{"id":14019,"date":"2017-04-20T15:58:49","date_gmt":"2017-04-20T19:58:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=14019"},"modified":"2018-12-28T12:52:39","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T17:52:39","slug":"the-unholy-relationship-between-big-labor-and-immigration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2017\/04\/20\/the-unholy-relationship-between-big-labor-and-immigration\/","title":{"rendered":"The Unholy Relationship Between Big Labor and Immigration"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the wake of the recent presidential election, immigration has become a defining partisan issue. Donald Trump and the Republican Party rose to victory in part on the promise of immigration control. The Democratic Party has doubled down on more expansive immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens. Hillary Clinton, backed by a strong coalition between the Democratic Party and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), promoted open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, and lost, in part because those positions have little appeal beyond the party\u2019s hard core base. So, why would the SEIU, an American labor union, support mass immigration and amnesty for illegals especially when such legislation is in direct opposition to the needs of the American working class and the obvious desires of the American public?<\/p>\n

The answer to these questions begins with the appointment of John Sweeney as SEIU president in 1980. His selection is significant in two respects: First, it marks the return of internationalist ideology to the Labor Movement. Sweeney\u2019s open advocacy of democratic socialism<\/a> caused a gradual but steady shift within the union. Second, it marks the beginning of an era of professional union leadership with no connection to rank and file laborers. The arrival of these paid community organizers caused a severe detachment between SEIU leaders and the workers they were supposed to represent.<\/p>\n

This rupture was further driven by a nationwide drop in union membership. Bad trade deals and globalization pushed manufacturing jobs overseas, resulting in a catastrophic loss of American jobs \u2013 good jobs with union wages and benefits. When they left they were replaced with low-wage service jobs that had little attraction for union members. So they left in search of higher-paying non-union positions. As a result, many unions, the SEIU among them, needed a way to revive membership and rebuild a private-sector presence. The question was where to look for new union members? Enter Andy Stern.<\/p>\n

Stern took action by fathering the Justice for Janitors movement, and began advocating for the rights of immigrant workers in America. This redirection of union attention toward illegal labor permanently altered the scope of union interests. These professional union bosses not only turned away from American workers and began to recruit the steady flow of unaffiliated, low-skilled laborers pouring across the southern border, they actually capitalized on the decimation of unionized American workers. The janitors for whom SEIU demanded \u201cjustice\u201d were the very people who busted the mostly black unionized janitorial service workers in the 1980s, driving down wages by more than half. This new working class was the perfect antidote to low membership numbers and diminishing union funds, created in part by the labor movement\u2019s failure to defend American workers.<\/p>\n

The Democratic Party and the SEIU cemented their relationship in 2006 when the latter broke away from the AFL-CIO with a small conglomerate of other unions. This break resulted in a renewed alliance between the DNC and the SEIU, propelling the latter to rival the AFL-CIO as the policy driver of the Labor Movement.<\/p>\n

In a 2007 memo from John Podesta and Andy Stern<\/a> to top DNC donors, the two outline several key stratagems for an Obama presidential victory. One of those strategies entailed capitalizing on the growing Latino population in America and converting it into a dependable Democratic voting base. The subsequent unionization of this demographic by the SEIU would secure member dues with which to fund future Democrat campaigns. The Democratic Party imprudently believed that this strategy of embracing amnesty and open borders would propel them to unremitting electoral success.<\/p>\n

In the aftermath of the 2016 election, exit polls indicated a dramatic decline in Democratic voting from union households<\/a>. In fact, many union workers defected from the Democratic Party and helped push Donald Trump over the top in key swings states in the Rust Belt as labor unions like SEIU sold out the disenfranchised and forgotten American working class.