Beyond the New Law; Miscellaneous

From Los Angeles welcome to beyond the new law the second in a series of three radio programs on the landmark Immigration Reform and Control Act known as Simpson Rodino. I'm your host Richard Gonzales. Today we'll talk with a panel of experts about the controversy over provisions in the new immigration law called employer sanctions. The provisions that make it a crime to hire an undocumented worker. Our panel includes Harry Bernstein a labor columnist for The Los Angeles Times. And John Cho the general manager of the Korean American garment industry association. This is another bee language broadcasting from the studios of Pacifica Radio KPFA in Los Angeles. The series is produced with funds provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation. Distribution funds come from the American Friends Service Committee. It is a way of beginning our discussion this morning on employer sanctions. I like to first read from a recently published news articles in the nation's leading newspapers. I quote First from the front pages of The New York Times June 24th 1988 and it

says the 1986 immigration law is failing to stem the illegal flow of Mexicans into the United States and may be creating new problems on both sides of the border by distorting traditional immigration patterns. That's according to Mexican and American researchers from the Los Angeles Times June 22nd a federal judge has upheld fines totaling $3000 against a suburban San Diego manufacturer for violating provisions of the 1986 immigration law that make it a crime to hire illegal aliens. And finally from The Washington Post on June 16 supporters of the employer sanctions say the sanctions are working as intended. Employers are raising low wages and opening job opportunities for U.S. citizens and others who have permission to work here they say. However frustration and fear are mounting among service industry employers some of whom had come to depend on the availability and willingness of illegal immigrants to feel unskilled and semi-skilled

jobs. Now I read from the New York Times and The Los Angeles Times in The Washington Post because I think each of these articles raise certain points that each of our panelists would disagree and agree with and I hope that they will stimulate our discussion. I want to go around the table first and first ask our panelists to make an introductory remark about how they view the effectiveness of employer sanctions and first Mr. John Cho. Yes. I have very little negative point of view on this. Employers employee employer sanctions you know recently being put in put in force because sawing while I have been a representative a Korean American into sewing industries and we have approximately 450 members. There are probably 500 more non registered. They are occupying a great percentage of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County areas song industries

and. This so many industries requires a low wage employees and there has been no time very few few occasions that American citizens would apply for sewing work either American citizens or a lot of a green card and card holders cause there are quite a few green card holders that almost none or very few percentage of American citizens do work in our sewing industry so even with this sanction I don't believe that there would be any Americans or people who would be applying for this jobs because just it is the hard work and low wage even though you even know you jack up the minimum wage up to 40 for 25 from 3 to 3 35 at present. It wouldn't help hiring new American citizens for this type of in this race.

So your position is basically one of opposition to the employer sanctions. Yes Mr Harry Bernstein. Well I think it's a fascinating phenomena that's been going on for many decades now. And one of the things one of the many things that I think is really intriguing is the strange bed fellows who are on the side that Mr. Cho is taking that is opposed to sanctions along with him or people who are liberal and progressive in the community Mexican-American leaders who are decent I think concerned about the individuals who are being exploited and they side together. But the these people with the exploiters the employers who take advantage of workers and their desperate need for for jobs. And unfortunately on my side I'm in favor of sanctions and I think we have to do something to regulate our borders. But sadly on my side all racist people who feel that we shouldn't have

any more Mexicans in this country or any other foreigners. They're really ugly racists and they too think that we have to do something to stop the flow of the foreigners from coming into this country as we tried to do with the Chinese Exclusion Act of many many years ago. And it's a strange mixture of people on each side of this question that I think is intriguing. I'm on the side that I see. That I just indicated in favor of some kind of sanctioned because I don't see an alternative. I don't think you can have an open border. There are some people who say they do not favor an open border which means to allow people to flow like capital flows in and out of this country that them come as they see fit. They say they don't believe in that but then they. I think are deceitful either self to saving or deceitful in general. Because what they say is No we do not believe in an open border to let people flow across the

borders as they see fit. But there's nothing we can do about it. CANIDIUS Wayne Cornelius in San Diego a professor who's been doing this kind of advocating this deceitful position for a long time Bustamante has the same thing. He says there's nothing we can do to stop it. They say that the same time they don't believe in an open border. And I think there is something that you can do in a country that follows the law and. That that something is not to punish the worker who comes into this country hungry and desperate for a job. But to punish the employer who takes advantage of that hunger and that desperation in order to get cheap labor so that they can make a profit for their companies. I don't know whether it is constitutional to punish employers in the first place because employer is not obligated to identify identify who is documented who is not who is Americans and who is not. And another thing is that employers are business people they are there to make

you know make a certain investment and to make money not to lose money. If they want it the way it has been almost all employers are paying minimum wages to most of the non skilled you know semi skilled laborers coming from South America or Hispanic going to Mexico and they are least paid minimum wages whereas that you know they won't be able to make that much money. You know Mexico or elsewhere. Considering that you know that that you know we feel that we are trying to make garments with a very limited low amount of low amount of labor wages with the with the people who really need jobs in this country and try to compete with the lot of imports. Hong Kong Taiwan Korea or elsewhere or many many

other many other underdeveloped countries. And it'll help. Either develop or help lead the national economy rather than keep increasing keep increasing the imports from other countries rather than producing producing all comers here. So I I feel that if it is possible to hire low or minimum wage laborers in this country it would be could be but you know it would be a benefit for not only for the soul in contract but also for the consumers as well. The subtext of what Mr chose here is that the low wages are necessary for the economic prosperity of this country. How do you respond to that. That's always the argument. That's not that's the argument in steel and auto any industry. The employers want to pay as low wages as they can because the lower the wages the more. Tent the greater chance they have to be competitive in a world market. But also the greater chance they have to make a profit. An example Honeywell Honeywell makes temperature control equipment.

They have a plant in Gardena had about 400 people working there. The average wage and benefit package is very low. They belong to a Teamsters Union Local. They average about $100 a day. It's not a bunch of money but it's a living with benefits. And they're under union contract and they're protected but they have grievances against their employers and in any case they continue to go up in their wages over the period of years. Honeywell also has a plant in Tijuana. In Tijuana instead of $100 a day the workers there make $5 a day. Mr. Honeywell that's not the name of the president the company but Honeywell. Has a choice. $5 day or $100 a day. If you're the employer it's not hard to understand your motive for saying I'll take the $5 a day work. So they recently announced that they're going to move an additional

200 people out of the Gardena plant to the Tijuana plant where they will save $95 a day per worker. That becomes. But as a lot of money and I think to discuss it in those terms distorts the whole question you can't compete with workers who can work and all working for $5 a day. If you're an American worker you cannot live on that in this country. We have to think in different terms of trying to protect ourselves in this country. And of course not to ignore the problems of the rest of the world because we are compassionate nation. But we have to not think in terms of the ability of our employers is to chose. Manufactures Honeywell the automobile companies everybody. Every manufacturer of any product agricultural growers of the word. You can't think in terms of being able to compete with the employees the workers in other countries where they were laid. Wages and benefits

run from anywhere from $1 to $5 a day. American workers can't do that and American workers won't do that. I'm in favor of what's called a trickle up theory. You pay workers enough money they can buy the products that the workers make. I'm opposed to the trickle down theory which says that the thing we have to worry about is how the manufacturers are surviving their profits and to stay in business so that then they can give money down trickle down money to the to the workforce. I don't think you can have a trickle up theory if the workers are going to be competing in this country going to be competing with workers from abroad or and Central and South America where they make anywhere from a dollar to $5 a day. Soaring industries are way different. There are almost non skilled laborers at very low level you know wages. And it doesn't require a lot of our skills to do the work. All you do is just come in

and learn couple of art and you can start doing normal sewing work and minimum wages it has been there is a law for three dollars and thirty five cents an hour. Of course you know it'll go up to 125 just like I indicated a little while ago beginning the first of July. And people from South America or Central America they they're here to make minimum wage which is much much higher than you know what they're what they were making in their countries compared to you know compared to their minimum wages their minimum wages and wages in their country is about one tenth of what we're you know we're paying here. So I think it is it is it is fair to give them a chance to do the work for for what we can within our you know within within our law limitations and give our employees a chance to produce what we can do here not necessarily to compete for compete with the imports but also to help develop these countries and to

keep the economy going rather than keep importing because for instance now if we keep. Increasing our minimum wages and for instance I myself was a contractor over 10 years ago and producing one blow out one piece a blouse I used to get paid for approximately two dollars and fifty cents to 275 in one thousand seventy eight which I'm getting paid only a dollar 60 now which is a great amount of drop. Ever since and the minimum wage has gone up almost 100 percent ever since and we're still you know that minimum wages keep going and sewing fees keep going down. Where a sewing contractor is not going to be able to make any money with that. You know with that rate ratio. They'll have they'll be forced to take their production. All work flows out of the country to do the same thing. For instance they may have to

take it down to Central America or Mexico or elsewhere to do the cutting and sewing there and bring back in finished goods into this country where we are not going to be able to make any money for I mean as far as our American jobs are concerned they might impose some import tariffs. But as far as income employees taxes and employers taxes are concerned I think Countrywide would be losing a great deal of let me get back to this issue to redirect our discussion about employer solutions we've talked about. Wages and competition. The lack of competition by American workers etc.. But let's go back to step on employer sanctions. When employer sanctions were first proposed as part of the new immigration bill there was opposition to the idea. It was said that employer sanctions which would put the onus of

enforcing this law. Some people argue that the onus of enforcing this law is being put on the employer and that the employer in order to avoid being in trouble with the law. Could start discriminating against people whom we could not immediately verify as a US citizen. Now the employer sanctions law that the provision has become the law. And I'd like to talk a little bit about whether that has come to pass. What can be done to avoid discrimination which. And there is some evidence that it could. That it has happened and how effective is it from your point of view and the point of you Mr. Bernstein. The law is not yet fully effective at all. It's taught when it first went into effect. The statistics of the number of people crossing the border. Illegally entering into this country the numbers drop dropped dramatically. The reason they dropped is that

there's a grapevine that it's of word of mouth that by letters it's a number of ways in Central and South American and primarily in Mexico. Word got out. You will not find a job in the United States. Don't go in. The result of that word going out meant that far fewer people were coming across the border illegally than they had been. The sanctions the threat not even the sanctions yet they didn't want to enforce it immediately. The threat of the sanctions left an awful lot of people in other countries who might otherwise come in with the strong feeling that they couldn't get a job here so they didn't come in. Then word got around because it was true that employers were ignoring the law the dittos manufacturers but the Agricultural the growers in California and other states. Hotel and restaurant we're going to be ignoring the law. They would not obey the law of the United States. The employers they would hire you if you came

into this country illegally. That word went out and the statistics started changing instead of going down as they had continuing to go down dramatically once the law was actually passed. It began to rise again and is still rising. It has not yet reached the level that it had been before the sanctions were put into place. I don't know that it will not continue to rise if the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the government in general enforces sanctions so that employers are discouraged from hiring illegal aliens. Then the word will go back out again. It's not much point in coming up the United States because they're not the jobs that once were available to you they won't come in. It's the bait it's the honey it's the possibility of a good job as Mr. Cho points out relative to what they're getting in their country. That brings them here. Some come in and I think they should be allowed

in as political refugees from Nicaraguan water Moland Honduras and El Salvador and those countries in those people should come in they're not economic refugees they're political refugees that's a different matter. Sanctions can work if they are enforced. Once employers realize not one or two sample cases that we've written about in the Los Angeles Times and others not wanted to sample cases but of widespread enforcement of the law will change the perception of that law in other countries when that perception is changed. The sanctions will begin to work and then the way you do that in order to avoid discrimination is something that civil libertarians and I think of myself as a strong civil libertarian are concerned about. But the only way I can think of to avoid discrimination against a person who's legally here but because he has brown skin I may have an OP may be discriminated against. Is we going to have to have a Social

Security card that is tamper resistant. Every worker in this country who is legally employed or expects any kind of social security benefit must have I have and you have to a social security number. I know mine by heart. Everybody has such a number. If you want to work. All I say is that instead of having a number on a piece of paper a card which is I could print up one myself for no money at all. You have to have a tamper resistant social security card MasterCard and Visa are examples of tamper resistant not tamper proof tamper resistant Social Security cards. But they could be like those companies make billions of dollars. These credit card companies make huge sums of money because the system works. Some people cheat. Some people use a MasterCard and off to forge them I tried to steal them. But by and large MasterCard

and Visa American Express. You're a card. Sensible. They work they work for the users and they work for the companies that make a lot of money out of them. With the civil libertarian argue argument against such a card would be that this is the first step towards a national identification card. We now have a national identification card the Social Security number. Every person that works has a social security number as supposed. Unless you're trying to cheat on that too. When I want a job and I go to Mr. Cho and I ask him for a job and he I give him my tamper resistant social security card he put it in the machine and it comes back. Same way as a MasterCard. There's no such person. Then he says I'm sorry you're not eligible. If it comes back Bernstein is OK. He can discriminate against me but then we do have laws both in the original Simpson act as well as our Fair Employment Practices Act. We have provisions in those laws that would allow me to take Mr. Cho. You'll forgive me I don't mean you

to take him to court and say you've discriminated against me. My card was legal I showed it to you and you wouldn't give me a job because you didn't like the color of my skin you know my nationality my religion. I would suggest however that there is an undercurrent in the American character that that would resist the idea that the government has a card issues me a card that says that I am eligible to work. Well why don't they resist the social security card the reason your argument I think is flawed fatally is because we already have we have a social security card I suspect you have one in your pocket right now. I know I do. So why didn't you resist. There's nothing the American character that resisted the social security card I say same social security card. Just make it more difficult to to to to forge. Mr. Trump yes I understand Social Security cards a driver's license or green cards. Some of these identification cards have been

forged. You know intentionally unintentionally by some of the groups and a lot of our undocumented employees have been carrying these forged documents and they come into our workshop. Your your are your employers finding a lot of faked documents. OK now let me tell you that we do you know again we do find some of the faulty documents of course but you know it isn't all. Also again like I said it is not our employer's job to identify whether or whether it is a for forged documents or legitimate documentation. We hire him because he brought in legitimate seems you know with the photograph on the green card and also same name appears on the Social Security card why not. You have to really you know skim it. But what you're suggesting is the point that I'm making that I think helps validate the point I make. We already have identification cards that have to be used. They're easily forged However that's an

additional dent if occasion card your driver's license just Social Security you know any suggestion that is child like. And it's simplicity is don't make one that easily forged. Don't require us to carry a social security card that cost two bucks to forage. I have a master card like I don't want to give any plugs to MasterCard but it's hard to take somebody else's MasterCard and get away with it for very long you might for a brief period. I don't think that of course they're being forged now and I want to stop that that's so. Well of course I'm for it. You know like I said you see being in being in the workshop you do you do have a lot of people do come in with the 40 documentations and I have been asked by many of many of our sworn contracts of what they should hired hired them on and I told them it isn't your job to identify who is wrong with me who is illegitimate who's who isn't always documented who isn't you know by law it is now. But you know they can't tell. Suppose you know they cannot tell what whether documentation is

legitimate and whether it is forced so I advise them if they cannot identify the falsification of the documentation just go to employ him and let the let the immigration authorities come over and find it find out themselves we will have to conclude our program very shortly whatever first. Would like to ask our panelists to offer some concluding brief. Rick including remark but your John show. Yes I have a few remarks I'd like to make before closing. Thank you. Number one in order to. Help help our employers with the manpower shortage I suggest and I've been telling you know telling a vising my people tried to modernize very quick meant so they could you know hire less people. Number two try to employ some of the beginners you know. Some Korean people are Korean because they have been there been little they have been avoiding some beginners but they have to hire the beginners number three

they have to hire some of the some of the some of the home housewives with babies there you know they are there and they are reluctant to go to work with the babies leaving home we can't do that so they can leave them at the babysitters so they rather stay home with them then that we could provide them with the babysitter facilities that are in our informant. So that's what I've been asking them to do it. Let them bring their babies to work and have have a baby sitters that work take care of them so they could they could do the work. Mr. Bernstein the two points that I think a. Elementary One is we have to stop punishing the worker who has come into this country without documents who's come here illegally in front of other people who've been waiting for legal documents we have to punish the exploiter the people who take advantage of these unfortunate it punish the employer. But the sanctions which we now have a lot to do. And secondly once again

nobody is I'm not advocating a national identity card which would allow police to pick you up if you don't have one when you're walking down the street. This is only for employment and that's all I think is the most absurd. Thing and. That concludes our program beyond the new law. The second in a series of three radio programs on the landmark Immigration Reform and Control Act known as Simpson Rodino. This program is a production of Qaeda's jayvee that other billing will in Fresno California broadcasting from the studios of KPFA FM Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles. Our executive producer is someone little school host and producer of this program is Richard Gonzales associate producer is Richard Mahler our audio engineer is Carlos Raven with the assistance of Steve Barker and B.B. 80 productions research by one of them and Madea humanist promotion by Raymond Lummi funds for the series come from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation for additional funds for

distribution were provided by the American Friends Service Committee.