions of San Juan but, hey, the Dems will have a permanent electoral majority!

  • Anon12
  • Anon12

    This is how we should deal with illegal ALIENS.
    —————————————————————————

    Measured by population and gross national product, Eisenhower’s America was but half the size of today’s America. Yet, in the 1950s, we were in many ways a stronger and more self-confident country.

    We had universal military service,
    and few complained. As for the deportation of the Mexicans, they had
    broken in, they did not belong here, and they were going back. End of
    discussion.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/why-is-the-republican-party-embracing-amnesty

    • Homo_Occidentalis

      Common sense politics ended sometime around 1963. The founding fathers would be aghast to see what the insurrectionists of the old order have made of this formerly proud country.

  • RHG

    Shouldn’t be surprising considering unions only care about the well being of their leaders. If they can’t get Americans to join union ranks then they will be more then happy to bring in people from out of the country because they now see a huge source of future agitators and troublemakers touting the union line and making demands.

  • Sherman_McCoy

    Where’d they get that 6 million number? EVERYBODY has been saying lately that it is only 11 million. We all know that it is closed to 30 million.

    • Rabbi Goldstein

      6 million has been a popular number in various instances of dubious media hype. I’d do a little looking into which tribe that is disproportionately represented in the media likes this number and it’s occult signifigance to them.

    • Homo_Occidentalis

      Of course our glorious federal Ministry of Truth (AKA the New York Times) masks the real figures so as not to alarm complacent whites. However, this article is from thirteen years ago. Doubtless, even in 2000 six million would have been low-balling it.

      • Sherman_McCoy

        Thanks for that, I didn’t notice the date. If they were saying 6 mil in 2000, it was probably more like 12.

  • billc

    E-verify does work, when it is applied. For too many years it was limited to only a few states for “evaluation” purposes. Every effort to extend it and enforce it to the nation has been stymied by open borders democrats. If, indeed, it was to become mandatory and benefits applications were examined for fraud, there would be increasing numbers of self-deportations. To believe otherwise is merely because you want to ignore the evidence keep them here.

    • And guess what may be about to undermine E-Verify: Any given “comprehensive immigration reform” bill.

      The purpose of E-Verify is to make sure a given job applicant is legally allowed to work in the country. All of the amnesty bills gives work permits to illegal aliens either right away or in very short order. Therefore, E-Verify will suddenly show them as being legally hire-able. This is why V-Dare says: The work permit is the amnesty. And that’s why I say: It’s the holy grail for the cheap labor lobby that wants an amnesty bill. All other details in these bills are superfluous.

      This also means you can’t support E-Verify and legislative packages like Arizona SB 1070 and similar ones in other states AND support an amnesty bill at the same time, because latter undermines the former. Comma, Rand Paul.

  • White man’s burden.

    So, hold on. Foreign nationals are being denied healthcare? I must admit that I am healthy and rarely use a doctor, but when I have I pay cash and I’ve never had them question my citizenship as a condition to serve me.
    I think they may have a slightly harder time getting healthcare paid for by taxpayers, but consider you don’t see them out dying in the streets or being kicked out of emergency rooms after they’ve been shot in a MS13 related gang incident.
    At this point ANYONE in a position of political influence is suspect of being the enemy. We live in a society where the foulest turnds rise right to the top of the bowl and never seem to flush away.
    Also over 1000 comments in Boston threads and 25 here.

  • WR_the_realist

    We know that “illegal immigrant” is now an un-PC, socially unacceptable word. So I suggest we use the more proper term — “undocumented Democrat”. This is why the Democrats and unions are so in favor of unlimited immigration, a policy that is bad for both labor and the environment. The Democrats and the unions know who the illegals will vote for once they become citizens.

    As for the Republicans trying to “reach out to Hispanics” — they will lose election after election once those undocumented Democrats become documented. As they deserve to. Hey Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul — look at California today, where whites are a minority and Hispanics are the fastest growing group — how well are Republicans doing there now?

  • JohnEngelman

    Whenever someone uses the word “reform” you need to ask more questions. In an economy of stagnant and declining incomes and diminishing opportunities one of those questions should be, “How will I benefit from this ‘reform’?”

    Immigration “reform” means more immigrants. This means a lower standard of living for most American wage earners who already live here. No amount of fancy words and complex reasoning can change that simple truth.

    Liberals like to say that the United States cannot afford to be the world’s police agency. This is true. The United States also cannot afford to be the world’s welfare agency.