Colbert! Congress!

[theprestige]

How will immigration reform provide recourse through the legal system, and how will that improve the wages, benefits, and working conditions of farm workers? After all, current labor law applies to everyone now, even illegal workers are supposed to be paid at least minimum wage.

Why do you think legalizing the current set of workers will make hiring a new set of illegal workers less attractive? Why wouldn't they continue to hire illegal workers, just as they do now and for exactly the same reasons?

Magic! Also, Colbert is funny!

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure what part of what I said this is addressed to.



"hail it as a feat of wondrous magic"? What?

Oh wait, I get it, you're impersonating the Stephen Colbert character: creating a strawman, one who hails Stephen Colbert as a wondrous magician, to argue against, to show how foolish that makes the arguer seem. You must be a big Colbert fan obviously, careful student of the technique. Brilliant (though could stand a few more jokes)!

The merits of your amateur Colbert impersonation notwithstanding, my point was that by deciding to stay in character, Colbert drew extra attention to his address; and while entertaining, made some good points, some ironically, some explicitly, in favor of better treatment of migrant workers. Not a bad five-and-a-half minutes work.



I find there are several ways to make a point, and thus considerable overlap. Some people are funny, some deadly serious, most some combination. Whether someone argues his side by amusing and entertaining, by grand speechmaking, by subtle innuendo, by satire and caricature, by rhetoric, by logic, by debate, by cartoon, by chattaqua, by fireside chat, by op-ed piece, by powerpoint slides and pie graphs, doesn't really matter to me, so long as the point gets made effectively.

I thought there were some drawbacks with Colbert's "in character" presentation (he had to step out of character at the end, for example, to respond to a question about his motive for involving himself in the migrant worker cause and agreeing to speak before congress), but on the whole, though I had my doubts beforehand, I thought it was very effective. Not "magical", as your Colbert persona has exaggerated. Just a nice job by a comedian of drawing attention to a cause and making a few good points in its favor.



Well -- always assuming you're not in character here and mean this as a serious complaint -- he is a comedian, after all. Shtick's his stock and trade. I'm a little lukewarm on some of it; lost a lot of its lustre when W Bush stepped down, imo. But a lot of the jokes today -- how his Irish greatgrandfather hadn't come to America just to see it overrun by immigrants! -- had some teeth. And I admit I enjoyed seeing Arturo Rodriguez, head of the UFW seated beside him, laughing, show his.

I apologize for the confusion. I tried to quote only the parts of your post directly related to my rebuttal. Let me pare it down a little more for you.

You said: yet he manages, while in character, to get his point across: to argue himself into corners where even his rabid right-wing persona has to admit that granting immigrant workers visas as a way to earn citizenship is a good idea.

Colbert argues himself into a corner. This. Is. A. Straw. Man. You think it's awesome. You're wrong. It's just a cheap rhetorical trick, worthy only of comedians.

 

[WildCat]

Magic! Also, Colbert is funny!

It must be magic. The plantation owners won't hire legal workers now because they're too expensive (what with all the demands for good pay, benefits, and working conditions), so the plan is to legalize the current group of illegal workers, so they can become more expensive by demanding higher wages, and better benefits and working conditions.

And magically, somehow, they won't just keep hiring illegal workers for less...

The farm workers lives will never be improved so long as plantation owners have access to and have no fear of hiring illegal workers.

And I use the term plantation rather than farm because all these "farmers" care about is not having to pay one cent above minimum wage amid working conditions quite similar to what slaves had to contend with in the old south. The UFW president should be ashamed of himself for pursuing policies that critically undermine the bargaining position of his workers, and has kept them in such a miserable position. What a complete failure of a labor union, while other unions have managed to negotiate middle-class wages for their workers UFW members live in abject poverty and dangerous working conditions. And so-called progressives are pursuing policies to keep it that way.

 

[pipelineaudio]

"We ask them to come and work.

Then we ask them to leave again.

These people suffer.

They have no rights."


Insight from one day of farm work.

Then the farm must have been in imagination land

 

[OMGturt1es]

The conditions facing farm workers are the result of illegal immigration. In fact, the sole purpose of hiring immigrants (legal and illegal) as farmworkers is to exploit them for cheap labor with no benefits. Hard to demand better wages and working conditions when there's always new people crossing the border willing to do it for minimum wage.

If you want to improve conditions for farm workers, control illegal immigration and limit legal immigration for low-skilled workers only in cases of demonstrable shortages. And by "demonstrable shortages" I don't mean shortages caused by crap wages and benefits. I mean shortages even after wages, benefits, and working conditions have greatly improved.

I grew up in the orchards with immigrants. I don't know if they were legal. Some likely were. Some likely weren't. It appears we were all paid the same: minimum wage, which is legal. And not at all worth it for anyone with any other opportunities. And that's why I was about the only white guy out in the orchards. It's just not worth it. I can't tell you how many times I'd be out working in orchards or fields while the folks renting houses on the property stayed inside collecting welfare (small town; everyone knew everyone's business).

Until we are all willing to pay enough for food to make these jobs appealing to those who have any other options, migrant immigrants will be necessary. Even when we are willing to pay more (a lot more), our farmers will be unable to compete on the world market, which is already becoming more and more difficult. We have raised our employment and environmental standards. Other countries have not.

Regarding Colbert, he may be a comedian, but he continues to make better arguments than most pundits or talking heads in the news. While his testimony was humorous, there was a great deal of truth to it. The market does ask these folk to come. There are available jobs that Americans just don't want to do. And then we treat these folk like crap. And his point regarding the invisible hand was very nice.

 

[blobru]

I apologize for the confusion. I tried to quote only the parts of your post directly related to my rebuttal.

Which helps explain how it was taken out of context...

Let me pare it down a little more for you... You said: yet he manages, while in character, to get his point across: to argue himself into corners where even his rabid right-wing persona has to admit that granting immigrant workers visas as a way to earn citizenship is a good idea.

Colbert argues himself into a corner. This. Is. A. Straw. Man. You think it's awesome. You're wrong. It's just a cheap rhetorical trick, worthy only of comedians.

Oh great. I no longer think it's "magic". I've now slipped into valley girl patois, and think "it's awesome." Dude? (I'm also addressed in a sort of monosyllabic cromagnon: a strawcaveman? Well, at least he's not employing any cheap rhetorical tricks to argue whatever point he, or is it his 'comedian' persona again, imagines he has, eh).

In context, I am responding to TraneWreck's post, where he asks whose decision it was for him to testify in character:

Colbert continues to deliver.

Do we know that they wanted him to testify in character, or did he just decide to?

I'm not sure, but it was a brilliant decision! It was comedy enough to get people to tune in, yet he manages, while in character, to get his point across: to argue himself into corners where even his rabid right-wing persona has to admit that granting immigrant workers visas as a way to earn citizenship is a good idea. I have to admit I was doubtful this was the best strategy going in, but having watched his opening address, in character was obviously the way to go (unless we are to assume the audience is just too darn dumb to appreciate irony; but I doubt that most are).

I say I don't know whose decision it was for Colbert to testify in character, but it was in hindsight, imo, a brilliant decision (to testify in character, not the character's buffoonery, which I had my doubts about). It allowed him to do his standard shtick, the arguing himself into corners bit, and, to my surprise, even slip in a a few good points which his side might expand on, such as:

...So, what's the answer? I'm a free market guy. Normally I would leave this to the invisible hand of the market, but the invisible hand of the market has already moved over 84000 acres of production and over 22000 farm jobs to Mexico, and shut down over a million acres of US farmland due to lack of available labor, because apparently, even the invisible hand doesn't want to pick beans.
Now I'm not a fan of the government doing anything, but I've gotta ask, "why isn't the government doing anything?" Maybe this "add jobs" bill would help, I don't know -- like most members of congress, I haven't read it, but...
Maybe we could offer more visas to the immigrants who, let's face it, will probably be doing these jobs anyway; and this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse if they're abused; and it just stands to reason to me, that if your coworker can't be exploited, then you're less likely to be exploited yourself, and that itself might improve pay and working conditions on these farms, and eventually, Americans may consider taking these jobs again.

That seems to me a pretty substantial argument. It highlights the dilemma faced by lawmakers: either bring the workers to US farms, or have the farms go to Mexico [and further south] to find the workers, and cheap labor to keep costs down. I'd guess the goal of the visa program -- haven't studied it in detail -- is to give workers a voice to petition for unpopular changes, such as tariffs (where those are still applicable under free trade), to protect their jobs, and keep more farms in the US. Of course the government could do this immediately, but without votes the farm workers haven't the clout to force it, and there doesn't seem enough political will otherwise to act. Migrant work visas towards citizenship might create some. depending on how well the program was administered and enforced, of course. Without it, everyone seems to want immigration reform in theory, yet no one's willing to bite the bullet and pay the price, pay more for produce, that entails. Something along those lines, anyway. It seems a fair proposal; good catalyst for debate in the House and elsewhere...

Though, as I say above, I had been doubtful having him testify in character would work -- too 'shticky' -- once I saw he had managed to embed some serious points, the quoted argument above all, in his character's testimony, I changed my mind. All in all, I thought it a nice use of irony, and celebrity: making a serious point within the comedy routine many people had lined up for. Certainly not the last word in the debate -- it would be sad if anyone mistook it for such -- just Colbert's opinion, delivered in character. Maybe not the clearest way to express oneself politically, but a great way to draw some extra attention to the debate. For better or worse? (it may have alienated more politicos than it excited)... we'll see.

I grew up in the orchards with immigrants. I don't know if they were legal. Some likely were. Some likely weren't. It appears we were all paid the same: minimum wage, which is legal. And not at all worth it for anyone with any other opportunities. And that's why I was about the only white guy out in the orchards. It's just not worth it. I can't tell you how many times I'd be out working in orchards or fields while the folks renting houses on the property stayed inside collecting welfare (small town; everyone knew everyone's business).

Until we are all willing to pay enough for food to make these jobs appealing to those who have any other options, migrant immigrants will be necessary. Even when we are willing to pay more (a lot more), our farmers will be unable to compete on the world market, which is already becoming more and more difficult. We have raised our employment and environmental standards. Other countries have not.

Regarding Colbert, he may be a comedian, but he continues to make better arguments than most pundits or talking heads in the news. While his testimony was humorous, there was a great deal of truth to it. The market does ask these folk to come. There are available jobs that Americans just don't want to do. And then we treat these folk like crap. And his point regarding the invisible hand was very nice.

Great post. I hope you can stick around and contribute more to the discussion, Mr OMGturt1es (at least you won't rush off).

 

[FSM]

Damn it! Someone stole my juvenile tags! Wackylaugh! Where were you on the night of September 24 at or around 10:30 p.m.?! Empty your pockets, sir. If I find even one cornpacking tag on your person I'm going to be so angry...

In a thread where Corey Feldman gets to run wild and free, it seems a terrible shame that cornpacking tags must be exterminated. A terrible shame.

 

[FSM]

I grew up in the orchards with immigrants. I don't know if they were legal. Some likely were. Some likely weren't. It appears we were all paid the same: minimum wage, which is legal. And not at all worth it for anyone with any other opportunities. And that's why I was about the only white guy out in the orchards. It's just not worth it. I can't tell you how many times I'd be out working in orchards or fields while the folks renting houses on the property stayed inside collecting welfare (small town; everyone knew everyone's business).

Until we are all willing to pay enough for food to make these jobs appealing to those who have any other options, migrant immigrants will be necessary. Even when we are willing to pay more (a lot more), our farmers will be unable to compete on the world market, which is already becoming more and more difficult. We have raised our employment and environmental standards. Other countries have not.

Regarding Colbert, he may be a comedian, but he continues to make better arguments than most pundits or talking heads in the news. While his testimony was humorous, there was a great deal of truth to it. The market does ask these folk to come. There are available jobs that Americans just don't want to do. And then we treat these folk like crap. And his point regarding the invisible hand was very nice.

Great points. Thank you, OMGturtles.

 

[FSM]

These people seem to think that giving farm workers citizenship will make a conditions better for them.


http://www.ufw.org/pdf/letterstoobama.pdf

 

[Infoexcavator]

Colbert giving testimony, Al Franken in the senate and Barry Soetoro as the president. USA is a joke.

 

[WildCat]

I grew up in the orchards with immigrants. I don't know if they were legal. Some likely were. Some likely weren't. It appears we were all paid the same: minimum wage, which is legal. And not at all worth it for anyone with any other opportunities. And that's why I was about the only white guy out in the orchards. It's just not worth it. I can't tell you how many times I'd be out working in orchards or fields while the folks renting houses on the property stayed inside collecting welfare (small town; everyone knew everyone's business).

Not worth it, which is exactly my point. Pay stays low, because there's a continuous influx oif illegal workers who will be willing to work for practically nothing, just enough to survive. So long as that remains the case farm workers will make minimum wage and working conditions will not improve. Forget about benefits.

Until we are all willing to pay enough for food to make these jobs appealing to those who have any other options, migrant immigrants will be necessary. Even when we are willing to pay more (a lot more), our farmers will be unable to compete on the world market, which is already becoming more and more difficult. We have raised our employment and environmental standards. Other countries have not.

The items picked by hand (generally fresh vegetables and fruit) tend to not store well for long, this isn't what gets exported. You can't, for example, ship lettuce halfway around the world and have it arrive fresh (not cheaply anyway). And what we do export, corn, wheat, and soy, is almost completely mechanized and doesn't require many workers.

The cost of the labor to pick vegetables is a small percentage of the sale price in a grocery store, most of the cost is transportation. Higher wages would have little effect on the price in the grocery store. The people benefitting from cheap migrant farm workers are the plantation owners. Remember when southern slave masters said no way agriculture survive in the American south without slavery? We're hearing much the same wrgument from modern-day plantation owners wrt impoverished farm workers.

Regarding Colbert, he may be a comedian, but he continues to make better arguments than most pundits or talking heads in the news. While his testimony was humorous, there was a great deal of truth to it. The market does ask these folk to come.

No, it doesn't. Our policy of looking the other way encourages these people to come and be virtual slaves in the modern day.

There are available jobs that Americans just don't want to do.

Absolute BS. There are only wages Americans and other legal workers won't work for.

And then we treat these folk like crap. And his point regarding the invisible hand was very nice.

Unbelievable! You just spent the entire post arguing that we have to treat these people like crap otherwise prices at the grocery store might rice a few cents (horrors!). You don't actually want to improve the wages, benefits, and working conditions of farm workers, you want to keep them in abject poverty working for minimum wage, no benefits, and crappy working conditions. You really don't give a damn about the farm workers, otherwise you'd be looking for ways to improve their lot rather than fighting to keep the status quo. You're pretending to care about the migrant workers, when in reality all you care about is that the head of lettuce at your grocery store is $0.99 instead of $1.14.

 

[Augustine]

Prior to Stephen Colbert yukking it up with his shtick, Dr. Carol Swain of Vanderbilt gave an actual brief, concise, factual, serious discussion of the issues:

http://law.vanderbilt.edu/download.aspx?ID=6112

I contend that America does not have a shortage of agricultural workers. Instead, we have a manufactured crisis by some who would like to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor---in some cases, labor that by-passes the existing laws, in particular H2-A and H2-B guest worker programs. The H2-A Visa is for agricultural related employment and the H2-B is for mostly unskilled non-agricultural jobs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for agricultural workers in August 2010 was 7.9 percent. This was down from a high of 10.8 percent in May.
Labor economist Philip Martin who has conducted extensive studies of farm labor in the areas of fruit and vegetable production has found rising production in crops and stagnant wages for farm workers. Meanwhile, the cost of household expenditures on fresh fruits and vegetables has remained constant.
If there were labor shortages for agricultural workers, one would expect to find rising wages and more attractive working conditions. One would not expect to find unemployment rates of 10.8 percent in May and 7.9 percent in August in agricultural related jobs.
These unemployment figures indicate that there are native workers actively seeking employment in the sector that includes agricultural workers, forestry, fishing, and hunting.
The majority of agricultural workers have less than a high school education. They work under the most strenuous conditions. Consequently, there is a high turnover rate among these workers.
Agricultural workers often leave the fields and farms for other low-wage, low-skill occupations. There they are more likely to compete directly with low-skilled Americans for a dwindling supply of low-wage jobs.
The UFW’s humorous “Take Our Jobs Initiative” entirely and, perhaps deliberately misses the point. America cannot continue to bring in low-skilled guest workers to compete with its most disadvantaged citizens: poor whites, blacks, and legal Hispanics.
Often, surplus labor that starts in the fields migrates into other industries. Without this surplus labor, employers would be forced to pay higher wages and many would be forced to improve substandard working conditions. Instead of paying $8.00 or $9.00 per hour, employers might be forced to pay $12.00 or $13.00. Phil Martin’s data shows that an increase in the wages of farm workers would not substantially increase the average family’s grocery bill.
The “Take Our Jobs Initiative” misses the fact that in some parts of the country native workers have successfully worked along-side immigrant farm workers.

The "Phil Martin" data alluded to by Dr. Swain and Wildcat:
http://www.cis.org/no_farm_labor_shortages.html

• The average household spends only about $1 a day on fresh fruits and vegetables.
• Labor costs comprise only 6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh produce. Thus, if farm wages were
  allowed to rise 40 percent, and if all the costs were passed on to consumers, the cost to the average household would be only about $8 a year.
• Mechanization could offset higher labor costs. After the “Bracero” Mexican guestworker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices rose relatively little because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity.

 

[quadraginta]

Colbert giving testimony, Al Franken in the senate and Barry Soetoro as the president. USA is a joke.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Tom Lehrer gave us this little gem about George Murphy in 1964, on TW³.



It's interesting that Murphy (a Republican) was very concerned with the issues of illegal immigration, and migrant farm workers. He supported the Bracero Program, which had provided temporary work visas for Mexican agriculturical workers for a couple of decades after WWII.

The tenor of our national angst about cheap labor seems to be driven as much by political expediency as by any real conviction.

The nonchalant fashion in which Ronald Raygun is dismissed as a serious political contender in the song's intro is sort of ironic, in retrospect.

 

[FSM]

I googled Dr. Carol Swaim.

Dr. Swaim said:

The UFW’s humorous “Take Our Jobs Initiative” entirely and, perhaps deliberately misses the point. America cannot continue to bring in low-skilled guest workers to compete with its most disadvantaged citizens: poor whites, blacks, and legal Hispanics.

From the Immigration Policy Center:

Several public-private outreach, training, and placement initiatives (including one in California’s Central Valley in the late 1990’s and another in Washington state in 1996)
sought to recruit U.S. workers for agricultural jobs. The California program took place against the backdrop of regional unemployment rates of 9-12%, with some localized unemployment rates exceeding 20%. Yet only a handful of workers were successfully recruited, prompting some county employment agencies to state that they would no longer try to place the unemployed into seasonal or intermittent agricultural jobs.


Swaim: Conscise, maybe. Serious, absolutely. But, I don't know so much about factual...

 

[godofpie]

Colbert argues himself into a corner. This. Is. A. Straw. Man. You think it's awesome. You're wrong. It's just a cheap rhetorical trick, worthy only of comedians.

...and politicians.

 

[Augustine]

I googled Dr. Carol Swaim.

You should google Carol Swain, as that is her name. I would suggest you read her full testimony. The irony, of course, is that real advocates of the "invisible hand" of the free market (not comedians doing a shtick of a "rabid right-wing persona") argue that enforcement of existing immigration laws would force the wages paid to legal farm laborers to rise. Consequently, raising the wages of all low-skilled legal workers. Amnesty does nothing to address this phenomenon, and is actually more likely to keep the wages of low-skilled laborers depressed. Guess some people don't care about the poor, huh?

 

[WildCat]

I From the Immigration Policy Center:

Several public-private outreach, training, and placement initiatives (including one in California’s Central Valley in the late 1990’s and another in Washington state in 1996)
sought to recruit U.S. workers for agricultural jobs. The California program took place against the backdrop of regional unemployment rates of 9-12%, with some localized unemployment rates exceeding 20%. Yet only a handful of workers were successfully recruited, prompting some county employment agencies to state that they would no longer try to place the unemployed into seasonal or intermittent agricultural jobs.


Swaim: Conscise, maybe. Serious, absolutely. But, I don't know so much about factual...

Was anyone disputing that these jobs don't pay enough to attract legal workers?

That's pretty much the point Swain (and I) are making. These jobs will never pay more nor will conditions improve so long as there is a constant supply of illegal workers.

eta: and that's why I can't understand how Colbert and some here think that somehow making it even easier for illegal ag workers to work here will improver their wages, benefits, and working conditions.

 

[FSM]

Oh, I'm sorry. Swain. I googled correctly, just misspelllleeedd it when posting. I apologize for the error. I actually read an excerpt of her book Debating Immigration before I posted thinking that perhaps that would give me some information about her stance beyond the testimony. Also came across this:

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/02/02/carol-swains-steeley-support-for-the-gop/

Did either of you read the letters I linked to a few posts back?

(Also, to Mr. Wackylaugh: Psst... you are about to be overtaken by the intimidating Mr. Rolleyes... If I were you, I'd just watch your damned step. His understated sense of irony, his bitingly repugnant smile dripping with sarcasm... Get your resume together, sir.)

 

[TraneWreck]

How will immigration reform provide recourse through the legal system, and how will that improve the wages, benefits, and working conditions of farm workers? After all, current labor law applies to everyone now, even illegal workers are supposed to be paid at least minimum wage.

Why do you think legalizing the current set of workers will make hiring a new set of illegal workers less attractive? Why wouldn't they continue to hire illegal workers, just as they do now and for exactly the same reasons?

The proposed bill is a step towards eliminating the category of "illegals" all together.

If you take away the means of abuse, threat of deportation, the labor cannot be extorted to the same degree. Putting everyone in the system, giving everyone access to legal protection, and in the best case, a union, will immediately improve conditions for all workers as such things have done throughout history.

THe only difference between the way migrant workers were treated during the depression and the current crop is the issue of citizenship. Laws were put in place to end that abuse, that immediately improved conditions for workers, now the same laws just need to be extended to a new class.

 

[TraneWreck]

Colbert giving testimony, Al Franken in the senate and Barry Soetoro as the president. USA is a joke.

There is nothing anyone can do to bring more shame and humiliation on our nation's government than James Inhofe has already done.

Slavery used to be legal, but it's this Congressional testimony that will humble our country?