Democratic Candidates vs. Working Class America

I have friends that work in the trades. They are plumbers, electricians, they lay tile or frame houses. They are making the same income they made twenty years ago thanks to illegal immigration.

Many contractors cannot even afford to bid on jobs unless they use day labor. The United States government is encouraging the importation of pipe fitters and other skilled workers from Mexico to keep reconstruction costs down.

I guess no American should be worth more than $15 an hour unless they work in a cubicle.

So what do our Democratic candidates do? Do they demand that all building permits come with union jobs? Do they demand that all construction workers show proper ID and licenses before they can work in the United States?

No. They support sanctuary cities to help break the trade unions and destroy middle class Americans. Apparently it is more important that a tenured college professor’s house addition is cheap than an American worker can afford to send his kid to college. Apparently it is better that a business executive can pick up some Saturday help at Home depot rather than an American man can build a business he can pass to his sons and daughters.

I’m a liberal and that means I support an Americans ability to work for a fair wage and improve his lot for him and his kids. Apparently they changed the definition of liberal when I wasn’t looking. Working Class people need not apply.


PS. Yes I know Republicans support cheap labor imports. Republicans are greedy scum and admit it what is your excuse.

Democrats do seem to have trouble connecting with the working class position on that issue, which is overwhelming anti-illegal-immigrant. OTOH, Democrats don't want to offend Hispanic voters, or be seen as insensitive by the upper-middle-class and the wealthy who, for instance, often has a vested interest in keeping that cheap labor around. Upper-middle-class are often swing voters and Hispanics tend to vote Democrat too (though not always, and some favor curtailing illegal immigration). So it isn't easy for a Democrat politician to say "I'm oppossed to this... or that" concerning immigration without offending somebody. It is a potential wedge issue

The only saving grace on that issue... Republicans are pretty divided too, but the split is more decisively against it. The base is against illegal immigration but the bigtime donors are strongly in favor of it becaues it helps their businesses. So this makes it tough for Republicans to come out and say "we are against it" for fear of offending big businesses and wealthy individuals who like illegal immigration.

I just don't understand how a Liberal Democratic candidate could abandon his base. Plus working class men are a swing vote Democrats have been losing in Presidential elections. This seems a slam dunk to get them back.

It is just politics. There are enough Blue Dog democrats out there oppossed to illegal immigration, plus the sentiment of the country on the whole is oppossed to it, especially in many border states and the Midwest, that Democrats will not be able to ignore the issue forever. So right now it is just presidential rhetoric.

It all comes down to who are you going to take for granted today. Democrats do need to try and reach out to white, blue collar males because if you can take ever a fraction of that away, the Republican base will be gone. But Democrats have historicly been very weak with that group ever since LBJ and Nixon, it is easy to write off that group, and hard to figure out how to reach them and still appease the other wings of the party. The last congressional election added folks like Jim Webb and others, plus alot of conservative/moderate Democrats from the South, so the party's image is changing at least on the local level.

of any race then by giving them a de facto raise.

I ask any Democratic candidate should a skills tradesman be able to support a family on 40 hours work a week.

And if not why not.

candidates are openly and loudly anti-illegal immigrant, even Rudi who ran a sanctuary city. We'll see how that changes once one of them wins the nomination and needs help from the big money boys, but for now they are playing to their base. It is interesting none of our "Big Three" pursues this idea, perhaps particularly Edwards with his focus on poverty and "two Americas."

The repubs are doing such a good job of alienating Hispanic voters with their rhetoric that we may be able to shift our focus to other areas.

Is some feel good flashback from the mid-eighties.But the circumstances couldn't be more different. And instead of noting other liberal countries closing their borders to the same workers (Canada in particular has clamped down on Mexican immigrants) the sanctuary folks (yes I know them from my anti-war activities) seem stuck in a time warp. What is stranger the same activists rail against homelessness and economic injustice. It never seems to occur to them that the undocumented workers dropping peoples pay from $18 an hour to $8 an hour is a contributer of these problems.

Often I think if the Republicans seem to be in favor of some think our knee jerk reaction is to take the opposite view. We should steal this from the pubs and explain it's about fair wages and rule of law not racism.

And Rudy is lukewarm on the issue. See his recent "It's not a crime," gaffe.

Rudi has done some pretty serious backpedaling from his sanctuary city and "it's not a crime days".

Surprisingly it is some Democrats giving the biggest boost to the sanctuary cities and amnesty.

job security and living wages. I will agree that the loss of jobs creates more racism and hostility towards other people... Trade agreements need to be fair. NAFTA has done a horrible job of increasing tension, inadequate wages, and a redistribution of large populations. That sucks.

Why would you assume otherwise. The lowering of wages and destruction of middle class jobs seems to effects minorities as well as whites if not more so.

who is just trying to give a chance for their family. In reality, if we are going to have so many immigrant employees.. there ought to be a law that says they are paid the same amount as you would an American worker. That would even the playing field a bit.

I feel bad for the people from Mexico and elsewhere who are poor and come here looking for work...but plenty of people who are legal citizens need work first! It is nothing but a way to lower wages and working conditions.

The system is rigged that the only way a subcontractor can win a bid in many places is using under the table labor. We need to enforce the current laws and simply make it impossible for undocumented workers be employed.

I don't agree with having "sanctuary cities", but you're a total fool to claim that any of the above three are against working Americans.

Unfortunately none of the top 3 have captured my imagination. But hey it's still early and it's not like I'm going to vote Repug in '08. I am shocked however that the candidates to a person would take the side of elitists and big business on immigration against working class folks and minorities. I figure at least one of them would be smart enough to realize that the middle class and lower middle class are concerned about jobs and pay.

Why would they allow tens of thousands of good paying American jobs to evaporate. Why would they let minority construction companies go bankrupt because they hire Black Americans at a living wage rather than illegal immigrants at slave wages.

It's easy to pander to special interest groups when you don't have to face families trying to make it on 1988 wages.

First psy-ops bogus accusation, designed to alienate Democratic union members: "Then why would they speak out in favor of Union busting."

Uh, and where did that occur, Chuckie????

Second psy-ops bogus accusation, designed to alienate black and other minority Americans from the Democratic party: "Why would they let minority construction companies go bankrupt because they hire Black Americans at a living wage rather than illegal immigrants at slave wages."

Now, let's see here. Where have we seen that strategy before? Last fall, when operatives were funding the "Democrats want you to abort your black children!" ads on black-owned radio stations?

I bring up minorities cause many of the effexted business are minority owned and some people honestly think this is racist rather than economic

oppossed to illegal immigration. Among black leaders and politicians, it's probably a little more skewed in favor of it, but there are still alot of concerns, especially as some African-Americans are dependent on low-skilled and/or blue-collar jobs.

This isn't the 90's anymore with a booming US economy and illegal immigration was a muted issue. In fact the economy may be in the early stategs of a recession or depression. I don't believe the economy can actually keep absorbing more labor supply and keep unemployment reasonable and fair for US citizens.

What will happen when we go into what inevitably will be a recession or depression? Fundamentals aren't looking good at the moment regardless of the perpetual fiction that Bush's Dept of Labor pumps out.

What would have happened in the 1930s if there would have been a huge labor surplus comprised of illegal immigrants? Will there be serious social unrest when American citizens will be required to compete with illegal immigrants for food and the remaining jobs? Perhaps that's the reason for Blackwater's expansion and the detention holding camps that Halliburton has been building. They will be used to maintain martial law and imprison unemployed American citizens.

about being politically correct and being invited to the right parties then they down and dirty truth of their constituency.

On some issues this is a good thing (African American leaders are nowhere near as homophobic or religiously conservative as their average supporter.)

On some things this is bad (Leaders tend to vote with identity politics of working class values and needs)

I think alot of African American leaders are sensitive to the fact that, not too long ago, they were a group that alot of people wanted them to stay on the other side of town unless they were servants, or to leave town altogether by "sundown".

So, I think alot of black leaders walk a fine line. On the one hand, they don't like to see illegal labor competing with much-needed black jobs. But on the other hand, they do not want to be part of a group oppressing other people just because they are seeking oppurtunities to better their lives. This is the same reason that so many black leaders have either been soft-pedalling or supporting gay issues as well; it would border on hypocritical to tear-down another group just for affirmation of themselves. Maybe black leaders are more aware of a need for solidarity. At least, I believe that is the logic behind it, maybe I am wrong here. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

However I found this great bit about illegal immigration and how it destroys unions from Edwards home site. http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/8/143843/7796

And here is an excerpt

My quote in Part 2 2:25 in the interview - which is in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to stay, but sealing the border.


Sealing the border, there would be a cap on the number of workers in the country and the unions would have point to define. There would no longer be an unlimited source of cheaper and cheaper labor.


This is something that could solve the border issue, but the corporatists are making out like bandits with unlimited illegal immigration lowering wages so both frontrunners have lukewarm policies on the issue. Meanwhile the Klan is having a recruiting field day in rural America playing up the race card. And old Tancredo is trumpeting this issue while ignoring the trucking issue.


Kudos to Edwards for pointing out illegal aliens destroy unions and workers in general.

a Senator.

Next to the Peace Corp that is considered a life changing experience. :sarcasm:

Many of these politions don't seem to relise that alot of the people being put out of work due to this policy are black or hispanic AMERICANS

What did he do before he was a Senator in the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS?

:shrug:

I agree that Edwards, Kucinich and Dodd would be far superior to HRC and even Obama far as considering the economic interests of working class Americans.

The real problem in the USA is that the forces of the capitalist/corporatist/globalist elite are no longer being balanced by a political party or organized labor. As organized labor lost its clout the Democratic Party lost interest in serving it, and instead moved to support policies that actually worked to the economic detriment of labor.

Two factors are involved that has shifted Democratic priorities.....
1/ Big money from the Wall St financier class to the DNC which has cheap labor and free trade as a self interest along with the corporatists that favor the GOP
2/ Lack of a viable third political party that would put the economic interests of the working class first has left the working class with picking the lesser of two evils. You could say the political choice has become either pro-corporatist or just corporatist-lite.

How much this destructive trend continues to hurt working Americans depends upon whom the Party selects as Presidential candidate. Hopefully I’m wrong on this but I see HRC as generally favoring policies that benefit the moneyed elite.


Btw if you have any interest in a poll on sanctuary cities:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1917053&mesg_id=1917053

Nobody has a better labor record then that man.

I really wish Edwards would be stronger on this issue he is really trying to have it both ways with a tighter border but blanket amnesty one again.

These people have no rights, no legal status, they work for shamefully low wages. They live in fear of being caught. If injured they are dumped at the emergency room to fend for themselves.

Blame the workers comp people for starters. The price of insuring any trade worker basically caps wages at around $18.00 in Florida.

Blame the builders for finding a way around paying ridiculous premiums to cover workers.

Don't blame the workers for for this mess. They are trapped here at the mercy of heartless employers who report them to immigration rather than pay for the injuries they sustain.

I may be laid off in january, I haven't had a raise in pay in in 6 years. I save my anger for the big-wigs who caused this mess. They acted just like wal-mart and sold our jobs to the lowest foreign bidder.

I blame the government for turning a blind eye so a couple of companies can save some big bucks.

They did act like Walmart and sold our jobs to the lowest bidder.

So how do we reverse that. Do we require licenses for tradesman do we require union jobs for government work or do we set up cities where a working person cannot be paid a decent wage. So all you have left there is the rich and their serfs. Sanctuary cities will create pockets of illegals that work for their masters and can never leave the sanctuary. It's more like open prisons for the rich's cheap labor.


Ps. What is so wrong with requiring union jobs with each building permit given?

Florida is a union wasteland. It would take years to unionize Floridas tradesmen even without opposition.

Adding layers of bureaucracy to the already complicated business of construction is certainly not the answer.

there are two options that would work. ONE round them up and send them back, Build a big wall with armed guards. TWO offer amnesty to all so that they can work according to their skill rather than their cheapness.

If You would like a less extreme solution fining employers a years pay and giving it to the illegal before they are deported would be a good start. Sending them back with a nice nest egg would be a good way to insure that they don't come back. The risk of having to pay that much will deter hiring of them. Something that they could do right now is prohibit the cashing of payroll checks by any one but a bank. Wal-mart is very guilty of enabling this mess by letting entire groups of mexicans cash checks in the store in order to insure that they spend the bulk of their money there.

Florida is actually very strict on having a GC license. It wouldn't take much more to have a simple general laborer license. ($50 bucks a year common sense safety questions) that would allow the state to check backgrounds and work eligibility and make it easier for GC's to hire legal crews.

I said this to my hubby just the other day:
"Can you imagine all those tough carpenters working at McDonalds? The way the Union Busting is going, that's exactly what's gonna happen." :(

As Michael Moore showed in his wonderful film Roger and Me. Plus many resturants use either prison labor or immigrant labor so there is really no place for a carpenter or a pipefitter.