The Politics of Immigration (2nd Edition). David Wilson
decision doesn’t affect most other labor rights. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) confirmed in June 2002 that it wouldn’t inquire into the immigration status of workers claiming discrimination, and wouldn’t consider such status when investigating cases. “Make no mistake, it is still illegal for employers to discriminate against undocumented workers,” EEOC Commissioner Leslie E. Silverman insisted in a press release.45 The U.S. Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) confirmed in 2008 that it would enforce the minimum wage and overtime laws “without regard to whether an employee is documented or undocumented.” However, because of Hoffman, undocumented workers who file discrimination claims usually won’t be able to win reinstatement in their jobs.46
Do immigrants have constitutional rights?
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution, ratified in 1791) refers to the rights of “people,” not citizens. The First Amendment specifically guarantees freedom of speech and of religion, and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Under the Bill of Rights, freedom from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” from deprivation “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” from “excessive bail,” “excessive fines,” and “cruel and unusual punishments” are rights guaranteed to all persons—not only to the citizens of the United States. The Sixth Amendment guarantees any defendant in a criminal case, citizen or not, the right to a speedy public trial by jury with the assistance of a lawyer. Article One, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution indicates that anyone can use the writ of habeas corpus to go before a judge to challenge his or her imprisonment.47
But all these and other rights were systematically and openly denied to most people of African descent from the beginning. Slavery remained legal and continued to exist for another seventy-four years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Supreme Court declared in the Dred Scott case of March 1857 that people of African descent, whether slave or free, did not have an inherent right to U.S. citizenship.48 Because it defended this injustice so blatantly, the Dred Scott ruling actually fueled the movement against slavery. In December 1865, after the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, banning slavery, “except as a punishment for crime.” In July 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, stating:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Even here, where citizenship rights are defined, the last two clauses very clearly refer not to citizens but to “any person” and “any person within [a state’s] jurisdiction.” This language clearly extends due process rights and equal protection to immigrants, regardless of their legal status.
Do immigrants have the right to protest?
The First Amendment guarantees that everyone has the right to take part in public protests, including immigrants as well as U.S.-born citizens. Some people feel angry or resentful when they see immigrants exercising these rights, as when thousands marched and rallied across the United States between February and May of 2006 to defend immigrant rights. There seems to be an unspoken but widely held belief that out-of-status immigrants should stay “in their place” as silent cogs in the labor machine—hardworking, quiet, fearful, and out of sight.49
During the civil rights movement of the 1960s, African Americans who rose up against segregation and oppression saw similar reactions from whites, even among those who supported their civil rights in theory, but thought they should wait patiently for them rather than march.50
What rights don’t immigrants have?
Today, equality under the law exists on paper for African Americans and other citizens of color, although in practice they suffer from pervasive discrimination and their rights are often violated with impunity. Non-citizens do not have true equality even on paper.
The way the courts have interpreted the laws and the Constitution, immigrants don’t have the right to be here in the first place; even if you’re a legal permanent resident, your presence here is considered a privilege.51 Through this twist of logic, the government claims it can deport any non-citizen for virtually any reason, or for no reason at all, including longtime residents with green cards. So in practice, noncitizens can be denied a number of rights that should be guaranteed to “all persons,” such as free speech, freedom from unjustified imprisonment, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. If you are a non-citizen, you can be deported for exercising your freedom of expression, imprisoned without being charged with a crime, or exiled for life from the country you consider your home.
The Dred Scott case is a reminder that even when the Supreme Court upholds discriminatory policies as the “law of the land,” we can fight back and eventually win policy changes that reflect the values of freedom, justice, and equal rights. Court decisions don’t happen in a vacuum; when the people move, the courts eventually follow. As Riva Enteen, program director of the National Lawyers Guild’s San Francisco chapter, put it in a 2002 interview: “It takes a political movement to create a political context in which the courts respond and, frankly, do the right thing. So, if there wasn’t a civil rights movement, the Supreme Court would not have [made its 1954 ruling in the] Brown v. Board [of Education case] to integrate the schools.”52
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will,” noted prominent African-American writer, orator, and anti-slavery activist Frederick Douglass in a speech in August 1857, a few months after the Dred Scott decision.53
6. Are Immigrants Hurting Our Economy?
CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, a majority of unauthorized immigrants pay taxes. Young families with children in school, whether immigrants or not, tend to use more in services than they pay in taxes until the kids grow up. Immigrants “take” jobs by entering the labor market, but they also buy goods and services, creating jobs. Unauthorized status makes it harder for workers to assert their rights, and that does push wages down, but we could fix that by allowing everyone to work legally. Many immigrants send some of their earnings abroad, but so do we all, every time we buy a product made in China or Honduras.
Studies on immigration’s economic impact generally don’t address important questions like who benefits from economic growth, why so many large corporations don’t pay their fair share, or whether the government spends our tax money in our best interests. People who support immigrant rights often say that immigrants are “good for the economy.” That sounds nice, but what does it mean? Are people supposed to be good for the economy, or should the economy be structured so that it’s good for people? And if so, what would that look like, and who gets to decide?
How much do immigrants cost us?
There have been dozens of efforts to determine the exact cost or benefit of immigration to the U.S. economy.1 These studies generally focus on how much immigrants increase or reduce economic growth, or else compare how much immigrants pay in taxes to how much they receive in services.
The results have been contradictory, showing how hard it is to measure something so complex, and how much the results depend on what assumptions we start with.
• Research by the generally pro-immigration Fiscal Policy Institute in 2009 found evidence that immigrants had helped the economy grow in twenty-five metropolitan areas. “Immigration and economic growth of metro areas go hand in hand,” the study concluded.
• The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which calls for restricting immigration, claimed that families headed by undocumented immigrants were costing the federal government $10.4 billion a year in 2002, the difference between the taxes they paid and what the government spent on them (although the CIS