Competition between illegals and "refugees" in Utah
A culture clash reminiscent of many in American history is surfacing here as Latino immigrants find they have new competition for service-sector jobs.
The clash occurs after an immigrant population gets a firm hold on the lower rungs of the economic ladder and then sees competition from a newer immigrant population.
Today's competition affecting the Latino community comes from refugees, about 1,100 of whom will arrive in Utah during the year, mostly from southeast Asia and Africa. The new arrivals join a population of about 25,000 in Salt Lake County whose journey here began with refugee status.
Reported jitters among the Latino workforce at the Grand America Hotel, for example, has brought to light some of the angst the Latinos have with refugees. Tony Yapias, director of immigrant activist group Proyecto Latino de Utah, said housekeeping workers at the hotel say they are getting letters from Immigration and Customs Enforcement with requests for more documentation about their residency status.
The workers' concern is they won't be able to satisfy requirements of the new federal E-Verify system, which allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States, and they will lose their jobs to refugees.
Neither the hotel nor immigration officials are talking about potential job actions, and the hotel turned down a request to talk about the challenges of managing a workforce of both Hispanic immigrants and refugees from other parts of the world.
Regardless of the hotel involved, the clash is nothing new in American society nor to potential employers who work with both groups. And no hotel wants to be singled out as the focal point of the debate, said Michael Johnson, executive director of the Utah Hotel and Lodging Association.
"I don't know whether any hotels have found a difference between (the two groups) as workers, but I think hotels would, at this point, be likely to hire a refugee and very unlikely to hire somebody who's illegal," Johnson said. "The demographic has changed."
One of the significant differences between the Latino immigrant and refugee populations is that each refugee — placed in Utah with the involvement of international relief organizations and the State Department — arrives here with short-term financial and health benefits, a caseworker and permission to work.
"They have papers. They have Medicaid and everything else," Yapias said of the refugee community. The only government involvement the Latino immigrants have is Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he said, which is seen as a communitywide threat, not a help. "The only resource (the Latino) has is contact with a friend or a family member."
More HERE
Georgia Prepares to Fight Federal Ruling Blocking Immigration Law
The Georgia state attorney general's office is preparing to file an appeal challenging a federal judge's ruling blocking parts of its immigration law. A spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office announced that it has filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court in Atlanta.
The spokeswoman, Lauren Kane, says the official appeal has not yet been filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 11th Circuit filing will include a brief that will lay out the state's objections to the ruling. Kane did not specify a date for the appeal.
Federal Judge Thomas Thrash on June 27 granted a request filed by civil liberties groups to block two sections of Georgia House Bill 87 from taking effect until a lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality has been resolved.
One provision that was blocked authorizes police to check the immigration status of suspects without proper identification.
Other blocked sections authorize authorities to detain undocumented immigrants and penalizes people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor unauthorized immigrants while committing a crime. Parts of similar measures in Arizona, Utah and Indiana also have been blocked by the courts.
Other parts of the law, passed by the Georgia Legislature this year, took effect Friday, including one that makes it a felony to use false information or documentation when applying for a job.
Another provision creates an immigration review board to investigate complaints about government officials not complying with state laws related to illegal immigration.
More HERE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment