As I told you earlier Rep. Gary Miller (CA-42) is a proud co-author of HR 4437 which makes all undocumented immigrants felons and demands deportation.  This bill is nothing but a bone tossed in the direction of the Nativists in the Republican party.  But here is what Rep. Miller has to say about the ridiculous bill:

March 27, 2006- Congressman Miller made the following statement today urging congressional passage of HR 4437, a bill he co-authored that enlists military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal border crossings, requires employers to verify the legal status of their workers and builds 700 miles of fencing along parts of the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border:

“I strongly believe the U.S. government must maintain a tough and unified policy on immigration to effectively curb the influx of illegal aliens entering our nation. The so-called ‘guest-worker’ proposals being considered are nothing more than a mechanism to provide amnesty to millions of illegals living in the United States. ( Gary Miller’s website)

But you would probably figure that Mr. Miller has a district where this kind of harsh rhetoric is A-OK.  Well, let’s look again.  CA-42 is in Southern California!  It has a VERY sizable minority community.  WHile the percentage of immigrants is not clear, try these numbers on for size: 23.8% of his district is Latino, 17.5% is Asian. How do these people feel about his proud position on 4437?  Who knows, but I’m guessing that if somebody stands up to this trash-talk, people will listen.

On the flip I’ve included the detailed 2000 demographic data for the district from Miller’s website.

                                           % Unit             Total           % Dem           % Rep                  Black   %Black    Asian  %Asian  Latino  %Latino

District     County        T Place          of all  Persons     Reg   Dem Reg   Reg   Rep Reg   Reg  % Gore % Bush     Pop    Pop      Pop    Pop      Pop    Pop 

42           Los Angeles   C Diamond Bar     100.0    56287    28264    10383   36.7    11684   41.3   48.7   48.1     2971    5.3    25217   44.8    10393   18.5

                           C La Habra Heigh  100.0     5712     3345      755   22.6     2086   62.4   26.9   68.5       87    1.5     1154   20.2      779   13.6

                           C Whittier         30.1    25151    15929     5654   35.5     8198   51.5   38.4   57.8      295    1.2     1601    6.4     8168   32.5

                           U Rowland Height   85.6    41581    16151     6442   39.9     5664   35.1   52.8   44.3     1232    3.0    22524   54.2    11189   26.9

                           R Remainder         1.6     2742     1177      304   25.8      558   47.4   40.8   57.9       44    1.6     1748   63.7      276   10.1

             Sum                                     131473    64866    23538   36.3    28190   43.5   45.4   51.3     4629    3.5    52244   39.7    30805   23.4

             Orange        C Anaheim          16.9    55395    31190     8199   26.3    17759   56.9   33.5   63.5     1263    2.3     9615   17.4     7369   13.3

                           C Brea            100.0    35410    20257     5911   29.2    11018   54.4   34.6   61.6      561    1.6     3619   10.2     7205   20.3

                           C La Habra        100.0    58974    23873     9017   37.8    10761   45.1   43.3   53.0     1200    2.0     4044    6.9    28922   49.0

                           C Mission Viejo   100.0    93102    56514    14743   26.1    31367   55.5   35.4   61.1     1452    1.6     8604    9.2    11266   12.1

                           C Placentia        19.6     9132     4277     1276   29.8     2254   52.7   38.8   58.1      276    3.0     1489   16.3     1788   19.6

                           C Rancho Santa M  100.0    47214    23864     5767   24.2    13426   56.3   33.9   63.7     1084    2.3     4404    9.3     6139   13.0

                           C Yorba Linda     100.0    58918    35655     8499   23.8    21561   60.5   29.0   67.7      863    1.5     7366   12.5     6044   10.3

                           U Las Flores       19.3     1083      475       90   18.9      290   61.1   32.9   66.8       23    2.1      111   10.2      102    9.4

                           R Remainder        15.9     8284     4705     1260   26.8     2606   55.4   32.9   62.6      126    1.5      333    4.0     1384   16.7

             Sum                                     367512   200810    54762   27.3   111042   55.3   34.6   62.2     6848    1.9    39585   10.8    70219   19.1
             San BernardinoC Chino           100.0    67168    24895    10561   42.4    10289   41.3   48.9   48.2     5575    8.3     3988    5.9    31830   47.4

                           C Chino Hills     100.0    66787    29483    10026   34.0    13942   47.3   43.1   54.2     4077    6.1    16112   24.1    17151   25.7

                           R Remainder         3.2     6148     1773      651   36.7      866   48.8   37.6   59.3      750   12.2      152    2.5     2303   37.5

             Sum                                     140103    56151    21238   37.8    25097   44.7   45.4   51.8    10402    7.4    20252   14.5    51284   36.6

Sum                                                  639088   321827    99538   30.9   164329   51.1   38.5   58.3    21879    3.4   112081   17.5   152308   23.8

[Originally posted at Norcal Politics by Stephen Green on October 23, 2005]

Those who wrote and are pushing for the passage of Proposition 75 on the ballot want us to believe that it’s up to us to protect the members of California’s public employees unions from their unions.  If we fail these poor people, their unions will use part of their dues to support political causes or candidates that individual members may not approve of.  We need to do this, the pro-75 people say, because these union members, who have the power to decide whether or not they will join the union, who have some control over who holds office in their unions, and have some say, through elections and conventions, to determine how the unions’ energies and resources will be channelled, apparently lack the ability to exercise these choices in their own best interests.

How absurdly paternalistic is this measure?  This is part of the text of the proposition:

• "Section 2(e) Because public money is involved, the public has a right to ensure that public employees have a right to approve the use of their dues or fees to support the political objectives of their labor organization."

 What public money are they referring to here?  They apparently consider the salary paid to public employees to still be public money, to be spent according to the dictates of the public, after these employees have received it in their paychecks.  They not only think they, and the voters of California, have a better idea of what’s in the best interests of public employees than these employees’ unions do, they also think they have a better idea of how these employees should spend their money than the employees themselves do.

Although public employees have suffered job losses and wage stagnation along with other California workers over the last five years. through the efforts of their unions they have competetive wage and benefit packages, including sick and vacation leave and health and retirement benefits.  They have, through their unions’ efforts, work rules that protect them from arbitrary or capricious actions by their employers.

I have no doubt that these unions support causes and candidates that their members don’t universally support, but stockholders in corporations and taxpayers and voters in cities, counties, states, and nations don’t get to opt out of financially supporting things those entities stand behind.  The backers of Prop 75 somehow feel that labor unions alone should bear such a burden, that union members alone should have such a privilege (isn’t this concern for the union members by the yes-on-75 people touching?).

Labor unions are inherently political organizations and this is particularly true of public employees labor unions.  Things that are settled in collective bargaining in other industries are often settle in the legislature or at the polls for public employees.  We need look no farthr for an example of this than Propostion 74, on the same ballot, which would extend from 2 to 5 the number of years public school teachers must work to achieve tenure.

In truth, the problem here is that when labor union get involved in politics, they tend to support progressive causes and candidates.  They tend to support the same kinds of things for Californians in general that they support for their members through collective bargaining.  Higher wages, better access to health care, and a more comprehensive social safety net.  These are things that the backers of Proposition 75 are, for whatever reason, opposed to.  These people will work to silence the organized voices that advocate for such things.  That’s what this is about.  The backers of Proposition 75 want to raise barriers  to organized labors ability to work to strengthen their members’ rights at the polls and in the legislature, to block labor’s ability to support progressive causes that benefit all California workers.  Because the backers of Prop 75 have an agenda that is unpopular among Californians, they want to silence the voices, particularly the organized voices, that oppose their agenda.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to reveal that I am a public employee, but not a member of a collective bargaining group or a labor union.  As with other non-union workers in our society, however, I enjoy most of the benefits my job offers because labor unions, through the power of collective bargaining and organized public advocacy, have raised the level of expectations that individual workers have of their employers.