Reply
Sun 29 May, 2005 09:40 pm
From the NYT:
May 30, 2005
A Battle Against Illegal Workers, With an Unlikely Driving Force
By TIMOTHY EGAN
CALDWELL, Idaho - To hear people who call into Idaho's leading conservative talk radio station, Robert Vasquez is a hero: one of the few politicians to tell it straight.
Mr. Vasquez, 55, a Republican county commissioner and Mexican-American in a region where Latinos are ascendant, has been on a crusade against illegal immigration - what he calls "an imminent invasion" from south of the border.
Mr. Vasquez has tried to get Canyon County declared a disaster area because of the strain from illegal immigrants. He has also sent a bill to the Mexican government for more than $2 million; that is the cost, he said, of Mexicans who are in the county illegally.
Mr. Vasquez says the newcomers overwhelm public services, bring gang violence and drugs, spread diseases like tuberculosis, and insist on rights that should not be granted to noncitizens.
His latest salvo, a plan to sue employers who hire illegal immigrants, has angered the solidly Republican business community and many of the senior political leaders in this heavily Republican state. The plan would make Canyon County the only local government in the country to use federal racketeering statutes against people who employ illegal immigrants, said Howard Foster, a Chicago lawyer advising the county.
As a result, Mr. Vasquez has forced a sharp fight on an issue that poses difficulties for Republicans, pitting people and business owners who rely on illegal immigrants for labor against people who see them as a threat to jobs and security.
The struggle here is contained to Canyon County, west of Boise with a population of 151,000. But it is part of a broader clash taking place across the country in the Republican Party; President Bush is pushing a guest worker program for illegal immigrants, while other Republicans are supporting private efforts to patrol the border and calling for additional muscle to seal it off.
Mr. Vasquez says it is a fight the party needs to have. "Some people say I'm a racist, that I'm a traitor to my heritage," he said. "There is nothing racial about this. The only color involved is green - for money."
Such talk has brought many people to the commissioner's side. "We talk a lot about Mr. Vasquez on the air, and most of our listeners are on his side," said Paul Schneider, a morning host of KBOI News Talk, Idaho's leading talk radio station. "But he's a real thorn in the side of the mainstream business Republicans."
With both parties trying to court Hispanic voters, politicians who have jumped into the immigration debate, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, have found the issue to be perilous. Mr. Schwarzenegger was criticized by many Latinos after he praised a group of citizens patrolling the border.
Many farmers and construction contractors here say they could not survive without the pool of workers from Mexico. They have lined up behind a proposal by the state's senior senator, Larry E. Craig, a Republican, to allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country under certain conditions - a variation of a similar plan offered by President Bush.
While promoting his bill this year, Mr. Craig said that 72 percent to 78 percent of the agricultural work force was here illegally, and that without these workers, "we could literally collapse American agriculture."
Farmers and contractors also accuse Mr. Vasquez of painting an overly harsh picture of Mexican workers. Mr. Vasquez provided crime statistics for April showing that about one in eight people arrested in the county was from Mexico; about one in five residents is Hispanic.
"If he wasn't a Mexican-American himself, he would be labeled a racist and no one would listen to him," said Keith Esplin, executive director of the Potato Growers of Idaho. "He's attacking good people, good workers. You've got to have that population, because they're doing the jobs that no one else wants."
In response, Mr. Vasquez says the wing of the Republican Party represented by Mr. Craig has sold out on the immigration issue to business interests. Mr. Vasquez is exploring a run for governor or Congress next year, with this issue as his central theme.
Whether Mr. Vasquez can make headway in a statewide election is an open question. Many of the agricultural interests are big Republican donors, and Mr. Vasquez said he was likely to have trouble raising money from them. He is also likely to face stiff resistance from the Latino community, which is small but fast growing.
Statewide, Latinos make up 8 percent of the population, census figures show, but they represented only about 4 percent of the voters in last year's election.
Leaders in both parties have generally shied away from calling for strong measures against illegal immigrants, fearing a backlash. Whether the political dynamic would change with a Latino leading the way would be one of the things that a statewide run for office by Mr. Vasquez would test.
"Mr. Vasquez does have populist support," said Garry Lough, executive director of the Idaho Republican Party. "But I have to believe that this issue is going to go against him among Hispanics."
To stroll around Canyon County, which grew by 45 percent from 1990 to 2000, is to see the transformation that is taking place throughout the West. The business district in Caldwell has been revitalized by bakeries, clothing stores and restaurants owned by relatively recent arrivals from Mexico.
Latinos dominate the crews putting up drywall in big new houses; they mow, weed and water the half-acre lawns; they work the fields and dairy farms; and they staff many fast food outlets.
"We know we can't get workers any other way," said Ann Bates, executive director of the Idaho Nursery and Landscape Association.
Last year, Mr. Vasquez persuaded Idaho counties to pass a state resolution requiring people to be citizens of the United States before applying for indigent medical care.
"If I were governor, I would close the borders of Idaho and mobilize the National Guard to secure checkpoints against all illegal aliens," he said in an interview.
In March, at Mr. Vasquez's request, Canyon County asked Mr. Foster, who specializes in civil racketeering cases, if it would be possible to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to sue businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
Mr. Foster has sued companies like Tyson Foods, accusing them of hiring illegal immigrants as part of a plan to depress wages.
"I think it's imperative that we go after employers," Mr. Vasquez said. "If you removed the illegal aliens, these industries wouldn't collapse, but their profit margins would probably be reduced."
Opinions in Canyon County are mixed on what would happen if the illegal labor pool were cut.
A longtime drywall installer, Lonnie Apperson, 67, said he had not lost any work to competition from illegal immigrants.
"There's a lot of work everywhere right now with this housing market," said Mr. Apperson, who lives in the Caldwell area. "A good drywall man can find work anywhere, anytime."
Mr. Apperson said the going rate for drywall subcontracting has held steady, but he feared that if illegal immigration increased too much, it could start to drive wages down.
"My relatives in Arkansas said the Mexicans down there have pretty much driven everyone else out of business," Mr. Apperson said.
A roofer, Ken Parise, said he moved from Portland, Ore., to Idaho because there is so much work here. He said illegal workers have not hurt his business.
"I just don't think it's that big of a problem," Mr. Parise said.
But Mr. Vasquez has made it his top issue since becoming in 2003 one of three commissioners who govern this county, after spending years working on behalf of veterans rights groups.
Born in El Paso as the grandson of a Mexican immigrant, Mr. Vasquez joined the Army at 17, he said, and was wounded during a tour of duty in Vietnam. He earned two Purple Hearts and became active among groups for disabled veterans. He has lived in Caldwell for 27 years.
"The people I speak for are the working people," he said.
But others here say Mr. Vasquez speaks for no one but himself.
"He's an opportunist," said Corrine Tafoya-Fisher, the leader of a group that took out newspaper advertisements, with community leaders, opposing Mr. Vasquez.
"What he's done is cause a lot of divisions within this community," she said. "If you're brown, you're targeted. But the Latino community is united against him."
Mr. Vasquez bristles at criticism from other Mexican-Americans. But as an old soldier, he said he feared only the hits that he could not see coming.
"With incoming fire, the one that gets you is the one you never hear," he said.
Q: Does it mean that the republican party supports illegal immigration, and that might be the reason our borders aren't sealed?
I don't care if the man's Mexican or what; making war on illegal immigrants is wrong.
It's ironic what Vasquez says about illegal immigrants and gang violence and drugs. Actually, gangs are formed, by and large, by the descendents of immigrants, whether legal or illegal, the second generation and on, not by first generation immigrants. It's their offspring who have trouble assimilating into the mainstream culture that form their own culture, in this case underground, or street, of which gangs and drugs are features. For the most part, first generation immigrants, both legal and illegal, are too busy trying to earn enough to exist to concern themselves with gangs and street culture.
Later generation Mexicans are some of the most fanatical nationalists I have ever met, especially when they've served in the military, or are from military families.
Don't be too quick to just blame the republicans CI. It has gotten to the point where no one can win an election without the Latino vote......Dem or Repub.
That's why neither party will risk defeat at the voting booth by voting to close the border........classic dilemma
Typical of gutless politicians and in this case it includes Bush. I think he will kick the can down the road until after the next midterm elections and then make a move to simultaneously seal the borders and give the workers already here some sort of legal status so they can stay and work. That may be too late for some of the border state hospitals that are overwhelmed by indigent emerg care which they cannot deny.
Well, i applaud the gentleman for pointing to the economic issue. He has smoked out the business leaders who do indeed use illegal immigrants to depress wages, and to fatten their bottom line. Where i live, there is a growing hispanic population. They have pretty well come to take over the lower paying jobs--but the prices one pays have not decreased. Ten years ago, fast food restaurants had trouble getting teenagers to work for less than $10/hour; now, teenagers are lucky to get a job at $8/hour, and i've been told the situation is getting worse. The only people who come out ahead in this crisis are employers; their pockets are deep, and they will fund the political campaigns of those who keep them supplied with cheap labor, if by no other means than simply doing nothing.
I'm not too quick to condemn "those nasty, greedy capitalists", either. Many of whom are farmers and small businessmen who struggle daily trying to meet their payroll,and pay the myriad of city, state and federal taxes required to just keep their doors open one more day.
Obviously there are many here who smirk at the American dream but who are either too goddamned lazy or terrified to try it themselves.
Thanks for offering all those different points of view which I wanted for this thread. I, personally, see too many pros and cons on this issue to make an argument for or against. It's a tough one to be sure from the politicians need for their votes vs the higher cost of social services. It would seem to me, though, that if the borders are left open for illegal immigration into our country, the added cost of social services should be the responsibility of our federal government. Any thoughts along this line?
rayban1 wrote:Don't be too quick to just blame the republicans CI. It has gotten to the point where no one can win an election without the Latino vote......Dem or Repub.
That's why neither party will risk defeat at the voting booth by voting to close the border........classic dilemma
Rayban, you can't win an election without the
American vote.
That's how things work in a Democracy. The side that has the majority of voters wins the election. The race of each particular voter doesn't matter in our system.
The fact is that the majority of voters don't support your point of view. That is why you are feeling abandoned by both parties.
Your side tends to have a difficult time defending itself against charges of racism. When you say stupid things like this, it doesn't help at all.
I bet you will find several very white American voters right here would vote against any politician who pushes your point of view.
But I hate to tell you rayban, that every American-- Black, White, Asian and Latino-- is just as American as you are, has just as much stake in national policy... and they get the same vote.
A politician, or party, that fails to represent the perceived interests of a majority of his constituency rightfully loses power. Isn't that the way it should be?
Has it not occurred to anyone that all this chest-thumping about illegal immigrants is just a smoke screen? The powers that be, in fact, have no desire to combat or even inhibit this type of influx of cheap labor. I've heard it said that the entire economic structure of Southern California would collapse in a New York minute if the flow of undocumented labor were to be cut off. The big business-oriented conservatives need the workers who can be exploited at below-minimum wage levels. The liberals, of course, offer humanitarian arguments against curbing the flow. Like so many other things in our society, this is one of those cases where everyone makes a big noise, bangs the drum, makes speeches and -- in the end -- leaves things just as they are because they're working just fine. Get real.
rayban1 wrote:I'm not too quick to condemn "those nasty, greedy capitalists", either. Many of whom are farmers and small businessmen who struggle daily trying to meet their payroll,and pay the myriad of city, state and federal taxes required to just keep their doors open one more day.
Obviously there are many here who smirk at the American dream but who are either too goddamned lazy or terrified to try it themselves.
A gratuitous sneer of the type for which you are becoming famous. It is, of course, based upon a set of assumptions for which you have no basis. I did not use the terms nasty or greedy, putting
your use of the terms in quotation marks suggests that i had done. All this does is emphasis your self-imposed ignorance, in the service of your partisan rhetoric. A pathetic performance altogether--and we expect no less of you.
e_brown, As a resident of California, Rayban's point of view has merit; the Latino vote in California (and probably also in Texas and Arizona) is important to win an election. Latinos make up the majority in California today; and their political influence grows every day. Los Angeles just voted in a Latino Mayor for the very first time in history. Yes, it's true, it takes all voters to make a difference no matter what racial background, but to ignore the Latino voters in California will run counter to being a smart politician. The majority of California voters wanted illegals to have driver's licenses, but gov Ahnold overruled it - saying it was more important for the security of our state and country over what the "majority" wants. Another tough issue.
If one makes a distinction between Alcalde and Mayor, i suppose that's true, C.I.
Set, Should I have said "recent history?"
Employing illegal aliens is not the answer. Employment offices should be setup at the border. Where immigrent workers could be matched up with available jobs.
au, Excellent idea. Why doesn't our politicians think through these things with some intelligence? Or is that an oxymoron? LOL
au1929 wrote:Employing illegal aliens is not the answer. Employment offices should be setup at the border. Where immigrent workers could be matched up with available jobs.
But then the employers would be subject to stringent labor laws. They'd have to pay the immigrants minimum wage and provide all the other things the law provides for. It's much more convenient to keep things as they are. As long as the laborer is in this country "illegally", he or she has no recourse against unfair exploitation. It is the new form of slavery. You do what I tell you for the two bucks an hour I'm paying you, or I turn you in to the immigration authorities.
MA, We already do that with our imports from China.
cicerone imposter wrote:e_brown, As a resident of California, Rayban's point of view has merit; the Latino vote in California (and probably also in Texas and Arizona) is important to win an election. Latinos make up the majority in California today; and their political influence grows every day.
No. Cicerone. This view is no merit.
How can you say that the race of voters is relevant to anything? Are you saying the White vote, the woman's vote, and Protestant vote, the homosexual vote, or the college educated vote are any less important?
The fact that American citizens of Latino descent are voting their values, their interests and what they think is best for our country is a bad thing?
There is a belief (to which I agree) that new immigrants have an obligation to embrace their new country and become part of it. Under this view, Latino voters using their right to vote as Americans is the best thing that could happen, for them and for our country.
Cicerone. We are Americans-- White, Black, Asian, Latino and Native. Trying to pit "Latino voter's" against this rather limited view of "American voter" is wrong.
This point of view goes against what America is supposed to stand for.
It is also nothing new . . . after the death of Susan Anthony, Carrie Catt united the two major suffrage organizations, and then appealed for women's suffrage on a contention that only educated white women were likely to vote in significant numbers, and that this would negate the black and immigrant vote. Politics as usual in my never humble opinion.
cicerone imposter wrote:MA, We already do that with our imports from China.
Yeah, well, I wasn't singling out the Mexicans. We do that with all our illegal "imports." The exploitation of undocumented Chinese goes back to the 19th Century. Indentured servitude was practiced gleefully, despite the 13th Amendment.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace