Dem Platform Question

[aix_xpert]

To the Democrats on this board:

First, I'll preface this as a discussion question but something that I've never understood. I'll also note that there are probably similar inconsistencies within the Repub party that either I don't recognize due to my own blindspots or that I've dismissed as fringe components of the ideology where similar individuals can have a reasonable disagreement. For example, a "pro-choice" Republican likely has a fairly moderate view of pro-choice vs. pro-life or simply doesn't find that argument as directly impactful to their political persuasion. But if 'pro-choice' is a critical component of a persons ideology, then they aren't likely a Republican.

So to my question: Everyone would agree that unions and their associated middle-class jobs are a staple of the democratic party. And everyone would agree that Dems are the primary (and clearly vocal) supporter of open immigration (and even support for illegal immigration) policies. How does a dem reconcile these two positions? Adding competition to the labor force through the influx of cheap, foreign labor seems to be diametrically opposed to a position of building stronger unions, employee benefits, wages, etc. I have to believe that strengthening the labor force is a key tenet of the Union support, so I have trouble throwing it out as a 'non-critical' ideological component. And I can't find any reasonable argument where illegal immigration serves as a benefit to a unionized workforce.

I wonder this as I watched my local (Tampa) news yesterday and they had an AFL-CIO rep discussing the need for Pinellas county to become a Sanctuary county. It struck me as very counter-intuitive.

 

[Rdcldad]

you just need their votes
things do not have to make sense

 

[07pilt]

To the Democrats on this board:

First, I'll preface this as a discussion question but something that I've never understood. I'll also note that there are probably similar inconsistencies within the Repub party that either I don't recognize due to my own blindspots or that I've dismissed as fringe components of the ideology where similar individuals can have a reasonable disagreement. For example, a "pro-choice" Republican likely has a fairly moderate view of pro-choice vs. pro-life or simply doesn't find that argument as directly impactful to their political persuasion. But if 'pro-choice' is a critical component of a persons ideology, then they aren't likely a Republican.

So to my question: Everyone would agree that unions and their associated middle-class jobs are a staple of the democratic party. And everyone would agree that Dems are the primary (and clearly vocal) supporter of open immigration (and even support for illegal immigration) policies. How does a dem reconcile these two positions? Adding competition to the labor force through the influx of cheap, foreign labor seems to be diametrically opposed to a position of building stronger unions, employee benefits, wages, etc. I have to believe that strengthening the labor force is a key tenet of the Union support, so I have trouble throwing it out as a 'non-critical' ideological component. And I can't find any reasonable argument where illegal immigration serves as a benefit to a unionized workforce.

I wonder this as I watched my local (Tampa) news yesterday and they had an AFL-CIO rep discussing the need for Pinellas county to become a Sanctuary county. It struck me as very counter-intuitive.

For some reason you are confusing treating immigrants humanely with a preference for open immigration.
If you are a union worker would you rather compete with Mexican labor in Mexico or Mexican labor in the US?
If you are more class conscious than nationalist, then immigrants are your fellow exploited worker not foreign competition.
Have you heard of the lump of labor fallacy?

 

[aix_xpert]

For some reason you are confusing treating immigrants humanely with a preference for open immigration.
If you are a union worker would you rather compete with Mexican labor in Mexico or Mexican labor in the US?
If you are more class conscious than nationalist, then immigrants are your fellow exploited worker not foreign competition.
Have you heard of the lump of labor fallacy?

1)I don't believe that establishing Sanctuary city status is simply providing for 'humane treatment' of illegal immigrants. If you aren't willing to eject illegal immigrants, and you aren't willing to prevent them from coming, then by definition, you have an open immigration policy.
2) I think this is a false dichotomy. The fact the labor immigrated from Mexico to here isn't impactful to the decisions to move a plant to Mexico city.
3) Wow. I'd fire every union leader around if they believe that the $10/hour constructrion working illegal immigrant was a sign of an exploited worker and not a direct threat to their $18/hour members. This will become a race to the bottom so a union might have a larger base, but none of its members would actually make a real living.
4) I am aware of the fallacy. However, in regards to illegal immigrants, I don't believe it to be very applicable. The two major arguments for the fallacy only minimally apply to most illegal immigrants. First, most illegals are not coming into our country with an intellectual advantage. These aren't your research scientists, computer engineers, etc. Maybe as an exception, but few and far-between. Second, while they do grow the overall base slightly (as your own link highlighted, more people mean more staff at the grocery store), these individuals earn very little and spend even less. Many save nearly everything possible to repatriate back to their native countries. And this theory still doesn't even address the inequality of the labor supplied. Due to their immigrant status and lowered expectations, they ask and expect a lower salary and thus place direct wage pressure on these labor markets thus driving prices lower. So while they may create more labor opportunities, the overall pay for these opportunities is reduced, which detrimentally impacts the native populace. This is good for the economy on a whole (oh boy, I save $20/wk on my housekeeper and lawn service), but to the individuals who would be represented by labor unions as well as the base salary levels expected for those who would rise above such manual labor tasks, the pressure is a negative. Thus I find it confounding that labor unions (whose sole job is to represent its membership) would be so supportive of such positions.

 

[PDT816]

Just speculation.....

The size of the voting blocks for the children of illegal immigrants (who are US Citizens by birth) will vastly outnumber the number of union members in upcoming years as manufacturing and service jobs continue to decline due to other Democratic policies.