SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Adam Davidson at The New York Times has a story debunking the myth of the job-stealing immigrant:
When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather — my dad’s stepdad — struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”
I’ve been thinking about my grandfather lately, because there are signs that 2015 could bring about the beginning of a truce — or at least a reconfiguration — in the politics of immigration. Several of the potential Republican presidential candidates, most notably Jeb Bush, have expressed pro-immigration views. Even self-identified Tea Party Republicans respond three to two in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Every other group — Republicans in general, independents and especially Democrats — is largely pro-immigrant. According to Pew, roughly as many people (18 percent of Americans) believed in 2010 that President Obama was a Muslim as believe today that undocumented immigrants should be expelled from the United States. Of course, that 18 percent can make a lot of noise. But for everyone else, immigration seems to be going the way of same-sex marriage, marijuana and the mohawk — it’s something that a handful of people freak out about but that the rest of us have long since come to accept.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @12:51AM
...then go back to the unqualified and, depending on the state illegally unlicensed operators.
I'm suspicious of the truth of this story in any case, given that it's third-hand, but, if the crane operators were actually unqualified, wouldn't there be an enormous increase in construction accidents caused by incorrect operation of cranes? And wouldn't state and federal regulatory agencies take interest in accidents causing loss of life or destruction of property, when the cranes drop things on other people's buildings etc.?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:26AM
Yes [precast.org] of course. [cicb.com]
You might be on to something. [nydailynews.com]
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:39AM
We'd need accident data from before and after the alleged replacement of skilled with unskilled workers, and we'd need data on total numbers of cranes in operation (perhaps proxied by construction activity in general), in order to determine whether the true accident rate had increased or whether the increase was due to there just being more construction.
But my point really was that an investigation into a crane accident would be likely to reveal that the crane operator was an illegal immigrant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:51AM
It appears you have found a specific unknown stance and will defend it without evidence even when evidence proving presented points are provided. Moving the goalposts on your part even after I agree with you and do the legwork to prove your point is disheartening.
What discussion can be had if nothing satisfies and you are unwilling to accept anything but the impossibly flawless in regard to a stance that you change?
Nomatter, there is fun in technicalities. Even if someone spent the millions on an authoritative, academic survey with a team of top tier SMEs with all flawlessly accurate and authoritative data and even if that does indeed lead to not showing any trends whatsoever that still does not refute the original story as a specific case of immigrants displacing native workers. Oh and there was nothing claimed about illegal immigrants, that is on you. The claim was immigrants replacing native workers and that some of those immigrants may or may not be illegally operating based on licensing.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @07:08AM
How are you even responding so fast as an AC? You must be sitting there refreshing the page to see if someone replied. If you'd create an account, you could get emails sent to you when someone responds. Also, your posts are pretty good, and ACs post with a moderation penalty. The site would be richer for it if you made an account.
It appears you have found a specific unknown stance and will defend it without evidence even when evidence proving presented points are provided. Moving the goalposts on your part even after I agree with you and do the legwork to prove your point is disheartening.
I'm sorry, I meant no offense. Your links were interesting, just not really enough by themselves to really show that there's a trend of increasing numbers of crane accidents caused by lack of skill of the operators. But they were interesting, and that's certainly troubling if it's true.
Given that (from your links) the construction company could be liable for injuries caused by a negligent operator, it seems like it would be pretty dumb to just hire any guy with no training and have him operate a crane. That would come out in discovery in a personal injury lawsuit pretty fast.
Oh and there was nothing claimed about illegal immigrants, that is on you.
That's not true:
Turns out that employer one day gave everyone the boot and brought in Latin-American immigrants. Some were illegal, some aren't.
...that still does not refute the original story as a specific case of immigrants displacing native workers.
Well, the guy in the story was working in a grocery store after he got fired. If it was an isolated case, presumably he would have been able to find another job as a crane operator elsewhere, instead of taking an unskilled job.