SHARE THIS SHOW:

RELATED CONVERSATIONS:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

Just a Day Job

AIR DATE: Monday, June 16th 2008

Download the mp3 for this show.

A day labor hire site opens in Portland Monday.

If you drive down NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd anytime this weekend, you may notice a large tent and port-a-potties where you used to see parked cars. These amenities are part of Portland's new day labor hire site -- a city-funded project managed by Voz Workers' Rights Education Project. The site was set up as an alternative to the current, informal system where workers gather on street corners or near home improvement stores, hoping to be picked up for a day's work. According to Voz, the site will offer workers protection from employers who might try to scam them out of payment or otherwise mistreat them. They say it will also give employers more reliable access to potential employees. The site is considered controversial because the staff will not be checking the immigration status of the patrons who use their resources to find work.

Portland joins about 65 other cities in the nation that have designated places for employers to meet up with workers seeking day labor. National groups have been a part of the process as both supporters and detractors. The Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network has been working closely with Voz to set up the site, while a nonprofit, conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch headquartered in Washington DC, has made it known that they disapprove of the project. Judicial Watch has sued towns such as Laguna Beach, California and Herndon, Virginia on behalf of citizens who don't want their tax money to support day laborers, many of whom they believe are in the country illegally. Judicial Watch has not filed suit against the city of Portland, but the group did send a strongly-worded letter to Mayor Tom Potter last summer contesting the legality of the proposed day labor site.

How will Portland's day labor site affect you? Are you a day laborer or a contractor who hires day laborers? Is the site going to be located near your business? Is this the best way to handle the issue of day laborers on Portland's streets?

GUESTS:

• Pete Springer: Reporter for OPB News
• Carmen Rubio: Director of Community Affairs for the the Portland Mayor's office
• Ernie Richmond: Assistant manager and technician at Ed?s Auto Lectric
• Tom Fitton: President of Judicial Watch
• Liz Jones: Reporter for KUOW in Seattle
• TBA: Employer of day laborers

Tagged as: immigration · labor · portland

I'm curious how many people who are commenting on this have actually worked with their hands, in a trade, for money? Not just you know, "fixing my sink, or painting my house" but a real career trade. Until you have, you are not speaking from experience in this case.  And while this is not a requirement in order to weigh in, it certainly knocks your opinion down a peg.... Rarely in life is there just ONE CAUSE and ONE ANSWER to hard case problems like this.... most of the responses to this issue and others like it are BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION that there is one simple truth or answer to these hard issues.  YES it is true that many many day laborers are family people with an INCREDIBLE amount of knowledge and experience in several trades for what they are paid, but alas, it is also true that i have personally seen the use of day laborers not only lower the average wage of a tradesman (even journeyman level) but also lower the price that most people THINK a job is worth, which also lowers my bottom line,,,,and this is for the SAME EXACT WORK I'VE DONE FOR A DECADE.... just like YES it is true that day laborers are often willing to work for these TINY wages (and i mean tiny folks, 5 or 6 bucks an hour is BEYOND disgusting, even in little ol' LOW WAGE OREGON, and in this industry particularly due to what is asked of workers while on the jobsite) because to them, they are making 10 times that amount when it is sent back anywhere south of here in this hemisphere, BUT ALAS it is also true that i have hired these guys myself on jobs BECAUSE EVEN AT 15 BUCKS AN HOUR I CANNOT GET A SPOILED AMERICAN KID to do HALF the work a day laborer will generally do in a day, and it has almost NOTHING to do with need, and everything to do with perception, many from here think they just DESERVE HIGH PAY FOR LESS WORK, or better yet, to "work for themselves" i have literally had young pricks run off a jobsite, apparently because they were not calling the shots THE FIRST DAY?!?!? come off it people, all of these are true, on the ground, right now, you want to make some blanket statement about how simple it is to fix this by what? "building a home depot P.O.S. fence in SO CAL, AZ, NM, TX"?? boy is that laughable ....

bugmenot — Fri Sept. 18th 3:57p.m.

(cont'd from above;)
now i can just imagine what conservative people around tehse parts are going to say about that one, BUT READ MY LIPS "BLUEOREGONIANS" and others, A GOOD DAY LABORER, PAID, UN-PAID, UNDER-PAID WHATEVER, WILL WORK CIRCLES AROUND AND WITH MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN THE AVERAGE LABORER FROM HERE, JUST A FACT IN MY WORLD, these guys generally KICK MAJOR ASS when it comes to hard and smart work, end of story .... AND HARD WORK IS WHAT CONSTRUCTION IS.... now, should we HAVE to work that hard for less pay?? that is another question, if illegal day laborers didn't take this pay, thus "legitimizing" (meaning in a business sense, built into econ of future projects) the lower pay, then it probably would not be as hard to convince the average american what it costs these days TO ACTUALLY BUILD SOMETHING RIGHT, THE FIRST TIME....
and all of these things, are what is really having an effect on my bottom line, sure it's tough out there, but if we work harder with more humility TOWARDS ALL PEOPLE and stop cutting corners, things WILL get better, illegal day laborers or not ....

bugmenot — Fri Sept. 18th 3:58p.m.

This arrangement is illegal and wrong. We claim to be a nation of laws and that no one is above the law. This arrangement can only increase people's lack of faith in the law as they observed laws being disregarded in the name of political expediency. The law requires employers to validate the legal status of workers-period. The law requires earned income be taxed-period. The current state of the economy is a source of anxiety and fear for many citizens. To invest tax dollars and to not enforce existing laws in this regard is a slap in the face to every citizen. Perhaps more effort should be made to connect these jobs with unemployed and unskilled citizens and/or teenagers. How about ignoring the law regarding overnight camping in city parks ? If enough people camp out will this null invoid this law ? Can any officer decide to cherry pick which laws they will enforce and with whom ? Can we be given a list of laws elected officials can ignore if its deemed by them to be in their polical best interest. We can then make a better decide during their run for office.

MeanMachine2 — Fri June 13th 9:29p.m.

There is nothing to stop the unemployed and unskilled citizens and/or teenagers from taking advantage of the site. If anything, it will make it easier for them to know where to go to look for work.

I do not entirely buy the argument that illegal aliens are taking jobs away from Americans. We have enjoyed a low unemployment rate for many years. There are more jobs on farms than there are legal immigrants to fill them. Good luck finding an American teenager who will do such backbreaking work.

Oftentimes, a farmer has no choice but to hire illegal aliens in order to harvest his crops. There just isn't a line of American citizens clamoring for such work.

We need to open up our immigration quotas. It is a simple matter of supply and demand for labor. The demand is there, so we need to open up the supply.

Luke T. — Mon June 16th 12:16p.m.

If a farmer can't find legal workers and pay them enough to harvest his crops he should not grow those crops. That's the real law of supply and demand. If people are not willing to pay the true cost of food then that food should not be grown.

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 12:44p.m.

Well put. You can't say a job is a job that legal residents won't do without specifying the pay for that job. I'm sure that legal residents would do the jobs done by illegal immigrants if the jobs paid more. If paying that amount makes the end product too expensive to sell, that's just the marketplace saying that the costs of the product outweigh its benefits and that it shouldn't be produced.

wpetio — Mon June 16th 1:02p.m.

Yeppers!

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 1:07p.m.

Aren't farmers already subsidized enough? Should we stop this too? Perhaps that would be the first place to focus your efforts---if you are so concerned with the real law of supply and demand.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 2:04p.m.

There are a lot of assumptions made that people who are day laborers, who are latino, are undocumented, but that's not always true. The day labor site doesn't have to do with immigration. It's about hard working people who have long been mistreated. Day laborers are one of the most marginalized and vulnerable of the working classes. The center will give them strength in their union and hopefully protect them from the abuses they suffer, such as not being paid the wages they are owed, or being physically or verbally abused. This will hopefully allow them to set their minimum wage so that they can better support their families. The center is not about immigration. It's about labor rights and human rights. To address the fact that some may be undocumented, don't forget that our affluent society has been built on unfair trade policies that have driven them from their homes. There is no easy path for them to come here legally. Now that they are here, they are most vital and should be paid what they deserve. I applaud the wisdom of the city of Portland.

Meghan Planchon
North Portland

drosenfeld33 — Mon June 16th 1:42a.m.

Undocumented workers take away the jobs of the poorest 1/10 of Americans. US born Hispanic and black citizens are hurt more than US born whites. Who is looking out for them? Surely no other country. In addition, making it easy to hire illegal immigrants ends up driving down wages (for day labor jobs) by 3-8%, which drives down the cost for all of the 'affluent' people to buy produce and have some yard work done. Breaking federal laws is NOT the solution to these problems. We must use our resources to change immigration laws not to create lazy short term band-aids that ultimately just keep the poor... poor and the undocumented...illegal

lizzard — Mon June 16th 1:37p.m.

At least if they're going to bring in foreign workers they should have to do it legally as in something like the WW2 Bracero program. I'm against even that but at least then the workers would have some legal protections.

I hate the idea of treating any workers like cheap disposable throwaways without dignity and human rights.

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 1:50p.m.

So you rather people don't work at all? What else are you proposing?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 1:55p.m.

Your reply does not make sense. Please rethink and clarify.

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 2:01p.m.

It makes sense. You are apparently against this program. Are you against illegal immigrants working in the USA? Yes or no?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 2:09p.m.

I would direct your attention to rading "The Disposal American" by Louis Uchitelle. You may find this very interesting. Also, a book which I believe may now be out of print, "America, What Went Wrong" which is based on a series of article by two Reporters at the Philly Iinquirer.

MeanMachine2 — Wed June 18th 1:15p.m.

I moved here recently from San Francisco, and I worked down the street from a Day Labor Center. Before it went up, there were three or four street corners that people looking for work would hang out on. These corners were crowded and hard to pass. After the Day Labor Center went up, there were no people on those corners, and always a line out the door at the Center, which was always clean, safe, professional and quiet. I fully support the one opening in my neighborhood here.

RosyWheeler — Mon June 16th 11:20a.m.

Good luck with a rational discussion with this topic.

number-six — Mon June 16th 11:54a.m.

Any rational point of view, i.e. that we ask our federal government to perform its most basic responsibilities to its citizens; protecting the border from foreign invasion and upholding the constitution...is quickly shouted down as being racist or anti latino

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 12:24p.m.

It's not so much that it is being asked, but who is asking and why? Or what motivates such fervant advocacy?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 1:02p.m.

Then it sounds like a) you accept the premises of the argument and b) you accept the conclusion but c) decline action because you don't like the person making the argument. Give me a break. You create some ridiculous caricature of the people with whom you disagree, and then use that as the basis for your argument.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 1:08p.m.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy - What's the ridiculous caricature? I'm not even discussing the argument, I am asking why it is being made and who is making it. Which is equally as important as the argument---the objectivity of someone proposing an argument is very important.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 1:33p.m.

The only acceptable debate tactic is to point out a flaw in the logic or a flaw in the premise. You cannot claim that the person making the argument fits some racist, anti-latino caricature to make your argument. You're prejudices are so deep you don't even realize you have them. You're openly admitting to rejecting the argument, regardless of it's merits, because you have a notion as to the nature of the people who make the argument. This notion, caricature if you will, of the people calling for a respect for the rule of law, is cultivateted in your sheltered, liberal circles where your closest encounter with illegals is the person who cuts your grass. I reject your premise that those calling for us to follow our nation's laws have some anti latino motivation and ask you to prove it. And I submit, that even if your caricature of those making this argument is indeed correct, then it still doesn't invalidate the argument. To poke fun of the person making the argument is a classic intellectually dishonest debate technique:

From Henry Martyn Robert "Robert's Rules of Order"
?It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.?

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 2:07p.m.

Gee of course you can. What are these deep prejudices that I have? That conservatives are statistically bigoted? Sorry that is not a prejudice but a fact.

It is perfectly fine to use an ad hominem arguement, if that is what you are suggesting I am doing, if it directly relates to the argument being made and the character of the people making the argument.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 2:20p.m.

Like I said, I reject your claim of bigotry. You claim it's a fact, but provide no reference supporting your claim. Your bigotry is obvious from your immediate assumption that the motivation for asking our federal government to protect the borders can come from bigotry. It's deep because it's a reflex for you to assume this. One cannot have a debate with someone such as yourself because you will fall back on your prejudice reflexively and dismiss any argument about the facts.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 2:31p.m.

This is what I said (and I assume it is the opinion of mine that you are referring to): "One has to question the motivation of the opponents. Surely they are not acting just from an altruistic place of being staunch defenders of the law. Their passion on this issue has to be at least be partially motivated by xenophobia and perhaps bigotry."

Notice the words: "just" and "partially motivated." I clearly did not say it was always the case. The statistics show that the primary opponents are conservatives who are indeed statically the most bigoted group in the country. Do you have something to say otherwise?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 2:43p.m.

I have already said otherwise by asking you to provide some proof that "conservatives", whatever that means to you, are more bigoted. Based on what I can see of you, you will just define "conservative=bigoted" in the same way that you defined "passion for the rule of law = bigoted" and "support for rule of law=conservative" and call it a day. Whew, that was easy! didn't have think at all did you?
I ask you, why wouldn't they be acting purely out of interest/passion for the law? If I were a terrorist, or anyone who wanted to do harm to the US, it would seem that even an uneducated landscaper can enter the country illegally and live here for years without detection by the US government. Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars "fighting them over there", or protecting Iraq's border from Iran, when we can't even keep our own border secure? Gosh, I can think of lots of reasons why it's important to protect the rule of law. It's, gee, I don't know, the primary differance between us and the lawless dictatorships of the world. Or how about this, name one other first world country that allows 15 million people to cross the border illegally and work illegally in that country.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 2:53p.m.

Oh you wanted proof on Republicans or conservatives being the most bigoted group in the country? I thought this was common knowledge? No? Gay marriage. Or does this not count? Because gay marriage is just wrong anyway?

"Why wouldn't they be acting purely out of interest/passion for the law?" I guess because they are the most bigoted group in the country. Clearly could be a factor. It's unfortunate they don't have such a passion for the law when it involves wiretapping, illegal wars, torture, the rights of prisoners and the seperation of church and state.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 3:12p.m.

Well, now you bring up the Republican party, which has been hijacked by the right wing religious on one hand, and the neo cons on the other. Both very tragic and will have long term negative consequences for the country. I hope that we have hit rock bottom and have no place to go but up on those accounts. But...and a big, huge but, this has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If YOU were objective, you would get off the ad hominem thing and come up with and argument that supports an uncontrolled border and 15 million undocumented people in this country.

At this point, my observation is that you are obsessed with name calling and stereotyping of people who disagree with you and you have no interest whatsoever in having a debate about the issue of the illegal immigration, or employers hiring people illegally.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 3:19p.m.

So now you choose not to address the argument, when I provide the evidence you were apparently seeking? How very, very objective.

I am not at all advocating an uncontrolled border, so I have no idea how this is relevant. And being we are not discussing the border, how does this relate to your objection to a day labor hire site (assuming you have one)?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 3:27p.m.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were making an argument, but rather brought up other topics like gay marriage and the Iraq war. I saw nothing regarding the discussion about supporters of border enforcement being bigoted against latinos. I guess I missed it. BTW, I never said that I objected to a day labor hire site. This thread began with the assertion that one could not have a rational discussion about this topic. I'd say you proved the assertion correct.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 3:41p.m.

What is your answer to the question of what border control has to do with a day labor hire site? Do you object to a day labor hire site? If so, why?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 3:54p.m.

The connection would be that 75% of day laborers are illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants arrive here because the border is not controlled. Are you really that thick?

I haven't expressed an opinion on day labor hire sites, nor was I debating such a thing. I was discussing the fact that it was unlikely there would be a rational discussion on the topic due to the assumptions made about those who support a secure border and the enforcement of our immigration laws. Like I said. You made that point brilliantly.

For the record, I'm a registered democrat, not religious, opposed the Iraq war from before the beginning, support gay marriage, don't support the patriot act, and I'm voting for Baraq Obama in November. All of which has nothing of course to do with our debate. That debate was about whether or not reducing your opponent to a caricature is really very useful in a debate. But good luck with it.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 4:05p.m.

Was that suppose to be a gotcha? Because you are a Democrat? Well it isn't.

I'm not interested in whether you expressed an opinion on the actual topic of the day, of a day labor hire site---I asked what your opinion was. Are you not willing to share it?

Again, what is the connection with border control and a day labor hire site? They are indeed very different topics. Or are you suggesting that opposing a day labor hire site is done so for the exact same reasons as the support for border control? And that people who support border control must oppose a day labor hire site? So again I ask what are the connections between the arguments?

YES, YES, YES---questioning the prevailing factor of why a group is motivated to pursue a topic is important, objective and rational. The fact that a pattern of bigotry can be established by conservatives or Republicans directly relates to asking the question of the supporters motivation. This is indeed a rational train of thought! Because there are often arguments to be made that seem rational and seem logical on both sides. Determining the motivation of a group advocating a position is an incredibly important tool to determine the weight and objectivity you wish to give to their advocacy. It isn't just about whether their argument seems legally or logically correct, it is about why they are making it at all, and what they wish to accomplish by it.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 4:54p.m.

Well, recently converted Democrat anyway. Not supposed to be a gotcha, just to clear the air because I know how in Portland politics, everybody has to choose a team and have their political views assigned. Both parties seem pretty worthless to me. But the Republican party has likely lost me forever with the pandering to the religious right, the war in Iraq, the shredding of the constitution, etc.

On day labor sites, I never expressed any interest in debating you on day labor sites. Don't know why you keep asking me about them. We were debating something else. So, no, I'm not going to express an opinion on them. I haven't thought about the concept enough to have an opinion. It's something I will think more about though.

It doesn't look like we will reach an agreement about your debate tactics. So let's agree to disagree. My final thought is that Baraq Obama changed the game in politics... And I like it. He demonstrates his understanding of opposing points of view, respects them, and then outlines why he disagrees. I think your causes would be better served by more respectful tactics by those who hold your views. Those who may be inclined to agree with you will naturally become resistant in the face of those tactics.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 11:05p.m.

Actually you don't have to choose a team, many don't. By-the-way you have no idea who I am voting for and I also think you have no idea what party I belong to? Or if I belong at all. So I wouldn't be so quick to use the same stereotypical behaviour your were allegedly accusing me of, to assume things about me.

My debate tactics are sound and they were clear from the outset. When I said: "It's not so much that it is being asked, but who is asking and why? Or what motivates such fervent advocacy?" To say that someone can't propose that another motivation might be at play based on a groups pattern or behaviour is absurd, especially when you have no statistics to say otherwise, or to propose another motivation.

scottmil — Tue June 17th 12:24p.m.

I would love to see the white beggars/vagrants who stand at the freeway interstate on/off ramps show up and have someone actually call their "will work for food" bluff.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 12:15p.m.

Why would you love to see this? What would it mean? What would it show? What would it add to this discussion?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 5:03p.m.

My husband and I both work and are under 65 seniors. 1/4 of my husbands paycheck goes to cover our 'basic' health insurance. We never even see that money. Our combined income does not allow for any luxuries. I think it is criminal, and I believe it actually is criminal, that healthy, young illegal aliens get free health insurance that covers their every need, while we, tax paying long time Oregonians struggle daily to pay our bills and buy food and gas.

Senior Citizen — Mon June 16th 12:16p.m.

Yes, focus on the people beneath you on the income and social ladder. Pay no attention to the top 1% who have been steadily enriching themselves for the last 30 years at the expense of the middle class.

BTW, where does one sign up for the "healthy, young illegal alien" health plan?

number-six — Mon June 16th 12:26p.m.

Your assumption that undocumented immigrants receive free health care is false. In fact, food stamps, medicaid and welfare programs all specifically exclude undocumented immigrants from their programs. In their unwarranted fear that some small number of people may enroll illegally, they passed legislation requiring proof of citizenship for Medicaid participation. My mother, born in the US in 1916, was unable to comply with their requirements because the town hall where her birth certificate was filed burned down in the 1920's. Her school records, etc. were insufficient proof. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of American citizens eligible for Medicaid have lost coverage because of the fear that some immigrants would get health care. The Congressional Budget Office said before the bill passed that few undocumented immigrants were on Medicaid since contact with state officials to apply could expose their status, so the bill passed to address a problem that doesn't exist, and now many american citizens have lost their coverage thanks to anti-immigrant hysteria and the false claims such as yours. People who are old and in nursing homes, many of them born before birth certificates were centralized. One woman, for example, was born one year before her country started issuing birth certificates, but because of this sort of anti-immigrant mythology and hysteria, she is now uninsured.

RuthAlice — Mon June 16th 3:47p.m.

RuthAlice a Birth Certificate is not the only document used to establish citizenship. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have establish their eligibility for welfare services without a Birth Certificate. Your information is simply wrong. You can contact any Self Sufficiency Branch in Oregon or go to the Oregon State official website. Dramatic argument but without factual substance.

Your thinking and logic was applied in the landmark Brownville Texas case before the U.S. Supreme Court case which established the right of the non U.S. born children of illegal aliens to attend public school. School in the U.S. have been overwhelmed with such children. The cost of providing a wide range of services has depleted the budget of many school districts. Money which should have gone to the education of legal children has been shifted away to meet the needs of this population. More to the point, such policies have served as a magnet to draw more and more non-U.S. born children to schools in the U.S.

This is not about racism. Most people who hold this view would hold it regardless of the ethnic group. You can rationalize all you want but its simply wrong. You may be willing to sacrific the needs of U.S. citizens in service to other non-U.S. groups but I am not.

Being anti-Illegal immigration is NOT being anti-immigration. There is an important difference. No country has the right to encourage or allow millions of its citizens to illegally enter and live in another country. I hate paying taxes but I accept it as necessary to support my country and community. I do not accept that I must support poeple who entered the country illegally. And who costs this country trillions of dollars a year which should be used to improve this country.

MeanMachine2 — Tue June 17th 1:29p.m.

RuthAlice I did follow through with your information and contacted the Oregon Department of Human Services, Self Sufficiency Branch in Portland. This is the office which administers, among other things, Temporary Assistance To Needy Families (TANF) which is known as welfare, FoodStamp, and Oregan Health Plan (OHP). There are four (4) levels or classifications of documents which can be submitted to establish eligibility for programs. Birth Certificate is a level one (1) document. There are a wide range of documents, including affidavits. You may want to pass this information on to your mother. Any U.S. citizen, with few exceptions, leaves a "paper trail" of documents during the course of living their life. Let us not forget there are between twelve to twenty (12-20) million illegal aliens in this country. I do not know what your sense of "some small number" may be, but a relatively small percentage of this number represents hundreds of millions of dollars. Almost enough to make it real money. I would be happy to live on this amount (very well) for the rest of my life and that of my children, my children's children. etc.

MeanMachine2 — Thu June 19th 3p.m.

Is Portland checking that the employers have their State or city required contractor or business license, their required insurance, and their state required schooling to obtain their license?

Are the employers required to fill out the required paperwork for taxes and social security for their newly hired employee and pay those required witholdings? Does anyone make sure that the employer pay those required witholdings to the Federal government or State of Oregon? If the employers are not paying those witholdings they are committing crimes. Is Portland enabling criminal behaviors by the employers?

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 12:34p.m.

These are day labor jobs. People get hired a day at a time and would be hard for an employer to keep track of who they are hiring and paying each time because they pick up workers on the street corner. This compares to paying to get your lawn mowed by neighborhood kids or college students looking to make some money.

some Day Laborers have full-time jobs elsewhere, but need this to augment their income.

Amazed Listener — Mon June 16th 12:42p.m.

It does not matter how hard it is, the law requires it. And temp agencies comply all the time, so your argument does not hold water.

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 12:49p.m.

Let's be honest. Everyone knows that almost all of the "day laborers" are engaging in criminal violations of our immigration and tax laws. Spending taxpayer money to facilitate and accommodate that activity on grounds the illegal workers will be there anyway makes about as much sense as a city-funded brothel or a city-funded drug market (the prostitutes and drug dealers also will be there anyway).

wpetio — Mon June 16th 12:45p.m.

What about needle exchanges? Are they a bad idea too?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 12:58p.m.

That was NOT the argument. It was that employers (the market) will hire these workers regardless of immigration laws and regardless of whether they are at a day laborer site.

Amazed Listener — Mon June 16th 7:51p.m.

As a former Board Member of VOZ I am thrilled with the new Day Labor Center and the City's support. VOZ and other organizations supporting day laborers have been working hard for many years in Portland and the outlying areas to provide basic human and labor rights to day laborers. Congratulations to VOZ for their hard work and thank you to everyone who has supported them in this long struggle. I hope that the City continues to support this organization and that the community continues to maintain dialogue on this important issue.

Leslie King

leslieking — Mon June 16th 12:48p.m.

One has to question the motivation of the opponents. Surely they are not acting just from an altruistic place of being staunch defenders of the law. Their passion on this issue has to be at least be partially motivated by xenophobia and perhaps bigotry.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 12:50p.m.

Workers have worked long and hard to acquire and protect workers rights in America, those laws are there for damn good reasons.

Cheap-Labor Conservatives are always working to undermine workers rights and this day labor center is just another such attack.

It's workers I defend.

And I have worked with properly papered and hired latino temp workers and I admire them, so your "xenophobia and perhaps bigotry" argument doesn't wash.

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 1p.m.

Kudos to you, Tom D Ford, for working with legal Latino temp workers. I have a black friend! Wow! That's really all the evidence I need. Oh you must be correct. Case closed.

How exactly or inexactly, is this undermining workers rights in America?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 1:12p.m.

Do the employers have the state required workers rights posters in their car or truck and easily accessible to the new hire? Do the employers provide the state required breaks every so many hours, including a half hour lunch? Do the employers provide the state required water and hygiene facilities?

Do the employers have the state required MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) sheets for every chemical used or available at the job site?

Do the employers post the State required drawing of the nearest hospital route and the phone number?

Do the employers provide the State required safety equipment and training?

Is there a person on the job site at all times with the State required First Aid and CPR training?

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 1:23p.m.

Are you seriously proposing this as your objection? So if all this was done would it be okay?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 1:29p.m.

One has to question the motivation of the defenders, too! Surely they are not acting just from a place of being staunch defenders of scofflaws. Their passion on this issue has to be at least partially motivated by a desire to obtain cheap labor without having to abide by all the difficult "niceties" of labor and tax laws.

No, scottmil, it's neither xenophobia nor bigotry. I've lived abroad several times, and have followed the laws of the countries I lived in. I'm simply saying that those who come here should abide by our laws as well. Officials who ignore such laws aren't doing their jobs!

brwmeistr — Mon June 16th 1:34p.m.

Are you proposing it is just a coincidence that the majority of people against projects like this happen to be conservatives? Conservatives are statistically shown to be the most bigoted group in the country. Wow it's so ironic they happen to focus so much energy on this issue. Liberals don't seem to care as much---oh they must be Octavio Paz lovers or something!

scottmil — Mon June 16th 1:53p.m.

After listening to Carmen Rubio evasive and self serving responses to the concerns of many tax paying citizens I am even more disturbed and upset. The city is an accessory to a crime and she states the its not the city's job to enforce immigration or tax laws. Neither did she address the issue that many of these workers live outside, leave trash outside, use outside as a toilet facility, and other behaviors which do not contribute to the liveability of the community in which I live. Carmen she consider just being direct and honest that enforcing such laws represents a barrier to Potter's objective of looking like a good guy at tax payer's expense. The city is an accessory to a crime. This is not debatable. Poeple rob banks to feed their family. Why does Portland Police respond to robbery of federal banks ?

MeanMachine2 — Mon June 16th 12:52p.m.

That's a real stretch, comparing an illegal resident trying to find work---to a robber of federal banks.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 12:57p.m.

It is the City and the employers who are robbing the fed of the required taxes and social security witholdings, they are robbing the American people!

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 1:06p.m.

Scottmil, its not a stretch. Both have violated the law. One gets assistance from the city and the other does not. According to Carmen, enforcing federal law is not the job of the city. Unless she is saying the city can decide which federal laws it will enforce and which it will not. In this case, federal laws only apply to local governments acceptable to local governments. I didn't know that. Women engage in prostitution to feed their family and are probably as hard working as any illegal alien and yet they are prosecuted. Why ? If you have an acceptable justification for violating a law then you should not be held accountable ? If I break into your house and clean it should you be required to allow me to stay ?

MeanMachine2 — Mon June 16th 1:21p.m.

Even the law has different punishments for violating it. So the law is apparently willing to draw distinctions your argument did not make.

scottmil — Mon June 16th 1:57p.m.

If I don't pay my taxes, the IRS comes after me because tax evasion is a serious crime. Every employer who doesn't follow proper paperwork is literally robbing from the government (us). Also, every employer who doesn't follow the rules makes it that much harder for the honest person who operates with the appropriate licenses, files the proper paper work, pays taxes, etc. The net effect is to drive down the standard of living for every working man and woman. I was lucky to escape the hard work of the meat packing plant. My dad didn't, having worked in one for 35 years. The union was broken when the company brought bus loads of illegals from Mexico through the picket lines with the assistance of the national guard. Yeah, illegal immigration is great. Let's have more of it. Pre busloads of illegals, my dad had health benefits and a living wage and a pension. Post busloads of illegals, pay was cut in half, no benefits, no union, no pension. Let's have more undocumented workers so more people can be abused by unscrupulous employers. Let's ignore more laws designed to protect us.

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 11:16p.m.

The anecdotal account of your father, however sad it is, doesn't necessarily represent the larger picture.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your post because it is off topic, doesn't in any way address the distinctions the law is willing to make in my post.

scottmil — Tue June 17th 12:09p.m.

Gender--I have not heard it come up yet other than a passing mention of prostitution. We know from years of international development work that if you want to postively impact a village/family the most effective target of income are females. Yet, as the report stated this center targets men who don't have kiddos to stay home with all day.

Do you have daycare at your site so women can participtate? That would be one basic way to ensure that 'just a day job' would be so much more than a decent wage for a single male unit.

houseofsky — Mon June 16th 12:57p.m.

My question is that if a documented worker or citizen of the US was to utilize the services of this site would they be required to pay taxes on their $10/hour wage while undocumented workers clearly would not?

My concern is that we are effectively punishing people for going through the proper channels or for being an American citizen that needs to pick up some day labor to make ends meet. I understand that this center is a response to the situation on the street and I hope that it is able to alleviate some of those problems but it is far from a solution.

7G Oregon — Mon June 16th 1:07p.m.

What ARROGANCE Ms Rubio, and by extension the mayor and city, show when she says the labor and tax laws aren't a concern for her and the city she represents! I'm not allowed to pick and choose which laws I'll abide by, be they of federal or city origin. Why should these elected and hired officials be given the option to ignore ANY laws?

Additionally, I thought that such officials take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and laws when they are sworn into office. I believe that means they should hold themselves responsible not to facilitate illegal activities. All of us know that a great many of these day workers are here illegally, and that the employers don't follow labor laws concerning safety, security, taxes, and such. How DARE the city say, through it's official spokesman, that such laws don't matter and aren't the city's concern!

Finally, what does this attitude tell our children? Kids aren't ignorant nor uninformed. How can I tell my granddaughter that ALL of us must follow the laws while the city ignores so many of them?

SHAME ON THE CITY OFFICIALS OF PORTLAND, OREGON!

brwmeistr — Mon June 16th 1:15p.m.

Do the employers have the state required workers rights posters in their car or truck and easily accessible to the new hire? Do the employers provide the state required breaks every so many hours, including a half hour lunch? Do the employers provide the state required water and hygiene facilities?

Do the employers have the state required MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) sheets for every chemical used or available at the job site?

Do the employers post the State required drawing of the nearest hospital route and the phone number?

Do the employers provide the State required safety equipment and training?

Is there a person on the job site at all times with the State required First Aid and CPR training?

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 1:20p.m.

How many workers get injured and don't get the proper medical care because the employer does not have the required insurance and/or knows full well that the employee is illegal and won't complain?

Tom D Ford — Mon June 16th 1:55p.m.

How do you propose this is rectified?

scottmil — Mon June 16th 2:45p.m.

Uhhh....how about requiring proof of permission to work in the US? How about respecting and enforcing our existing laws designed to protect worker's rights?

fatmidwesternwhiteguy — Mon June 16th 11:19p.m.

It really pains me that the discussion on this topic has turned out this way. This is an opportunity for different segments of society to come together to right wrongs. Giving all day-laborers, white, yellow, black, brown and everything inbetwee, the opportunity to organize and have a voice through a center like this is going to raise everyone's wages and improve working conditions. If all workers are getting paid the same wages and given the rights then there is going to be less undercutting and more opportunities for for US citizens to get the jobs that some claim that undocumented workers are steeling from them. This day labor center is a great opportunity for labor supporters to back real change rather than simply argue about the legal status of their working counterparts. There is no reason workers to fight each other, better come together and demand rights across the board.
In terms of legality, I support the argument that people should not be able to simply break the law, but it is hard to have that be the center of this conversation when there is not real channel for immigrants to take to gain legal status. Lets focus on reforming immigration policy rather than simply dismissing a human being as being an illegal.

Ali514 — Tue June 17th 12:53p.m.

Your overall argument is right on the mark regarding the need for workers across the board to unite. I do, however, disagree with a couple of points. The most important is one I hear a lot. Whether or not there a real channel for immigrants to gain legal status is not relevant. There is no right for any citizen to enter another country. Whether or not a person is allowed to enter or to work in another country is up to that country. Yes, its sad what has happened in Mexico, Central America, Chad, Morocco, Yeman, and other countries. These countries deserve assistance from the entire world.

Most people are not opposed to immigration. A great many people are opposed to illegal immigration which the numbers are so vast as to overwhelm the labor market, social and educational institutions, and dramatically impact the quality of life for people. Being a janitor was once a living wage job in many urban areas. My father was one. Its gone. My school district shifted funds from programs for my daughter to address the needs of a sudden influx of undocumented middle school children who did not speak English. How was my daughter served. Since my daughter's education was so important we really did move to a smaller house in a somewhat isolated community with excellent schools. My daughter is now working her way up the academic chain to become a professor at a major Ivoy league university. Would she have gotten the education she needed to achieve this had we remained in her old school ? I do not know and I should not have been put in a position to be foreced to take such a chance. I tell you this, and its true, to let you know its not about abstract concepts for me, its personal - very personal.

MeanMachine2 — Tue June 17th 1:57p.m.

Comments are now closed.