The Kitchen Network: America’s Underground Chinese Restaurant Workers
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Of course this narrative of a hard working immigrant coming to this country to work goes squarely against what we hear from critics saying immigrants only come here to freeload. If anything, this article just shows how lazy Americans can be, when Americans can't be bothered to eat meat or fish with bones, but of course that's just an anecdote.
How do you create opportunities for immigrants and people in general? How do you empower people to leverage their own skills and monetize them, without others looking to exploit them.
Great article.
In other words, they contribute labor to the economy, but largely freeload when it comes to any government-provided benefits.
Under the table work is not because they don't want to pay taxes, they'd be happy to. It is because they get paid by employers that prefer to hire cheap immigrants rather than to pay wage taxes and other withholdings.
One mans freeloading is anothers profiteering.
They are also quite limited in what government provided benefits they can partake in. Mostly the stuff that is already there for everybody else (infrastructure) as soon as they need more than that they are usually discovered and deported. Cheap labour is only good as long as it is cheap.
What government-provided benefits? Surely our largest two entitlements are social security and medicare, right? Illegal immigrants don't qualify for either of those. Importantly, many businesses use fake SSN's when hiring illegals, so often times they actually are paying FICA taxes -- with 0 hope to collect.
Public schools? Schools are largely funded via property taxes and sales taxes, both of which illegal immigrants pay at rates probably greater than the average American pays.
Income tax? They are some of the lowest paid people in the country, if they were suddenly legal, they'd likely be owed income taxes via the EITC or other mechanisms.
Emergency Care? Indigent care is expensive, but some state-level medicare programs are allowing illegal immigrants to actually pay for their care.
The entire 'freeload' argument is easily dismantled if you consider the actual facts for more than a few seconds.
Taxes pay for civil infrastructure, a somewhat-functioning democratic government, our National Parks, and of course our armed forces. We don't often think about these things since they're not as visible but our ability to sit here in the relative safety of our homes/workplaces exercising our 1st Amendment rights is in a large part supported by the taxes we pay.
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/tx_whopays_factsheet.pdf
Illegal immigrants are surely in the lowest 20% bucket. What taxes don't they pay? They rent homes, so they pay property taxes. Their money is spent on clothes and food, so they pay sales taxes. The income taxes that they might not pay are an absolutely minuscule portion of their burden -- literally $11/year on average.
Ever since the I-9's existence, most employers use fake social security numbers for their illegal immigrants. So FICA taxes are removed from their paychecks -- and they'll never get them back in the form of Medicare or Social Security. (Don't take my word for it, here's NYT reporting on SSA's "Earnings Suspense File": http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.htm...)
Smarter people than myself have looked at this, here's a good example: http://www.itep.org/pdf/undocumentedtaxes.pdf -- Tl;Dr: Illegal immigrants pay a lot of taxes, probably pretty close to the amount they would pay if they were legalized. However, they get far less benefit from their taxes since they don't qualify for most programs.
Second, they are not eligible for benefits, of any kind. Children who are born here to immigrants are eligible for benefits, because the children are American citizens, and also children who are brought into the country as children are allowed to attend school etc., because being children they were below the age of legal responsibility at time of entry.
Third, a lot of immigrants do pay taxes. Some use someone else's social security #, in which taxes are withheld but don't benefit them, some people work with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, which is like an SSN but not the same and which the IRS gives to people who are liable for US taxes but not eligible for an SSN. The usual way people file with an ITIn is as self-=employed, in which case they pay both the employer and employee portion of payroll taxes (which normally go into social security) but accrue no benefits for doing so.
Some people get tax benefits through the Earned Income Tax Credit which is a payment to people who work but have a low income, I think this amounts to something like $4 billion a year, against about $10bn paid in. It may be they're eligible for the EITC because a tax credit is not considered a benefit for legal purposes but I've never looked into that so I might be wrong.
That's not true at all. When California tried to cut off state benefits for illegals a federal judge force the state to reinstate them. Illegals send their (illegal) kids to school, even college, at taxpayer expense. They take advantage of community medical services, live in subsidized housing, and get assigned public defenders. That's just what they're entitled to under the law.
But if they have enough forged documentation to get a job they have enough to get food stamps and WIC too. Some of them do, though for political reasons the government isn't trying to figure out how many or how they could be stopped.
However, it's still important to acknowledge the fact that a small number of immigrants get sick, or descend into alcoholism, or get hurt badly enough that they can't really work. It's just the kind of thing that can happen to anyone.
I've grow up around a lot of immigrants, illegal and legal, and they have pretty much all been decent, hard-working people, and they have the same kinds of financial/family/emotional problems that everyone else has.
Labeling Americans as a group and particularly certain subsets within as lazy is just as credible and, I'd wager, often done for many of the same reasons as labeling immigrants freeloaders.
[1] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/10/06/negative-ste...
I often wonder what sort of path the people who used to work those jobs have taken since.
Being from a small town in an impoverished area of the US, I can somewhat relate to that sentiment. Very interesting story. The author paints a very stark picture about restaurant workers from China. The subject of the story, who spoke the quote above, makes more than I would have supposed.
I visited Houston with a friend about a decade ago and we were both puzzled about the Chinatown area of the city. Why, we asked, would a city smack in the middle of the country have such a large Chinese population? NYC & California made sense, but Texas?
And as it turns out:
"Rain and his companions walked for a full day and most of the night, until, before dawn, they came to a road, where an associate of the smugglers picked them up. They went to Houston first, and from there a van took them straight to New York."
Waystation city on the international Chinese immigrants smuggling route for folks who just crossed the Mexican border. Fascinating.
EDIT: Aaaaaaand I'm wrong. Thank you shiftpgdn for the Wikipedia link and background.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Chinese_American...
And the relevant paragraph regarding NYC: The standardized Entropy Index measures how close a total population is to sharing balanced percentages across its racial/ethnic groups. If one subgroup is 100 percent of the population, then the standardized index score will be 0. If the four racial/ethnic groups are each 25 percent of the population the score would be one. Houston has the highest entropy score of the 10 largest metropolitan areas, 0.874. New York is a close second with a score of 0.872. All but two of the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Boston and Philadelphia, have a higher entropy score than the national average of 0.709, meaning that in general the large metropolitan areas are more diverse than the nation as a whole.
EDIT: I'm not going to argue the pros or cons of the methodology because I'm not familiar with the field of study.
I am not an expert in its use, but IMHO, it's BS because it's dependent on the idea that you have maximum diversity if various subgroups are all the same size, but it's very dependent on the definition of subgroups. For example, in the case of ethnic diversity, the measure will vary significantly depending on whether you group people from Southeast Asia and people from the Indian subcontinent together as "Asian" or not, or any other subjective subdivision.
It might have use as a comparative measure with a predetermined set of classification groups, but you can definitely manipulate your conditions to construct different outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City
I would go with NYC also, but its not too far off.
The people profiled in the article were from specific poor areas in China (eg Fujian) that could be considered the Chinese equivalent of Appalachia.
Curiously, Chinese laundries are not mentioned, and are ubiquitous here in NYC. I wonder it the omission is a mistake, or if there's some reason laundries don't fit in this list.
[1] http://americastestkitchen.tumblr.com/post/86246187118/perfe...
Wow. Can't say that I thought of that.
I think it's a noteworthy comparison and not a non-sequitur/trueism. Can't say I've seen much evidence of thought yet.
Yes, if this article were rewritten word-for-word to reference prostitution it would be a fictional story which could be compared to the existing article. However, it would badly misrepresent the state of global sex trafficking and the victimhood of people affected by it.
The vast majority of human trafficking is to provide house servants and manufacturing workers, but we don't care because sex. Judging by this thread, stories of human trafficking that don't involve sex are heartwarming and inspirational.
The fact that this is clearly not true in this article may be another way in which it's heartwarming and inspirational, and not comparable to even the whitewashed version of human trafficking you're proposing.