On the border

By Emil Pulsifer

Guest Rogue

Whatever your position on the difficult issue of immigration, looming events make the need for comprehensive immigration reform more important than ever, for America as a whole and for Arizona in particular.  Mexico's proven oil reserves are dwindling fast and may be exhausted at the current rate of production within less than ten years: the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that Mexico will become a net oil importer by 2017.

Why is this a source of concern for America in general and Arizona in particular?

First, is the fact that Mexico has consistently been one of the top three sources of America's imported oil (with Canada and Saudi Arabia). As of late 2009, Mexico was the second largest source of America's imported oil. More importantly from the standpoint of immigration policy is the reality that oil exports constitute Mexico's largest source of legal revenues (about 40 percent); second to this, and larger than tourism, are the remittances sent home by immigrants working in foreign countries (chiefly the United States).  Remittances are, in fact, so large a component of Mexico's economy, that they constitute a peculiar form of foreign investment. So, barring rosy developments in Mexico's oil industry, and unless the United States takes an even greater nosedive than Mexico is going to in coming years, expect massive immigration, on a scale to make the recent wave look puny, within a decade.

The new Chicontepec oilfield megaproject, which is the last, best hope to replace the declining Cantarell main field, may delay that -- its reserves are estimated to be huge -- but thus far its output is disappointing; and while official Mexican government estimates suggest that full production might be reached by 2017, many independent industry experts are skeptical that it will ever become profitable; and Mexico's economic problems have created fiscal pressures which make continued government financing (in the face of poor results) doubtful.  Thus, the availability and commitment of investment capital for the project remains questionable.

Much of the problem, as the EIA reports, is that "Chicontepec is very challenging technically" due to the heaviness of the crude, the highly fractured reservoir, and the low pressure therein; also that "the region does not yet have much of the necessary infrastructure for large-scale oil development, such as pipelines, which must be built amongst a dense, urban population". In other words, the field's oil exists in numerous small pockets, each requiring its own well and special equipment to recover the oil, and on top of this, requires the creation of an entire basic infrastructure to exploit.

Mexican government oil company, Pemex, plays the role of sugar-daddy in a socio-political system dependent for its basic functioning on its largesse: subsidies to keep the price of basic foodstuffs available to the poor; healthcare; sanitation, water, and electrification; all of this and more is heavily underwritten by oil export revenues.  Oil money is also the glue which holds together Mexico's patronage-based political system. If, as the EIA predicts, Mexico will become a net importer of oil by 2017, the resulting economic and political destabilization can only result in a massive exodus, as immigrants seek jobs in other countries to support themselves and their extended families back home.

This brings us back to the immigration issue. In the modern era, immigration controls have included physical barriers, entry documentation, border patrol enforcement, workplace raids on undocumented immigrant employees, and more recently, employer sanctions, as well as increased attempts at local enforcement. Thus far, existing methods of immigration control have proven to be, at best, of marginal effectiveness; a fact which everyone, from those advocating tightened immigration controls to those advocating open borders, can agree upon (though the reasons for this failure remain an issue of controversy). New proposals attempt to address the root of the matter, the economic motivation of undocumented immigrants, by making the right to work contingent upon citizenship or legal residency, enforced by means of a national identification card or some similar tool. Let's take a quick look at the vulnerabilities of existing and proposed methods:

The first, physical barriers, is familiar in the basic form of a giant wall, already constructed along portions of the southern border of the United States. There is no question of the enormous expense involved in completing such a project; but advocates of immigration control argue that this expense is warranted. Current methods of drug and human smuggling show that individuals will simply dig tunnels to go under it, use simple wooden ramps to get over it, bulldoze it, crash vehicles through it or dynamite it, or simply go around it.

Thus, it would appear that a static barrier like a wall is of little ultimate use unless the border along it can be effectively patrolled. But, unlike the case of tiny Israel, whom border control advocates often cite as a model, the southern border of the United States with Mexico extends some 2,000 land miles.  Patrolling it effectively would take a full-time citizen army, another enormous expense.  Would even this be effective?

The southern phalanx is even more easily thwarted.  For example, Mexican tourists far outnumber illegal immigrants from that country; according to the University of Arizona's Eller School of Management, approximately 24 million legal tourists and shoppers enter the United States from Mexico every year. The United States cannot economically or politically afford to close its border to all Mexican visitors. Yet, a border crossing card or "laser visa" can be obtained by Mexican citizens at minimal expense and with minimal difficulty.  There is nothing to prevent those who intend to immigrate illegally from crossing, legally, easily and inexpensively, with proper identification, but also carrying a set of false identification and a non-declarable amount (less than $10,000) in cash, money orders, or travellers checks, ostensibly as tourists or day shoppers, with which to start a new life after gaining entry.

Even if the southern border were hermetically sealed, there remains the northern border.  At first, this might seem irrelevant, since Canada is not a source for large numbers of undocumented immigrants, at least not those native to Canada.  However, a recent newspaper article quoted an Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman as saying that undocumented Mexican immigrants typically pay from $1,500 to $2,000 to "coyotes" (professional human smugglers) to get them across the border; then often extorting even more money to allow them to continue to their next destination inside the country.

A cursory check of online airfares shows that the price of a ticket from Mexico to Ontario may be had for as little as $225 for a single fare; and no doubt a charter fare would be cheaper still.  Even with car rental, lodging along the way, and other incidental expenses, it would actually be much cheaper, easier, and safer for Mexican immigrants to fly to Canada, then cross at any of a number of border areas: unlike the southern border, the (far longer) northern border is virtually unpatrolled in most areas. (Of course, such immigrants might also choose to stay in Canada, thought it might be that Canadian immigration controls, vis a vis employment, are more stringent than in the United States, or that undocumented Mexican immigrants might stand out more there than in the southwestern and certain other areas of the United States.)

On a wholesale level, this might require a whole new smuggling infrastructure to get northern border crossers to their destinations within the United States; the point remains that water will find its own level, and the greater the pressure at the pump end, the faster new holes will be found.

As for sporadic and scattered workplace raids, even the staunchest immigration opponents will admit that this method is largely symbolic; they must also admit, given the continued presence of 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, that even as a psychological deterrent this is an ineffective method of immigration control. Employer sanctions, carried out on a similar scale, are similarly ineffective and have the additional burden of requiring prosecutors to prove intent on the part of the employer.  Systematic inspection is beyond any practical budget or manpower.

The same can be said for local law enforcement efforts. Some of the highest profile actions in the nation, in this regard, have taken place in Maricopa County, Arizona, under the supervision of Sheriff Joe Arpaio; but however useful to him as a political stunt, the detention of a couple dozen illegal immigrants once every two months, can scarcely make a dent in a state where half a million undocumented workers have been estimated to reside; and though this number may have decreased in response to the recent economic crisis, this is scarcely a reliable method of immigration control, particularly if Mexico's economy goes to hell in a handbasket within a decade.

That leaves the strategy of a national ID card or right to work card, using biometric data such as digitized fingerprints.  This might work, but only if properly implemented.

The problem is that fingerprints may not lie, but they don't prove citizenship either. The ID card is supposed to prove citizenship or at least legal residency status, but what proves that the individual applying for the card deserves one?  Things like Social Security numbers and birth certificates, and as we all know, those can be fabricated, stolen or forged.

So, the problem devolves to a chicken and egg paradox: in order to prove citizenship you have to have the card; but in order to get the card you have to prove citizenship, by other means. What are those means and how secure are they?  Here's an interesting case where someone got a high-tech passport (with biometrics) using a dead-man's Social Security number:

Then, there is the traditional approach. Before World War I, Russia and Turkey were the only countries which required entering foreigners to have a passport.  Thus, for most of America's history, it had an "open borders" policy, and this reflected its "traditional values".  Not until the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 did the United States establish permanent immigration limits.

When considering policy reforms, it's useful to compare current immigration limits to the period before and after Johnson-Reed. In the first decade of the 20th century, for example, about 200,000 Italians immigrated to the United States each year. In 1900 the U.S. population was about 78 million. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, from 2000 to 2005, the annual rate of entry of illegal immigrants was 525,000, of which about 60 percent were Mexican; but the population of the United States was 281 million in 2000. Thus, as a percentage of the population, the total number of illegal immigrants in modern times has been smaller than the number of Italians alone immigrating here when immigration quotas did not exist. They should thus have been more easily absorbed than earlier waves of immigrants.

Somehow, the country survived the Italian wave, and today, your great-grandmother's fears of swarthy, greasy Italians, "breeding like rabbits," importing their secret societies and criminal tendencies, shouting "Whatsamatter you?" in their illiterate pidgin while menacing random passersby with their flick-knives, seems quaintly amusing.  Two or three generations of assimilation and intermixing fixed "the problem", just as it did with the Irish and other groups, none of which are, 100 years or more later, considered particularly undesirable.

The usual argument is that immigrants ought to be satisfied to wait and immigrate legally, as others have: that others have not, for most of the country's history, is a matter of fact; but even in comparison to latter days, when immigration quotas did exist, there is something peculiarly artificial about contemporary quota numbers.

As the current Visa Bulletin (January 2010) makes clear, "the annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure." This means that, with small exceptions for political refugees and certain other classes, no more than 25,620 Mexican immigrants may come to the United States per year. In fact, even in 1924 under the highly restrictive Johnson-Reed Act mentioned above, fully twice this number of Germans (51,227) was permitted annual entry; and that was during a time when the population of the United States was only about a third of its present size, and thus less easily able to assimilate large numbers of immigrants.

So, the annual cap is undoubtedly small, both in traditional terms and even by the modern standards of America's first quota system under Johnson-Reed. Taking the Pew Center's figures above, we find that roughly 315,000 undocumented Mexicans entered annually on average, each year from 2000 to 2005.  If the would-be Mexican immigrants from a single such year were to wait patiently for the line to vacate, in order to enter legally, it would take more than 12 years for that number of individuals to be granted immigration visas, at a rate of 25,620 per year; and that does not even consider the already existing backlog of previous years, as well as an equal number of would-be immigrants adding to this each following year. Shall we ask immigrants to wait, patiently, for the length of their lives, because the law is the law; or should the law be reformed?  There were, evidently, jobs available (many of which involved difficult manual labor); and if Arizona's unemployment rate of 4.1 percent in 2005 was any indication, there was little crowding out of the native population by immigrants, legal or illegal.

Could the country handle the traditional approach to immigration, a "libertarian" scenario in which the market supposedly determines immigration rates by means of economic mechanisms, with the quantity of immigration determined by the amount of work available to foreign labor?

It may be that open citizenship (subject to criminal background screening and a training & probationary period) will provide a tonic to the ills commonly attributed to illegal immigration.  A citizen can unionize; a citizen can strive to increase his wages (whether through collective or personal bargaining); a citizen can demand his legal rights under the law for such things as overtime pay, workmen's compensation in case of accident, and workplace safety; a citizen has definite tax responsibilities, beyond those of payroll taxes automatically deducted. The ability of employers to evade their civic responsibilities is clearly greater in the case of illegal immigrants than for citizen employees.

Employers who want to exploit illegal foreign labor at low wages or for unpaid overtime or under unsafe conditions, need a frightened, coercible labor pool: this is provided by the combination of a permeable border, together with ineffective but high-profile law enforcement activity against illegal immigrants. Even Sheriff Arpaio's sweeps, Arizona Senator Russell Pearce's seldom enforced employer sanctions legislation, and ICE's scattered factory raids, are integral components of the status quo. As the Arizona Republic observed in its recent decade-in-review series, "On April 10, a sprawling crowd estimated at 200,000 marched to the State Capitol. The mega-marches in Phoenix and other cities sought to cast undocumented immigrants as hard workers who contribute to the nation's economy in hopes of generating public support in favor of laws allowing them to earn citizenship."

Since Pearce introduced his employer sanctions legislation, and Arpaio began his immigrant roundup sweeps, the marches, along with the hopes (and agitation) for amnesty, have since vanished amongst the immigrant population; whereas hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants remain in Arizona to diligently toil in the hope, now, simply of being allowed to work without harassment.

Perhaps it is naive to believe that open immigration policies would result in anything but a surfeit of low wage labor, whose very excess of supply, coupled with the low expectations and living standards of impoverished foreigners, could do nothing other than depress domestic wage and benefit scales for existing citizens. But illegal immigration already produces such a surfeit, in boom times; and the existence of a frightened and easily coerced underclass of undocumented immigrants provides still greater opportunities for the exploitation of labor and the special advantages this gives this gives those who employ them.

Ultimately, the only way to ease immigration pressures may be to ensure plentiful jobs in Mexico for its own citizens, and through these to raise their standard of living so that the income differential between Mexico and the United States is small enough to be outweighed by the pleasures of cultural affinity, family unity, and linguistic ease for those who remain in the land of their birth.

There are essentially two methods of accomplishing this. One is massive foreign investment on a scale unlike anything to be currently found. I will leave it to the reader to consider how likely this will be in an era when Mexico's basic infrastructure and political cohesion disintegrates due to lack of oil revenues. The second would require Mexico to create massive state enterprises to employ its people, producing as much of the products for its own consumption as possible using its own resources and workers, funding this by money created by its own central bank for this purpose, and only importing what the country could not provide itself.

Provided that the money was actually used to create efficient and productive enterprises employing countless millions at good wages, rather than going to line the pockets of the elite, the result would not be inflationary, since the increased demand produced by the newly underwritten job wages, would be met by the increased production of the newly underwritten state enterprises. The U.S. could ease this transition by providing massive business and technical expertise (not financing) to ensure efficient production and distribution systems -- again, highly important if the result is to be an improved standard of living for Mexico's citizens, rather than inflation, shortages, and rationing.

Another possibility (eventually) would be to shift part of the pay of the workers of these enterprises (including managers) into credits usable for the purchase of any goods or services produced by any of the state enterprises (including housing and healthcare). In addition to limiting the amount of money needed to finance the projects, and acting as a mechanism to provide a variable monetary brake, this would insure that payroll remained part of the productive economy instead of being siphoned off into financial bubbles by private speculators; additionally, it might incentivize production quality. However, the effect on quality might eventually be negative if it should lead to the restriction of consumer choice, which is why I remain skeptical in wondering if more than partial "pay in credits" might not eventually prove more trouble than it was worth.

Private enterprise would continue unhindered, but would have to compete with the state's non-profit enterprises in those fields (e.g., manufacturing) where the activities of the public and private sectors should happen to overlap. Let the consumer decide which is superior. Those who decided that additional quality was to be found at an additional price, would be free to buy from private vendors, provided they could afford to, just as Americans have a choice, when shopping for luggage, between Wal-Mart and Louis Vuitton.

The country could eventually form trading blocs with similarly organized neighbors so that each member nation could obtain the things it needs to import on the most favorable terms, perhaps by direct barter.

That Mexico could absorb large numbers of additional workers is not in doubt: largely underdeveloped, especially in its vast rural areas, it needs, on a massive scale, new factories, housing, schools, trucking and railroad systems, energy generation and distribution networks, telecommunications networks, hospitals and clinics, marketplaces, water purification and delivery systems, roadways, sanitation systems, etc.; and countless secondary structures and infrastructure required to support and elaborate this.

Instead of using scarce capital to import increasingly expensive energy resources (e.g., oil) in the coming years, Mexico could use economies of scale and freedom of action in its state enterprises to establish alternative energy generation and distribution on a federal scale, using only the money necessary to do this, since profits would not be sought and executive salaries would be capped at moderate levels. Within a few decades, Mexico could narrow the standard of living gap between itself and its neighbor to the north, achieve self-sufficiency and the pride of accomplishment, and become a model for the rest of Latin America.

All classes of persons would be invited to participate in the building of the nation. Mr. Hernandez would still own the corner barbershop. The cafe next to it would still be owned and operated by the Ortegas, and passed on to their children as they wished. Nobody's bank account would be seized; their money isn't needed. Nobody's mansion would be seized: one can't house the surrounding slums by doing so. The only way to improve the lot of the common man is to do so, constructively, broadly, and patiently.  Instead of driving away the best and brightest through internal repression, or building up a large military and scaring one's neighbors with threats to incite revolution, the country would build a consumer society, address the social needs of its citizens, and quietly lead by example.

A tall order, but not strictly impossible.  What's the alternative?  More walls?  Don't put your trust in walls, 'cause walls will only crush you when they fall...

 

Comments

[Jim Hamblin]

What's missing here? Let's start with the need for strong, cohesive diplomatic and economic development linkage with Mexico. Once again, the Bush era had a myopic focus on their war on terror. Our neighbor to the south was subjected to a combo of ridicule and disinterest . . ultimately upstaged by the racial stigma. As long as the Obama-rama is focused on shovelling out of the Bush debacle, Mexico is likely to take a back seat. We'll pay for this later.

Under Presidente Calderon there is a chance to help him fight his battles with the PRI and the narcotrafficantes. We ignore this at our own peril.

[Patrick]

Ah yes, what to do about Mexico.... I think it has more to do with our own country's internal policies and attitudes about the necessity of whatever fabled model of assimilation we seek. Even when the Italians and other immigrant groups flooded into the U.S., there were growing pains. But our outlook was such that those growing pains were necessary and beneficial back in the good olde times of yore.

In our current era, we've become both the world's police and the sheltered colonizing state that just sits back, wanting everything to go as planned. We have lost much of our fortitude in recent years, motivated by fear rather than hope and perseverance. This, I believe, is why we have seen, among other ills, such immense susceptibility to the scams that led to our great recession and this overwhelming sense of helplessness in so much of American society.

[Bill]

Interesting discussion. However, while running out of oil may create some short-term instability, research indicates it may well be in the long-term best interests of Mexican society. A 2005 University of Chicago study finds an inverse relationship between oil reserves and degrees of democracy within countries, i.e., the more oil a country has, the less democratically its government operates.

"...discovering oil significantly decreases a country’s 30-year change in democracy, as measured by the Polity Index.... on average, discovering 100 billion barrels pushes a country’s democracy level 30 percentage points below trend."

The sooner Mexico is forced to create an economy based on the skills of its workers rather than natural resources extraction, the sooner it will have a society where regular folks will want to stay rather than emigrate.

[DisenchantedFred]

I offer the following respectful comments.

Who is Emil Pulsifer?

What is the author really arguing for? I'm confused.

Please don't tell me that you are supporting amnest for immigrants, and open borders.

We have more Americans begging for jobs than there are jobs for them.

We have hospitals firing experienced, smart, hardworking American nurses, and replacing them with immigrants who are paid less, but who are often incompetent.

Instead of allowing immigration, we should shut our borders and expel immigrants who are already here -- until there are enough jobs for American citizens.

34% of software engineering jobs in the US are held by immigrants -- while the IEEE reports mass numbers of unemployed US citizens with computer science and engineering degrees. Along with years of work experience.

That's why we must not have open borders or immigration. We don't have enough jobs for our own people. This is not a matter of being heartless or inhumane. I don't want immigrants to suffer and starve either. But it is wrong to starve American citizens, and fire and replace Americans with immigrants just because immigrants work for less..

In truth, businesses hire one round of immigrants, and then as soon as they can find another set of immigrants who will work for even less -- they fire the first bunch. After several rounds, we have masses of unemployed people, and businesses who are screaming for still more immigrants.

[Emil Pulsifer]

"DisenchantedFred" wrote:

"What is the author really arguing for? I'm confused...Please don't tell me that you are supporting amnest for immigrants, and open borders."

Fred, unlike the talk-radio jocks you seem to get a good deal of your information from, it was not my intent, with respect to immigration, to ADVOCATE any particular position (though I tried to make a good case for changing the quota numbers) so much as to provide factual, well-documented information, rationally analyzed, which might be of use to anyone interested in the subject, regardless of their position, inclinations, or biases.

My own view is that the current system, in which hard working and generally law abiding immigrants risk their lives to perform (in the main) a lot of disagreeable manual labor that most anglos don't want anyway -- such as mowing lawns in 115 degree weather, shinning up palm trees, etc. -- a system which has become increasingly inhumane as immigration has become criminalized, families are broken up, and individuals awaiting deportation are held in civil detention (often under cruel conditions) for indefinite periods, is inhumane, expensive, and needs fundamental reforms.

If someone took the position that they would accept amnesty and the appreciable enlargement of annual immigration quotas in exchange for a system of strong immigration controls that works, I'd be confortable with that, but they would have to explain how those "strong immigration controls" would work. I took some pains to explain that even a biometric national ID card is not the panacea which advocates claim it to be, at least not without considerable additional planning.

If someone argued for open borders and citizenship, along libertarian lines -- especially with the additional of features (e.g., card-check and expanded NLRB enforcement) empowering workers to unionize, I might be amenable to that, but I am not yet convinced that this would be practicable.

Does this answer your question?

[Emil Pulsifer]

P.S. One conclusion that might be taken away from my essay is that the answer to the "immigration question" may be that there are NO simple answers -- no matter what your viewpoint or your preferred method(s). That's something to consider the next time your local politician spouts his cant on the subject.

[Donna]

Emil, honestly, you have me up until you start repeating the "jobs Americans won't do" meme. The first thing I ask when I hear that is "why won't they?" And if your answer is something like "because Americans just don't have the strong work ethic of X ethnic group" the conversation is over. That is the talking point of exploitation apologists and I cringe when I hear it from progressives.

That said, I thought your piece was excellent overall and very informative but I think you are mistaken about the extent to which immigration reform would curb the abuse of workers. Research shows that both native born and immigrant (legal and not) low wage workers are cheated out of wages regularly. And recently NY Atty Gen. Andrew Cuomo indicted a carnival company contractor for egregious violations of labor laws, including massive wage theft and employees living in squalid dormitories. The workforce was 100% legal immigrants on visas. There similar reports of rampant abuse against legal immigrants brought in to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina. Like I said, native born workers are often mistreated too but immigration offers employers a steady stream of pliable and politically neutered workers who are scared of losing their jobs regardless of their legal status.

And the problem with comparisons to waves of immigration in the 20th century is that the New Deal and the rise of the labor movement played a big role in the assimilation and success of immigrant groups such as European Jews and Italians. For a really good exploration of this I highly recommend the recent HBO documentary "Schmatta", which is about the rise and fall of the clothing trade in NYC. This is why I'm skeptical of claims that immigration reform (though it is undeniably necessary for a variety of reasons) will lead to better treatment of workers. 30 years of Reaganomics and union-busting have led us to Walmart being the model for employment. IOW, we are screwn.

[Emil Pulsifer]

Good points, Donna. However, I didn't argue that immigration reform would solve America's labor exploitation problems -- merely that citizens are in a better position to fight abuse through the system and to organize into legal unions, than non-citizens are (whether here on legal visas or simply undocumented).

If the democrats had an ounce of sense they'd pass card-check, strengthen the NLRB's power and budget and the labor laws it enforces, ten-fold, work closely with the unions to make sure those new immigrants learn their labor options and rights, and reap the political benefits of immigration reform, regardless of the exact details of that reform.

That would only be a start on what's needed to restore the balance of power in this country which, as you point out, has for a variety of reasons shifted so far in the employers' favor, but it would be a good start.

[Emil Pulsifer]

P.S. Donna, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, don't forget that the number of jobs available isn't fixed, provided that the economy is growing; that new workers spending new wages on new goods and services produced in response to that demand, is one way to grow the economy; and that Arizona has, in fact, depended on population growth (both legal and illegal) until the Great Recession as a means of growing its economy: new residents need housing; new housing creates opportunity for new and expanded retailers, etc.

I'd be interested in hearing your take on this because you seem informed and connected with respect to labor issues.

Now, with respect to your rhetorical question, "Why won't they?" I can think of several possible answers. I won't talk about a "work ethic" but I don't think any reasonable person would argue that someone deperate enough for work to cross a burning desert, risk kidnapping and beatings and extortion by coyotes, and risk legal problems from authorities, is what you might call "motivated".

Are there really a lot of Whites itching to do landscaping in the middle of summer in Phoenix? To climb those palm trees? To mow lawns? To weed and trim? Yes, there are construction jobs too, but many of those involve heavy manual labor in the heat of summer also. Roofing. Portage.

Then, there's the question of wages and hours. Yes, part of the problem is that foreign labor is willing to do these jobs for less money, whether in actual wages (say, minimum wage) or in effective wages (with lots of unpaid overtime, which means a real wage less than the nominal minimum).

Problem is, there's still that problem now, isn't there? The undocumented workers stream in. Any way to stop them? If they were legal, and labor law and enforcement was strengthened, they would at least be in a better position to agitate for better conditions (i.e., equal to those or native citizens). Nobody wants to stay at the bottom of the heap if they can help it. Illegals have no options. They can't organize. They don't want to get the attention of the authorities in any way, which labor complaints surely would.

There may be a way to strengthen the ID card or right to work card tactic so that it would work as intended. Right now I'm not sure what that would be.