U.S. Department of Labor: Working Hard to Protect the Rights of Illegals
Towards the end of June, the Department of Labor launched an ad campaign explicitly offering government assistance to illegal immigrants who believe that they are not being paid fair wages at their jobs, which they illegally maintain in the United States. In April, the Labor Department initiated “We Can Help,” a “bilingual national awareness campaign to reach out to low-wage and vulnerable workers.” The ad sparked heated controversy amongst Republican lawmakers who view the message as hypocritical, in that it emphasizes the importance of employment standards for illegal immigrants while millions of Americans are out of work altogether. Also, they find the message incompatible with the mission of the Labor Department, an institution that deems it illegal to hire undocumented individuals in the first place. Therefore, insisting that these illegal workers be paid fairly is unsubstantiated by the department’s very own statutes.
In the ad, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis introduces herself and makes a few statements regarding how workers need to be paid fairly for their labor – points that are all well taken. Her notorious statement comes towards the end, when she says, “Remember, every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not. So, call us. It is free and confidential.” A toll-free phone number is then provided and the ad closes with, “We can help.” Solis openly welcomes illegal immigrants to take advantage of U.S. government services if they feel that they are being exploited in the workplace. Another ad in the campaign encourages “exploited” illegals to report their employers to the U.S. government. What these ads fail to address is why these undocumented workers are entitled to taxpayer services when they are breaking the law by residing here.
Representative Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, made a good point when he told Fox News that “maybe they should focus their attention on protecting American jobs and enforcing our labor laws. After all, it is illegal to hire workers that are in our country illegally.” This raises the point that this type of endorsement de-legitimizes the authority of the Labor Department to an extent, insofar as it is violating its own rules.
This is an especially sore subject for American citizens at this time, with federal unemployment rates lingering around 10 percent, and the real rate including underemployed workers and those who have stopped looking for work at over 17 percent. Americans are frustrated that they are out of work and are struggling, yet the Department of Labor is less concerned about those hardships and is focusing on paying illegals fairly.
Representative Steve King, a Republican from Iowa said in a statement, “It is shameful that Secretary Solis has to be reminded that her primary duty is owed to the American people, and not to those who have illegally entered our country.” It is time for Solis and those who support this campaign to recognize just that – American workers should be the main priority at this time, especially the millions that are currently out of work. Also, the Department of Labor needs to reevaluate its claims on fair pay for undocumented workers given the rules it supposedly works to enforce.
Aside from these advertisements’ blatant disregard for the legitimacy of the U.S. legal system, the message being sent perpetuates a relentless propaganda machine that is driven by the current administration. Throughout Obama’s presidency, Americans have been subjected to relentless propaganda, whether it be in the form of emails sent out by the White House website prompting citizens to adopt the president’s health care overhaul, or a street sign placed at Roadwork projects throughout the country endorsing Obama’s Reinvestment and Recovery Act. It seems like whenever the administration is unable to get the support of the American people, it resorts to producing taxpayer-funded advertisement campaigns, which only increase the hostility and distance between the wants and needs of citizens and the ultimate agenda of the federal government.
Tea Party Candidates and Women: Victorious in the Primaries but Face Challenges Ahead
In the recent slew of primary elections that took place throughout the country, two groups particularly stood out as victors in the races: women and Tea Party candidates.
Several women won high profile primary races, including Carly Fiorina for California Senate, Meg Whitman for California governor, Sharron Angle for Nevada Senate, and Nikki Haley for South Carolina governor. Americans are fed up with the status quo and are selecting candidates who can offer the American people something new, something fresh. Women are a minority and the Tea Party movement represents something radically different from the current administration’s game plan. Perhaps these wins are representing the need for change from Obama’s “change.” It remains to be seen whether or not these candidates will be as viable in the fall.
In Nevada, Sharron Angle, the Tea Party-backed candidate, was victorious over the more established and once-ahead candidate Sue Lowden. Angle will face Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It has been reported that Democrats, who were once fearful of Reid’s ability to win in November due to nationwide frustration with the direction in which he has led the Senate, are relieved that Angle won because of her conservative views. Angle has a lot of great ideas in terms of taxes, our involvement with the UN, and Social Security. However, some of her other ideas, like bringing back prohibition will be an easy target for Reid’s camp when it comes to attack advertisements. Her association with the Tea Party’s negative image perpetuated by the mainstream media could have detrimental effects on her performance in the general election.
As the election slowly inches closer, advertising for all of the candidates will become more heated and competitive. It is certain that the gender of the candidates will not be attacked in these advertisements, insofar as that would certainly be the kiss of death for the perpetrator. However, many of the women won because they chose to tact very far to the right in order to win their primaries in swing states. It will be difficult for them to tact back to the center when it comes to the general election.
It is likely that the Democrats will also target the Tea Party movement in an effort to distort the Republican record. One characteristic of the Tea Party movement is that it is a very loose conglomeration of local groups without a central control mechanism, and therefore if a Tea Partier shows up to a rally with a sign displaying Nazi symbols, it is difficult for the group as a whole to fend off those types of negative associations. Democrats will likely blanket those associations across the entire Republican party.
The “anti-Tea Party” mantra will become one of the focal centerpieces to the liberal advertisements that will surface as the election draws nearer. Will it work? It could have a negative effect on Republicans running, even if they are not associated with the Tea Party. It will be up to those candidates to remind Americans of the harrowing situation the Obama administration has placed our nation in and to show Americans that the few extreme stereotypes associated with the Tea Party do not represent them, nor a majority of the movement’s members.
In the 2008 presidential election America put the first African American into the White House – a truly remarkable and historical event. This election cycle, we have the opportunity to put more women and more candidates that represent the grassroots in office – an equally exciting prospect. Time will tell as the elections move closer whether or not America will embrace that opportunity once again.
*Photo Credit: Magana/AP
Video Tracker: Game Changer?
Politics has changed considerably the last few cycles. President Obama’s campaign dominated the internet in 2008 with their impressive fundraising as did now Sen. Scott Brown in his historic January 19 win for the Massachusetts Senate seat. Twitter has become a dominating force within political circles for rapid response and sharing information but what about on a more local level?
The video tracker has become a staple of local campaigns from congressional, gubernatorial, to even state house contests. So how has the video tracker changed the way we run political campaigns? How have candidates changed because of trackers and who is winning the video tracking war? These are some thoughts I am hashing out for a Framework post, stay tuned.
