Last weekend, State Senator Holly Mitchell hosted a community town hall in South Central LA on immigration reform that focused entirely on Latinos. (Black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America were not on the agenda and when I left, there were no Blacks in the audience.)
However, Senator Mitchell should be applauded for holding a public gathering on this crucial issue. Although immigration is under federal jurisdiction, it affects state and local policies and practices as well. Los Angeles has more Latino immigrants, legal and undocumented, than any U. S. city, but to my knowledge, no Black city council member has ever held a public forum on the effects of immigration and/or immigration reform on their constituents.
“Mexicans (i.e., Latino “illegal immigrants”) are taking our jobs” is a heartfelt claim of countless Blacks although it gets little media exposure. Unfortunately, it does heighten friction between Blacks and Latinos which pleases many employers and anti-immigration advocates who exploit it to perpetuate racism and white privilege.
Large numbers of Blacks feel Latino immigrants have encroached on their turf, not only because Latinos are being employed at their expense, but because they also believe Latinos receive preferential treatment in other areas such as public education and public services, to which they are not entitled. A vivid example of Black’s concern: These days, many employment ads include the phrase, “Spanish speaking preferred.” Is the ability to speak Spanish really necessary for a job sweeping floors?
This pressing and extremely complex issue remains mostly unattended by local government and Black leadership. Consequently, a bad situation festers, increasing tension between already tenuous relations between Blacks and Latinos. And by default, whites—not Blacks or Latinos—continue to frame the immigration debate. Still, Blacks’ claim of discrimination in employment- and other areas- is valid and should always be accorded proper weight.
No credible argument blames immigration solely for the steady reduction in blue collar jobs in the U.S. Nor did immigration cause the weakening of labor unions, ascendency of high technology or the deterioration of U.S. import/export balances. However, together, all of these things continue to suck up good-paying jobs. And yes, there are some job markets where immigrants, illegal and legal, exert significant, negative influence on Blacks’ job prospects.
Low wage labor conditions exist because of the priorities of America’s capitalist system that values profit above all else. Therefore, the terms of the immigration debate must be changed to protect the integrity of the nation’s low-wage labor markets from conditions that are inconsistent with high living standards and guaranteed civil rights. It is crucial that public policies be designed and adopted to protect the rights and standards of all low-wage workers, but never at the expense of the Black worker.
The evidence, from an economic standpoint, is that immigration’s broader benefits to the nation outweigh its costs. However, Black workers’ job losses due to immigrant competition is unacceptable and this issue must be part of the immigration reform conversation regarding equitable remedies.
Blacks may want to consider, but not necessarily embrace, political activist Eric Ward’s admonition that regardless of what Blacks think about immigration, they must be united in opposition to the anti-immigration movement. “It is a movement that continues to assault Black America by embracing white supremacist leadership who also attack the 14th Amendment and Blacks’ voting rights.” Ward correctly argues that the anti-illegal immigrant movement is not interested in solutions to migration but in dismantling civil rights, limiting citizenship and redefining our national identity so that white nationalism continues as the country’s explicit ideology.
In Los Angeles the anti-immigration activists have the gall to claim that their position and actions actually benefit Blacks. Unfortunately, even though Black leaders, in general, reject that view, many continue to reinforce anti-immigrant sentiment by their silence, which furthers the individuals’ rather than constituent priorities.
University of California at Berkeley professor, Steven Pitts, argues there is no correlation between immigration and a lack of jobs for Blacks. Pitts says the real enemy of Black economic opportunity is “a two-dimensional job crisis for Blacks—unemployment and low-wage jobs.” He contends the real crisis stems not from immigration of Latinos, but because of employment discrimination, sub-standard public K-12 schools and continuing attacks on organized labor. But Pitts’ argument skirts the need to adequately address clearly discriminatory public and private sector policies and practices that discriminate against Black workers in particular.
Anti-immigration groups couldn’t care less about problems facing Blacks; everyone knows conservatives not only stall immigration reform efforts in Congress and have by far, the poorest record on civil rights. Groups like the ultra-right John Tanton network maintain strong ties with members of the reconstituted White Citizens Council, an avowed white supremacist organization. The right-wing knows that immigrant rights, for all groups, are a strike against bigotry and structural racism. Therefore, it continues to proselytize and count on “silence of the lambs”- as opposed to sustainable denouncement of anti-immigrant racist campaigns.
Anti-immigration proponents fail to acknowledge that both public and private sector policies and practices discriminate against African Americans, and other people of color, because that helps to ensure white dominance. But it also underscores that Black leaders must be in the vanguard for immigration reform that never happens be at the expense of African Americans or Black immigrants. That’s true leadership.
Larry Aubry can be contacted at e-mail [email protected]
