Since the founding days of the Republic, the relationship between American unionism and mass immigration has been contentious.  No issue has caused the labor movement more agony and irony.  It is no surprise, therefore, that throughout its history the American labor movement has sought to influence U.S. immigration policy

Briggs , Vernon  M., Jr.

English

"Since the founding days of the Republic, the relationship between American unionism and mass immigration has been contentious.  No issue has caused the labor movement more agony and irony.  It is no surprise, therefore, that throughout its history the American labor movement has sought to influence U.S. immigration policy."Briggs68_At_a_Crossroad.pdf: 262 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Briggs , Vernon  M. Jr.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

At a Crossroad: Immigration Reform and American Unionism

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Faculty Publications - Human Resource Studies Human Resource Studies 
January 2002 
At a Crossroad: Immigration Reform and American Unionism 
Vernon M. Briggs Jr. 
Cornell University, vmb2@cornell.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hrpubs 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Human Resource Studies at DigitalCommons@ILR. It 
has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Human Resource Studies by an authorized administrator 
of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
At a Crossroad: Immigration Reform and American Unionism 
Abstract 
"Since the founding days of the Republic, the relationship between American unionism and mass 
immigration has been contentious. No issue has caused the labor movement more agony and irony. It is 
no surprise, therefore, that throughout its history the American labor movement has sought to influence 
U.S. immigration policy." 
Keywords 
U.S., union, immigration, labor, movement, American, work, employ, law, illegal, AFL, Gompers, population 
Comments 
Suggested Citation 
Briggs, V. M., Jr. (2002). At a crossroad: Immigration reform and American unionism. The Social Contract, 
12, 122-125. 
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hr/46/ 
Required Publisher Statement 
Copyright by The Social Contract. 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/hrpubs/46 
IWinter 2002 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
I
At a Crossroad
IlfJlfJigration refortn and American
- -unlonlstn
by Vernon M. Briggs. Jr.
Since the founding days of the Republic, therelationship between American unionism andmass immigration has been contentious.l No
issue has caused the labor movement more agony and
irony. Agony because the scale of immigration affects
the size, skill composition, and geographical
distribution of the nation's labor supply. In the
process, it influences conditions affecting employ-
ment,- wages, and union-organizing opportunities.
Irony because most adult immigrants immediately
seek entry into the labor force as workers as eventually
do many of their spouses and most of their children.
Most adult immigrants do not enter the United States
as employers.
It is no surprise, therefore, that throughout its
history the American labor movement has sought to
influence U.S. immigration policy. Every piece of
major immigration law, from the time the initial
statute was passed in 1864 through to the mid-1980s,
carries labor's imprint. When the Act to Encourage
Immigration was enacted in 1864, labor (i.e., the
National Labor Union) fought for its repeal and was
successful in doing so only four years later. When the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was
enacted, with its historic provisions that made it illegal
for employers to hire illegal immigrants, organized
labor fought for its adoption and heralded its passage.
In 1892, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally
made it clear that the determination of immigration
policy was the sole and exclusive responsibility of the
federal government, the president of the American
Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Ph.D., is professor of Labor
Economics at Cornell University. His most recent
book, Immigration and American Unionism, is
available from The Social Contract Press, 1-800-352-
4843.
Federation of Labor (AFL), Samuel Gompers, stated
in his autobiography that "the labor movement was
among the first organizations" to urge that
immigration policy contain limits and that it be
accountable for its consequences on workers? As he
put it, "we immediately realized that immigration is,
in its fundamental aspects, a labor problem.,,3
Immigrants must work to survive or be supported by
those who do.
Gompers, who was himself a Jewish immigrant
from England, is the most influential leader in the
history of organized labor in America. A member of
the Cigarmakers Union since shortly after arriving in
the United States in 1863, he later became the first
president ofthe AFL when it was founded in 1886. He
held that office, with the exception of only one year
(1894), until his death in 1924.
Gompers, like other major labor leaders before
him and after him, intuitively sensed that there was an
inverse relationship between membership in American
unions and trends in the size of the foreign-born
population. Figure 1shows that, with scant exceptions,
this relationship has held true. Despite the fact that he
and other labor leaders as well as many of their union
members were immigrants, they firmly believed that
the movement's first obligation was always to the
promotion of the economic interests of American
workers. The interests of immigrants themselves were
always a secondary consideration when fashioning the
AFL's policy stance on immigration matters. In
retrospect, independent research on the impact of
immigration has consistently supported organized
labor's conclusion that mass immigration suppresses
real wages for workers, makes it difficult to form
effective unions, and has been a persistent cause of
income disparity within the nation.4
In 1965, the AFL - which by this time had
merged with a rival federation to form the American
Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial
122
!
Winter 2002
Organizations (AFL-CIG) - strongly supported the
passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. Organized
labor believed what the supporters of this legislation
had promised. Namely, this legislation was intended
only to eliminate the racism and ethnocentrism of the
national-origins admission system that had been in
place since the] 920s. It was not envisioned that this
legislation would increase in any significant way the
level of immigration. In ] 965, the percentage of the
population who were foreign born was at the lowest
level in all of American history (4.4 percent, as shown
in Figure]). Likewise, membership in American
unions was close to its historic all-time high (30. I
percent of the labor force). Organized labor had been
flourishing for over 30 years while the scales of
immigration had been contracting over this timespan.
What Has Happened Since 1965
From 1965 to 2000, however, the foreign-born
population of the United States has increased by 23 ]
percent (from 8.5 mj]lion immigrants to 28.4 million
immigrants); the civilian labor force has risen by 86
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
I
percent (from 74.4 mi1lion workers to 139 mi1lion
workers); but union membership has fallen by ] 0
percent (from] 8.2 milJion members to 16.3 miJJion
members). Since] 968 (the year the Immigration Act
of 1965 took full effect), the distribution of income
within the nation has steadily become more unequaL
The decline in union membership and the impact of
mass immigration both have been identified by the
Council of Economic Advisors to the President (CEA)
as contributing explanations for the worsening income
inequality in the nation throughout this period.5
In this post-1965 environment, mass immigration
has repeated what it did in the past: it has lessened the
effectiveness of unions and diminished their
accessibility to workers. To be sure, there are other
factors involved in the decline of union membership.
The nation's labor laws, for instance, that supposedly
protect the practice of collective bargaining are
woefully inadequate when confronted with wilJful
employer opposition. They, too, need to be
significantly reformed. Likewise, globalization and
technological change have radically altered the
Figure J. ('omparisons of the Percentage of the Labor FOI'cc \Vho Belong to Unions
with Percentage of Population that i.s Foreign Born (Since J870)
JS- -- ------------
~o - - ~ '-." -'
" '-" '~
---~
2<; ----------------------------------
20
0//0
-
-.
' -
-.
-
-
-~
--'--- - ~
--" -
IS - ~--_.
10 -
S
0
.~---~
-
'--- --'-'- - - ---
Fa
--~'---"-----
--- "----_.-
IIno 1880 181)0 11)(1() 1910 )9Z0 19]0 19401950196(196511)7011)8011)1)0 ZOOO
Year
--
.- ~
' .-~-~ '~ ' ~ ' ~-------_..
fJ Percent of Labor Force lJnionized
. Percent of Population Who Are Foreign Born
--, ~---~~ ~~ --~_._-
123
IWinter 2002 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
I
nation's industrial and occupational structures to the
disadvantage of organized labor's historic membership
strengths. But the drastic weakening of the economic
status of working people in this new era argues for
increased union representation now more than ever.
Mass immigration - especially ofthe disproportionate
entry of unskilled and poorly educated job seekers -
has significantly contributed to the income disparity
pressures besetting the work force (be they native born
or foreign born).
Labor's Shifting Position
In the late 1980s, however, organized labor
signaled that it was reconsidering its historic position
concerning immigration. When Congress began to
debate and then passed the Immigration Act of 1990,
the AFL-CIO remained on the political sideline. This
legislation raised the level of legal immigration by
about 35 percent over the levels in place since 1965.
Initially, the annual number was set at 700,000 legal
immigrants a year through 1994 when it was reduced
to 675,000 where it currently remains. This figure does
not include the admission of about 100,000 refugees a
year (the actual number fluctuates as it is determined
annually by the President) or those who defy the rules
each year by entering illegally (estimated in the 1990s
to have been between 300,000 and 500,000 persons a
year). No legislation passed by Congress since 1990
has had a greater impact on the American population
and economy than has this Act. The U.S. Bureau of
the Census has estimated (using its "intermediate"
projection) that the effect of immigration on the size of
the U.S. population from 1995 to the year 2050 will be
to add approximately 80 million people (i.e., the
immigrants and the children they will have).6 This
increase will account for about two-thirds of the
anticipated growth of the total population (131 million
people) that will occur over this timespan. Hence,
immigration is now the dominant factor in the
determination of U.S. population growth. It will
remain so until the terms of the Immigration Act of
1990 are altered and laws against illegal entry are
strengthened and enforced.
In 1996, there was an effort made in Congress to
reduce the levels of legal immigration back to their
approximate pre-I 990 levels. The effort was based on
the work of the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform chaired for most of its life by Barbara Jordan.
The AFL-CIO opposed all of the proposed changes.
When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 did pass, the legislation
had been stripped of all of its legal immigration
reforms and restrictions on illegal immigration had
been significantly "watered down."
The change in labor's posture was formally
announced by the Executive Council ofthe AFL-CIO
in February, 2000. It proclaimed that it now "proudly
stands on the side of immigrant workers." Its new
policy calls for the repeal of penalties on employers
who hire illegal immigrants (in stark opposition to its
unequivocal support for such sanctions in 1986 when
they were enacted); the passage of a massive new
amnesty program to allow millions of illegal
immigrants presently in the country to legalize their
status; and the encouragement to its members to
become advocates for immigrant causes at the local
level. Final confirmation by its membership of this
policy shift occurred at the biennial convention of the
federation held in Las Vegas in early December, 2001.
Preceding the vote of approval, John Sweeney, the
current president of the AFL-CIO, stated: "We are
now a beacon of hope to millions of workers who've
come to our country seeking a better life and I want
you to know you have made me the proudest labor
leader in the world by re-writing the AFL-CIO's
policy on immigration."7
Why the Change?
The dramatic reversal in policy position is the
result of several factors. The first is associated with the
change in organizational leadership that occurred in
1995. That year, John Sweeney was elected president
of the AFL-CIO in the first contested election for the
position in 50 years. Sweeney believed that a change
in direction was needed to reverse the precipitous
decline in union membership that has occurred since
1965. Secondly, Sweeney believes that labor can no
longer "go it alone." It needs to ally its voice with
other progressive movements if it is to achieve its own
political agenda. Hence, it has sought to join the
informal "rainbow coalition" of special interest
organizations. Each of these groups has its own
concerns: but, collectively, they feel that, if they
support those issues that have wide appeal (even if
some are counter to their unique concerns), they will
all be better off. Thus, to get support for labor-law
124
I
Winter 2002 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
I
reforms and greater enforcement of worker-protection
laws, labor's leadership believe they must give up
their historic views on immigration. Thirdly, labor
leaders have concluded that the federal government is
simply never going to crack down on illegal
immigration so that unions are going to be
increasingly confronted by ilJegal immigrants in the
workplace. They understand that unions can only
organize the workers that employers hire. If employers
are going to increasingly hire illegal immigrants and
the federal government is not going to enforce the
sanctions against the practice, then unions must try to
attract immigrants to the labor movement. Rightly or
wrongly, they believe the best way to accomplish this
is becoming an advocate for immigrant rights.
In a real sense, the policy shift can be seen as an
act of desperation. Organized labor has felt isolated as
its membership has fallen and its influence waned. The
labor laws are in as bad shape as are the nation's
immigration laws. But the national political leaders of
both parties are indifferent to labor's plight. Politicians
give faint praise to the nation's collective bargaining
system as a preferential way for a free society to settle
the inevitable disputes over wages, hours, and working
conditions that arise between employers and
employees. But the penalties for breaking the labor
laws are weak, and it has become commonplace for
employers to hire replacement workers when strikes
occur rather than to shut down. Labor-law refonn is
desperately needed.8 But it is highly unlikely that labor
alone can gamer the support needed to refonn these
laws. It is a gamble to seek to join with pro-
immigration forces in the hope that they will
reciprocate by helping labor with its needs.
The cost to organized labor of the shift in position
on immigration policy, however, could be massive.
For if it does by chance happen that immigrant
workers do flock to unions in appreciation for their
change in attitude, it wilJ be exceedingly difficult to
win gains for workers, because the ranks of the work
force will have swollen. Such is already the case in
that portion of the labor force where the bulk of the
immigrant work force is employed - in the unskilled
and semi-skilled occupations of the labormarket
- and
where unions hope to expand their organizational
efforts. Moreover, how long will it be before the
native-born labor force, who also hold many of these
same jobs in these same industries, realize that the
greatest friend the working person in the United States
has ever had - its organized labor movement - has
turned against their interests?
Thus, this tactical shift by organized labor can be
likened to a proposal to take a shortcut through
quicksand. It is more likely to endanger rather than
safeguard the labor movement. More broadly
speaking, it also means that the movement to establish
a reasonable and enforceable immigration policy for
the United States has lost the most influential voice it
has ever had. .
NOTES
I. For detailed discussion, see Vernon M. Briggs, Jr.,
Immigration and American Unionism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 2001).
2. Samuel Gompers, Seventy Years of Life and Labor (New
York: Dutton, Inc., 1925), volume 2, p. 154.
3.Ibid.,p.157.
4. Timothy H. Hatton and Jeffrey G. Williamson, "The
Impact of Immigration on American Labor Markets Prior to
the Quotas," Working Paper No. 5185 (Cambridge, Mass.:
Nationa] Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1995), p. 30;
Stanley Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth (New
York: McGraw-Hili Book Company, 1964), pp. 162-163;
Harry A. Millis and Royal E. Montgomery, Labor's
Progress and Some Basic Labor Problems (New York:
McGraw-HilI Book Company, Inc., 1938), p. 31 (see also
pp. 211,239, and 244 for related discussion); and National
Research Council, The New Americans: Economic,
Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, Edited by
James P. Smith and Barry Edmonton (Washington: National
Academy Press, 1997), p. 227.
5. Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the
President, 1995 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1995), p. 182; and Council of Economic Advisors,
Economic Report... 1994, op. cit., p. 120. See also Daniel H.
Weinberg, "A Brief Look at Postwar U.S. Income
Inequality," Current Population Report, P60-191
(Washington: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996), p. I.
6. Jennifer Cheeseman Day, "Population Projections of the
United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995-
2050," Current Population Report, P25-1130, (Washington:
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996), Table 5 at p. C.
7. Tom Ramstack, "AFL-CIO Adopts Amnesty Proposal,"
The Washington Times, December 5, 200 I,
(http://www.washtimes.com/business/200 11205-
7] 368876.htm).
8. FordetaiJs, see Briggs, op. cit., pp. 157-158 and 187-188.
125


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&amp;context=hrpubs

At a Crossroad: Immigration Reform and American Unionism

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR