Issue 64: February 26, 2001

Chicago Tribune opinion poll result: majority of high school students agree: "The U.S. should accept fewer immigrants and crack down on illegal immigration, even if this deprives the American work force of the talent and ambitions of newcomers and fuels anti-American sentiments abroad." (July 23, 2000)

+== TIME OUT PROJECT ==+

In 1924, Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and himself immigrant, wrote "Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces …One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength … at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages."

It is an irony of history that the organization Gompers founded to protect American workers from corporate greed is now openly aligned with those very business interests. The AFL-CIO has recently thrown its weight behind a mass "amnesty" for illegal aliens even though the Immigration and Naturalization Service has concluded that amnesties actually increase illegal immigration.

And in her Feb 21 syndicated column, President Bush’s first choice to head the Department of Labor, Linda Chavez, ( Lchavez@ceousa.org ) reasserts her defense of mass immigration on economic grounds, claiming that "there simply are not enough American workers to meet the demand."

"So long as the American economy continues to create more jobs than there are workers able to fill them," Ms. Chavez writes, "we will need to import workers."

But this begs the question: If economic expansion justifies the mass importation of cheap foreign labor, does an economic slowdown justify the mass deportation of cheap foreign labor?

We called Ms Chavez’ office and spoke with Amanda Butler ( 202 639 0803 ) who said she didn’t know for sure, but she didn’t think that Chavez would support deportations in an economic slowdown.

Linda Chavez, Alan Greenspan, the AFL-CIO and all the other cheap labor cheerleaders cannot have it both ways.

It is simply irresponsible to advocate mass immigration for economic reasons during periods of growth, while ignoring the question of what happens during an economic downturn. It is like removing the walls of one’s house during the summertime in order to enjoy the cool breeze, while neglecting to consider the arrival of winter.

More readings:

"A country should do its own work" http://www.fairus.org/html/04115604.htm
"Lovely Linda - RIP!" http://www.vdare.com/mcconnell_linda_chavez.htm
"AFL-CIO Calls for Illegal Alien Amnesty" http://www.fairus.org/html/3-1-00.htm

+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+

Critics charge Linda Chavez and the globalist profiteers are irresponsible and short-sighted to support mass immigration simply for the money some people can make off the world’s impoverished billions. In a world that adds another U.S. in population every fours years, they say, profit should not be the primary consideration when deciding a wise immigration policy.

To her credit, however, Ms Chavez did raise the issue in her column of "anchor babies"

(An "anchor baby" is a child born in the U.S. to women illegally in the country. Being born in the U.S. means under current practice that the child is an American citizen and entitled to numerous tax-payer subsidized benefits. These babies, by some estimates a quarter of a million per year, "anchor" their parents, who may then sponsor their other children, each of their own parents, and their adult siblings. All of these people may then legally sponsor all THEIR relatives and so on without end.)

"The new Bush committee," Ms. Chavez wrote, "might even debate the thorny issue of whether automatic citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil — a provision meant to guarantee the rights of former slaves through the 14th Amendment — makes sense today."

Tags:   anchor baby · Bush · Linda Chavez · Samuel GompersNo Comments