AFL-CIO Sells Out Those They "Represent"

[Symmetry]

Haha, yes, so very 'democratic'! That word has lost its meaning on some.

I'd like to see more of this kind of resolution. Compromise shouldn't be a lost art,

[_sabotage_]

Sym, are you hoping to get a desk job at the CIA? Perhaps if you were a bit less desperate and a little more subtle... Remember Saul had to act like a Christian before he could start to co-opt it...

[Symmetry]

Sym, are you hoping to get a desk job at the CIA? Perhaps if you were a bit less desperate and a little more subtle... Remember Saul had to act like a Christian before he could start to co-opt it...

Baffling. How is St Paul relevant? Why do you think I want to work for the CIA? Why do you think I'm unsubtle?

[_sabotage_]

Besides the fact that you champion government corruption at any given opportunity and cloak corporatism in terms of democracy? Oh, I don't know.

It's related to St Paul, if you'll have him called, because his job was to wipe out Christianity and he did so by acting as a Christian and then rearranging the rhetoric to fit his own ideals.

If you would truly like to stamp out democracy, I suggest you follow his lead and this might make you more attractive to the CIA.

[Symmetry]

Besides the fact that you champion government corruption at any given opportunity and cloak corporatism in terms of democracy? Oh, I don't know.

It's related to St Paul, if you'll have him called, because his job was to wipe out Christianity and he did so by acting as a Christian and then rearranging the rhetoric to fit his own ideals.

If you would truly like to stamp out democracy, I suggest you follow his lead and this might make you more attractive to the CIA.

I see. You live up to your name.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, yes, so very 'democratic'! That word has lost its meaning on some.

I'd like to see more of this kind of resolution. Compromise shouldn't be a lost art,

More importantly for democratic societies, self-government and its learning process is a lost art. Now, it's up to lobbyists within the political process to serve their own ends which of course mutually benefits politicians at the expense of worthy competitors and the taxpayers--many of whom willfully refuse to understand the actual political process. Instead, they can call this process 'democratic' and enjoy the 'compromises' it brings.

[thegreekdog]

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I typed.

I understand your point, and I perhaps phrased my response poorly. My point was that the policy was democratic.

I don't view the policy as being democratic or representative. Certainly one could make the argument (and a valid one) that this small group of represenatives, who were duly elected, made a decision to involve two institutions at loggerheads on the issue to hammer out a compromise. If this were an issue that only affected the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce, I would probably have less of a problem. However, immigration reform is an issue that affects not just these two institutions, but many other institutions and individuals in the United States and those other institutions and individuals were not represented by the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce or by the small group of elected representatives, when this deal was hammered out.

The next response one may have is that this policy will go to the full Congress for a vote. And that generally would solve my particular problem with this procedure; however, the two organizations involved (the AFL-CIO and chambers of commerce) are two of the largest lobbyists and political donors in the United States. The implication of involving those two institutions, I think, is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are under the sway of those organizations. Thus, I suspect there will not be a discussion within the greater Congress. And that troubles me as well.

This is a textbook example, laid bare, of how our Congress works. BBS talks about rent-seeking all the time, and this is a prime example of that phenomenon. And rent-seeking bothers me to no end; even in situations where I think the policy or legislation is beneficial (like this one... I like this policy).

[Symmetry]

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I typed.

I understand your point, and I perhaps phrased my response poorly. My point was that the policy was democratic.

I don't view the policy as being democratic or representative. Certainly one could make the argument (and a valid one) that this small group of represenatives, who were duly elected, made a decision to involve two institutions at loggerheads on the issue to hammer out a compromise. If this were an issue that only affected the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce, I would probably have less of a problem. However, immigration reform is an issue that affects not just these two institutions, but many other institutions and individuals in the United States and those other institutions and individuals were not represented by the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce or by the small group of elected representatives, when this deal was hammered out.

The next response one may have is that this policy will go to the full Congress for a vote. And that generally would solve my particular problem with this procedure; however, the two organizations involved (the AFL-CIO and chambers of commerce) are two of the largest lobbyists and political donors in the United States. The implication of involving those two institutions, I think, is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are under the sway of those organizations. Thus, I suspect there will not be a discussion within the greater Congress. And that troubles me as well.

This is a textbook example, laid bare, of how our Congress works. BBS talks about rent-seeking all the time, and this is a prime example of that phenomenon. And rent-seeking bothers me to no end; even in situations where I think the policy or legislation is beneficial (like this one... I like this policy).

I see, your issue is with the next part of this?

[thegreekdog]

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I typed.

I understand your point, and I perhaps phrased my response poorly. My point was that the policy was democratic.

I don't view the policy as being democratic or representative. Certainly one could make the argument (and a valid one) that this small group of represenatives, who were duly elected, made a decision to involve two institutions at loggerheads on the issue to hammer out a compromise. If this were an issue that only affected the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce, I would probably have less of a problem. However, immigration reform is an issue that affects not just these two institutions, but many other institutions and individuals in the United States and those other institutions and individuals were not represented by the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce or by the small group of elected representatives, when this deal was hammered out.

The next response one may have is that this policy will go to the full Congress for a vote. And that generally would solve my particular problem with this procedure; however, the two organizations involved (the AFL-CIO and chambers of commerce) are two of the largest lobbyists and political donors in the United States. The implication of involving those two institutions, I think, is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are under the sway of those organizations. Thus, I suspect there will not be a discussion within the greater Congress. And that troubles me as well.

This is a textbook example, laid bare, of how our Congress works. BBS talks about rent-seeking all the time, and this is a prime example of that phenomenon. And rent-seeking bothers me to no end; even in situations where I think the policy or legislation is beneficial (like this one... I like this policy).

I see, your issue is with the next part of this?

My issue is with both parts of this because I know what the next part of this will be.

[PLAYER57832]

In order to understand what effects increased immigration will have on the currently unemployed and underemployed, we have to understand why there is such un/underemployment in the first place.

It isn't simply a supply issue (i.e. more immigrants would cause increased/prevent 'American'--holding all else constant). It depends on the price, the demand, and changes in institutions (rules of the game).

Influential causes and concerns:
1. Government subsidizing unemployment (UE).
2. Government labor laws, which price people from a job. (Forced joining of labor unions, lack of right-to-work opportunity, minimum wage, etc.).

3. Failure to disaggregate the UE data.
--i.e. the unemployment is particular to 'circumstances of time and place'. It may be the case that new influxes of immigrants into particular areas won't affect current UE levels.

4. Permenant change in the structure of business. (i.e. many businesses may have become more efficient with less workers, thus will remain reluctant to hire especially if....

5. the uncertainty in the US continues (re: Federal Reserve policies and consequences, significant changes in healthcare provision (uncertain future change in prices), significant changes in banking and finance, etc.). In short, "regime uncertainty."

6. Changes in government spending (thus revealing a later misallocation of resources in sectors which the market wouldn't have bolstered so greatly).

7. and more, but that's enough for now.

I can boil that down some - Most unemployed Americans don't feel enough pain to take jobs that would otherwise be filled by immigrants (document or undocumented). Therefore, there is no supply to feed the demand. To fill the demand, incentivize the unemployed Americans to take these jobs (BBS's list probably) or legalize the illegal immigrants. I'm fine with either of those methods. I'm not fine with how our government went about making their decision in such a blatantly undemocratic/unrepublican way.

While this is the classic argument, it is, in fact no more correct than the old arguments that poor people just liked being dirty (never mind that they had no good water), and were just naturally stupid (never mind that they had only poor schools.).

[PLAYER57832]

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I typed.

I understand your point, and I perhaps phrased my response poorly. My point was that the policy was democratic.

I don't view the policy as being democratic or representative. Certainly one could make the argument (and a valid one) that this small group of represenatives, who were duly elected, made a decision to involve two institutions at loggerheads on the issue to hammer out a compromise. If this were an issue that only affected the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce, I would probably have less of a problem. However, immigration reform is an issue that affects not just these two institutions, but many other institutions and individuals in the United States and those other institutions and individuals were not represented by the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce or by the small group of elected representatives, when this deal was hammered out.

The next response one may have is that this policy will go to the full Congress for a vote. And that generally would solve my particular problem with this procedure; however, the two organizations involved (the AFL-CIO and chambers of commerce) are two of the largest lobbyists and political donors in the United States. The implication of involving those two institutions, I think, is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are under the sway of those organizations. Thus, I suspect there will not be a discussion within the greater Congress. And that troubles me as well.

This is a textbook example, laid bare, of how our Congress works. BBS talks about rent-seeking all the time, and this is a prime example of that phenomenon. And rent-seeking bothers me to no end; even in situations where I think the policy or legislation is beneficial (like this one... I like this policy).

Except, you are fine with this when it gets the results you want.. when it its big business making the demands against enviromental damage, for example. Then its not big deal. Why now?

[PLAYER57832]

There are approximately 30 million people in the US who are unemployed or no longer looking for work. Add more people who are in part time jobs and want full time. We don't need even more expansion of foreign, cheap labor coming to the US because there are plenty here who could be doing those jobs (if they weren't getting tens of thousands of dollars in handouts from the government).

If, as the scheme suggests, the permits will primarily be given to workers in areas where there is a shortage, what's the issue?

There are multiple issues. A common complaint, one that has some reality to it, is that citizens don't want to do these jobs, particularly farm work, which is very hard and seasonal. My experience is that Mexican (in th 70's and 80's, it was primarily Mexican labor in the fields) laborers would come in well trained and ready to work, also not complaining. Even single male whites tended to want a house or apartment, but the Mexican workers would stay 10-12 in a single wide mobile home, sometimes without air conditioning. (note that it did historically cool off to 60 degrees on even the hottest days in most of CA, so that was not as bad as it might sound... though that has changed in the past decade). They had little interest in doing anything but saving money to go back home to their families. In some cases, they would do this every year... up until the mid to late 80's,. when the border became tighter and some were given the opportunity to become citizens. I saw this. I saw this, and certainly acknowledge the truth in that not everyone can do the farm work the illegal immigrants traditionally did. However, that is far from the whole story.

One other side of the story is that these jobs are not anywhere near where most poor people live.. in cities. Up through the early 70’s, (give or take) there used to be a movement of teens, some adults who would go out to the fields, say up to Maine from New York City or to pick apples, etc. There would be a regular shift of trucks, workers. High school and college kids would often get spending money or clothes money by working in these temporary jobs. In some cases, local housewives might fill in, particularly where the picking time was short, say 1-2 weeks. This stopped, partly because rules regarding kids working changed and partially because so many better jobs opened up in places like McDonald’s and the like. Even women began to be able to get decent jobs, not just a “pick up” here and there , “on the side” of their “regular” job (of taking care of the kids and house – never mind that in some cases, a big portion of the family income came from those wages). It was no coincidence that Reagan was the one to first do the amnesty bit, while at the same time pretending to “talk tough” about the border.

He got to have his cake and eat it too. He pleased big business by allowing large swaths of low wage workers to come in at a time when wages were increasing and employment high, while making a big show of stopping immigration and stomping out oppressors. (he did something similar with marihuana, by-the-way). In fact, he changed the tide across the border from the poor folks who just wanted to get a decent job in a relatively safe place to live to people who were desperate to escape whatever conditions they were in (remember the Sandinistas? -- not sure of spelling there) or who had the money and power that come with drug/arms/people trafficking.

The AFL-CIO historically was opposed to illegal immigration, most low skilled labor. What they found, though was that employers were using the illegal status of these workers as blackmail to force the workers into working truly poor conditions (often downright hazardous), and for very low pay. Some cases are very close to outright slavery. Ironically, the most recent “guest worker” programs were actually more rife with abuse. People here, supposedly legally, were often tricked and would find themselves working in very bad conditions, passports held. Even the student program was grossly abused, as evidenced by a recent boycott in the Hershey factory. Kids there were actually paying to come here, work and supposedly get experience learning English, earn money and then travel a bit. Instead, they worked long hours for very low pay and wound up in debt, with little contact with any but other foreign students (according to reports).

That is why the AFL-CIO changed its tune somewhat. I don’t say I agree, but they felt that they had to begin representing ALL workers and not just citizens, because else, the non-citizens would drive down the system for everyone. As far as that goes, it is true. However, the answer is not to just create more programs for illegal citizens, the answer is to move the onus, the threat onto the employer and not the employee. Employees just want to work, earn money and preferably in safe and reasonable conditions. Employers want to hire whomever they can for as cheaply as possible. When the penalties are so heavy on the worker and so light on the employer, it is guaranteed to be a recipe for abuse. We see that in grain silo deaths of teenagers in rural areas and in the abuses I described above. Only when Employers are held fully responsible, are given the greater penalty for either allowing harmful conditions or hiring folks they should not hire, only then will things change.

I have said before I would do this by setting no limits to who employers can hire, except that if they want to hire a non-citizen, then they have to pay an extra tax to compensate. If the penalty for not complying is harsh, and it were enforced, there would quickly be a significant reduction in the numbers of non-citizens hired. When employers truly need to hire them, they could still.. just pay for the privilege.

The problem with this program is it doesn’t really and truly do much to stop the illegal workers already here or who will continue to come. When you are talking about the bottom employment levels, the only “competition” is from above.. some employers, a good number will go to great lengths to pay as little as possible. As long as they are not held truly accountable, as long as those they hire are the main ones held responsible if they are found to be undocumented or to just be “complainers”, then these abuses will continue.

Whether there is or is not a guest worker program is irrelevant to that, except that when the rules are followed (and if enforced… a big question!) then the guest workers should have reasonably paid jobs under reasonable conditions.

Right now, the biggest negative pressure is that most people can, plain and simply earn more money by NOT working than by working. That doesn’t mean they are, as some assert above just “too lazy” to work, it means that they like to eat, be able to take their kids to the doctor when they get sick and continue to have a reasonable roof over their head. With no skills, the only jobs available part-time jobs that mean spending more on childcare than you are making, saying that “they could just work” is stupid and ignoring the reality. The answer, then, is to increase the minimum wage, something that was on the verge of being approved, but that will likely wind up being pushed into the back burner now.

If we do get a real increase in the minimum wage, then more people will be able and willing to move off of aid programs. People who work will be able to make real purchases, be functioning pieces of the economy, instead of dregs. That stimulus will hold whether the people are citizens or not. Non-citizens need to buy food, etc, too. However, some of the non-citizen paychecks will go outside, whereas citizen paychecks tend to fully stay here.

This is, once again, just another case of big business wanting to have its cake and eat it too.

[thegreekdog]

As the article I posted points out- this was a compromise born from a decision by a democratically elected, bipartisan group of senators who directed the two organisations to find a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I typed.

I understand your point, and I perhaps phrased my response poorly. My point was that the policy was democratic.

I don't view the policy as being democratic or representative. Certainly one could make the argument (and a valid one) that this small group of represenatives, who were duly elected, made a decision to involve two institutions at loggerheads on the issue to hammer out a compromise. If this were an issue that only affected the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce, I would probably have less of a problem. However, immigration reform is an issue that affects not just these two institutions, but many other institutions and individuals in the United States and those other institutions and individuals were not represented by the AFL-CIO and the chambers of commerce or by the small group of elected representatives, when this deal was hammered out.

The next response one may have is that this policy will go to the full Congress for a vote. And that generally would solve my particular problem with this procedure; however, the two organizations involved (the AFL-CIO and chambers of commerce) are two of the largest lobbyists and political donors in the United States. The implication of involving those two institutions, I think, is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are under the sway of those organizations. Thus, I suspect there will not be a discussion within the greater Congress. And that troubles me as well.

This is a textbook example, laid bare, of how our Congress works. BBS talks about rent-seeking all the time, and this is a prime example of that phenomenon. And rent-seeking bothers me to no end; even in situations where I think the policy or legislation is beneficial (like this one... I like this policy).

Except, you are fine with this when it gets the results you want.. when it its big business making the demands against enviromental damage, for example. Then its not big deal. Why now?

It's a big deal in that situation as well. The difference between those situations and this one is that no one thinks this situation is a big deal. Pretty much everyone thinks the big business hurting the environment through lobbying is a big deal (or at least know that it happens). I just like pointing out hypocrisies.

[PLAYER57832]

It's a big deal in that situation as well. The difference between those situations and this one is that no one thinks this situation is a big deal. Pretty much everyone thinks the big business hurting the environment through lobbying is a big deal (or at least know that it happens). I just like pointing out hypocrisies.

Except when I argued as much regarding drilling in the Allegheny Forest, specifically pointing out how the large companies were subverting many jurisdictions, you took the opposite track. You have in ohter cases as well.

[thegreekdog]

It's a big deal in that situation as well. The difference between those situations and this one is that no one thinks this situation is a big deal. Pretty much everyone thinks the big business hurting the environment through lobbying is a big deal (or at least know that it happens). I just like pointing out hypocrisies.

Except when I argued as much regarding drilling in the Allegheny Forest, specifically pointing out how the large companies were subverting many jurisdictions, you took the opposite track. You have in ohter cases as well.

Actually, I didn't take the opposite track. What I did was explain to you why the result was the legal result (whether right or wrong). You confused that for arguing that I believed the frackers were in the right.

In fact, I made multiple references in that thread about how I found any government eminent domain claims that went to private individuals as antithetical to my political views. Ultimately, the reason the Allegheny forests are going to be destroyed is because of rent-seeking. I understand that and consistently argue against it in all facets of political argument. It is actually people like YOU who only arguing against rent-seeking when it's something you don't like and it is actually people like YOU who argue in favor of rent-seeking when it's something you do like.

[PLAYER57832]

It's a big deal in that situation as well. The difference between those situations and this one is that no one thinks this situation is a big deal. Pretty much everyone thinks the big business hurting the environment through lobbying is a big deal (or at least know that it happens). I just like pointing out hypocrisies.

Except when I argued as much regarding drilling in the Allegheny Forest, specifically pointing out how the large companies were subverting many jurisdictions, you took the opposite track. You have in ohter cases as well.

Actually, I didn't take the opposite track. What I did was explain to you why the result was the legal result (whether right or wrong). You confused that for arguing that I believed the frackers were in the right.

No, you actually did not even do that. You just looked at one side of the argument and dismissed the other side as being without grounds.

In fact, I made multiple references in that thread about how I found any government eminent domain claims that went to private individuals as antithetical to my political views. Ultimately, the reason the Allegheny forests are going to be destroyed is because of rent-seeking. I understand that and consistently argue against it in all facets of political argument. It is actually people like YOU who only arguing against rent-seeking when it's something you don't like and it is actually people like YOU who argue in favor of rent-seeking when it's something you do like.

No, by trying to "explain" an compare the Allegheny Forest situation to "those other issues of eminent domain" you pretty much ignored the issue and simply lapsed into standard rhetoric. "its government ... all government is the same" is basically your argument. In fact, we don’t have just one big unified government. We have multiple agencies and entities that not only don’t have a unified goal, they actually work very much in opposition to one another.

I value people’s individual rights over any supposed right of others to just make money. That is the real issue. As long as you hold the ability to earn money as above any other right, then we have no society, we have merely a corporation that pretends to be a nation. That is what I see and you have not effectively argued against that.

The situation in the Allegheny is about subverting the very reasons the forest was established to benefit the financial gain of a few. The immigration issue is similarly about benefitting a few at the expense of society.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't get what the big deal is. These illegals are already working here, and you're not going to get rid of them. It seems to me that it's better to bring them into the fold than to pretend that the problem isn't already there.

Furthermore, who are the labor experts here, if not the AFL-CIO, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? American business already had their say when they imported all of these workers. Now thanks to the Chamber of Commerce we're getting documentation and taxation, among other things. And the voters? If they care so much then why do they continue to support American businesses that rely on Mexican Labor? And did we not see what happened when dumbass voters tried to reform illegal immigration laws in Alabama? Our crops withered in the field, with Alabamans preferring to stay on unemployment.
And if this deal wasn't struck, who among you had the bravery and patience to actually tackle this ginormous problem? To me, it seems, the only other choice is to shut down all the American industry's that hired the illegals. And then we'd be b*tching about something else. There is good in this.

What we should do is role these workers into our unions, give them the voice they've never had, then use their strength to force big business to play by the rules. We can't do that when they hire out so many undocumented workers.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't get what the big deal is. These illegals are already working here, and you're not going to get rid of them. It seems to me that it's better to bring them into the fold than to pretend that the problem isn't already there.

Furthermore, who are the labor experts here, if not the AFL-CIO, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? American business already had their say when they imported all of these workers. Now thanks to the Chamber of Commerce we're getting documentation and taxation, among other things. And the voters? If they care so much then why do they continue to support American businesses that rely on Mexican Labor? And did we not see what happened when dumbass voters tried to reform illegal immigration laws in Alabama? Our crops withered in the field, with Alabamans preferring to stay on unemployment.
And if this deal wasn't struck, who among you had the bravery and patience to actually tackle this ginormous problem? To me, it seems, the only other choice is to shut down all the American industry's that hired the illegals. And then we'd be b*tching about something else. There is good in this.

What we should do is role these workers into our unions, give them the voice they've never had, then use their strength to force big business to play by the rules. We can't do that when they hire out so many undocumented workers.

Why don't you care about poor people?

[Juan_Bottom]

These are the poor people.

[BigBallinStalin]

These are the poor people.

Which group(s) of people are you pointing to?

It's difficult to tell from my vantage point.

[Juan_Bottom]

These are the poor people.

Which group(s) of people are you pointing to?

It's difficult to tell from my vantage point.

[_sabotage_]

His displeasure masks his poverty so well

[BigBallinStalin]

It's an apt picture. I guess JB supports union bosses. He calls for forced union membership, so that their money goes to the union 'CEOs' and Executives.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm extremely pro-union. My nation was born of a Union, is a Union, and our children's membership has always been mandatory. Participation is not.



I don't know what you've got against Mexican workers though. You're the one who said that the place a person is born should have no affect on how others treat them. And that since place of birth is completely random, it's nothing to be proud of or ashamed of.

So when I say that these workers are already here, on the payroll, and that rolling them up into the union to strengthen not only the AFL-CIO's bargaining power, but also the bargaining power of these poor exploited workers, what offense could you possibly take? These workers are already here, all that's changing is that they will be seen as human beings and not cheap commodities. This will benefit everything except our precious business leader's yacht funds.
Anyone who's willing to risk their life crossing deserts, coyotes, drug cartels, militias, border agents, and other dangerous natural boundrys untold just to get here to look for work for $3 an hour and a promise of a better life someday deserves not only citizenship but to be welcomed as my brother. And I feel exactly the same for anyone who will leave their life behind and come here from Asia, Africa, Europe, or anywhere.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm extremely pro-union. My nation was born of a Union, is a Union, and our children's membership has always been mandatory. Participation is not.



I don't know what you've got against Mexican workers though. You're the one who said that the place a person is born should have no affect on how others treat them. And that since place of birth is completely random, it's nothing to be proud of or ashamed of.

So when I say that these workers are already here, on the payroll, and that rolling them up into the union to strengthen not only the AFL-CIO's bargaining power, but also the bargaining power of these poor exploited workers, what offense could you possibly take? These workers are already here, all that's changing is that they will be seen as human beings and not cheap commodities. This will benefit everything except our precious business leader's yacht funds.
Anyone who's willing to risk their life crossing deserts, coyotes, drug cartels, militias, border agents, and other dangerous natural boundrys untold just to get here to look for work for $3 an hour and a promise of a better life someday deserves not only citizenship but to be welcomed as my brother. And I feel exactly the same for anyone who will leave their life behind and come here from Asia, Africa, Europe, or anywhere.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

So, pushing aside your nationalist fervor, you're only talking about illegal immigrants from Mexico? All undocumented workers who are already here? Low-skilled workers that are undocumented? What exactly?

Would participation in a union be mandatory?

Note: the AFL-CIO is going to control the influx of immigrants, so your dream about those willing immigrants risking their lives to get here is not going to be assisted by the AFL-CIO if they keep the cap on immigrants low. Why do you remain so uncritical of AFL-CIO when their policies will likely refute your ideal wishes?