TheDenverChannel.com – June 22, 2006:
Officials are now having to lay off some of the bosses who manage those firefighting crews because the bosses are not bilingual. Many of the newer hires in Oregon only speak Spanish.
The state said all bosses must speak the same language of their crew on the fire lines for safety reasons. They want to make sure that the leader of the crews can quickly communicate during an emergencey if the fire turns or if there is another problem on the fire lines.
“Our main concern is that they are safe, and they are in a safe environment, and a lot of that deals with communication,” said Jim Walker, with the Oregon Department of Forestry.
“If you have one Spanish guy on the crew, as an English crew boss, you can no longer be a crew boss. You have to step back to a squad boss, which is a demotion,” said Jaime Pickering, a firefighter squad boss.
Here’s an Associated Press article where they essentially admit that the Spanish speaking new hires are here illegally:
“There were million-dollar homes in there,” he said. “I don’t think one of those owners cared if there were illegal firefighters on that fire line.”
“There were million-dollar homes in there,” he said. “I don’t think one of those owners cared if there were illegal firefighters on that fire line.”
But I do. In order to be hired they employees must present proof that they may work in the US. The only legal way to get a Social Security number or a Green Card is to have one given by the Federal Government. Any other SS or GC would be fraudulent and the holder a felon. They are not just here illegally, they have continued to break the law with impunity and apparent acquiescence from the very government that should be arresting and jailing these criminals.
Living in the West, fire danger is a special part of summer. The brave and dangerous work of fire crews and especially Hot Shot crews is traditionally well paid. There are small 1st Nation tribes that specialize in this work.
Guaranteed some state bozo figured out Oregon can save a buck by hiring illegals — just like his peers at Perdue, just like folks in the sleazy end of construction. Trouble is, now they’re going to lose experience and leadership — in an area of work that saves lives and property.
Are these billingual crew bosses going to be sent into the burning buildings to translate between their english speaking and spanish speaking firefighters?
I call BS on this one.
The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the two articles linked is that Oregon has been hiring illegals because they haven’t been able to meet demand. Suggesting that requiring leads to speak Spanish to accomodate this is preferential to illegals somehow is disingenious, to put it kindly.
All I get from reading the same two links is that Oregon pays its firefighters like chumps. I’d love to hear someone suggest that wildfires are not the kind of problem that could be solved simply by throwing more money at them.
We have the highest prison population in the world to begin with and we’re talking about people who frequently risk their lives just to get into the country. Putting illegals in prison to attempt to address the problem isn’t going to do anything but increase the public burden and create a vacuum that will be filled by more illegals.
Nor do I buy the idea that the people who hire them are somehow blameless because they’re unable to verify someone’s status. You don’t need ID to know if you’re hiring illegals; if you’re paying eight bucks an hour for unskilled, bust-ass manual labor and some of the guys have a little darker tan than others? They’re illegals.
Bottom line, if we could somehow magically deport every illegal in the country tomorrow, the increase in average cost of living would be a lot more pronounced than the recent spike in gas prices. Certainly I’m all for it, but I don’t mind paying for what something’s worth.
Fair market value is more than an aribitrary abstraction; you might put off paying the full cost for a little while, but eventually you wind up with what you pay for. Whatever’s being lost in social services as a result of illegal immigrants is also a function of shifting the cost of labor from the private sector to the government. The alternatives are to deal with the way it is now, adopt a more realistic view of what should be considered a livable wage or tilt at windmills.
“Suggesting that requiring leads to speak Spanish to accomodate this is preferential to illegals somehow is disingenious, to put it kindly”
How is it disingenuous?! Either you can force the illegal new hires to learn English or you can force the US citizens to learn Spanish. By forcing the citizens to learn Spanish you are giving preferential treatment to the illegal aliens. I’m not sure how you could possibility disagree with that.
“We have the highest prison population in the world to begin with and we’re talking about people who frequently risk their lives just to get into the country. Putting illegals in prison to attempt to address the problem isn’t going to do anything but increase the public burden and create a vacuum that will be filled by more illegals.”
Illegal immigrants are not locked up, they’re deported!
“Nor do I buy the idea that the people who hire them are somehow blameless because they’re unable to verify someone’s status. You don’t need ID to know if you’re hiring illegals; if you’re paying eight bucks an hour for unskilled, bust-ass manual labor and some of the guys have a little darker tan than others? They’re illegals.”
Well, with that I completely agree!
SN:
Its disingenious because nobody’s going to wait around for someone to listen to all those Berlitz CDs while a fire’s burning down someone’s house. You don’t really fight fires with the language you want, you fight them with the language you have.
Off the top, I’d think it’d make sense to offer Spanish and English classes to all concerned in order to accomodate everyone, but if the situation is the product of economics, that might simply be something else there’s no money for.
My remark about prisons was prompted by the first comment in the series, though. Certainly the view hasn’t been especially under represented since the subject started getting heavy play in the media.
In fairness, though, I didn’t intend to attribute the idea to the post itself. I was simply speaking in general.
Ultimately the issue is a non-starter.
“Its disingenious because…”
Let me repeat. You wrote, “Suggesting that requiring leads to speak Spanish to accomodate this is preferential to illegals somehow is disingenious, to put it kindly”
I take that to mean that I’m being dishonest or not fully telling the truth when I say that illegal aliens are getting preferential treatment.
Here’s the truth, once again. Illegal aliens are NOT being demoted for NOT leaning English. US Citizens ARE being demoted for NOT learning Spanish. Thus, it’s necessarily true that illegal aliens are being treated differently than US citizens. And it’s also necessarily true that illegal aliens are being given preferential treatment. US citizens are being demoted while illegal aliens are NOT. That’s preferential treatment.
“I’d think it’d make sense to offer Spanish and English classes to all concerned in order to accomodate everyone,”
It’d think it’d make sense to not hire illegal workers.
And one more thing. Don’t think they are treating both groups equally, i.e., expecting both groups to know Spanish. That’s not what’s going on here. What they are doing is expecting one group to learn a second language while the preferred group does not.
English is the language of this country, the fact that many illegals can’t speak english and their refusal to assimilate into this society is the reason so many hate them. Now this bullshit. If you want to stay if you want to work then speak the language, plain and simple. I’m sick of all this biligual PC.
…if you’re paying eight bucks an hour for unskilled, bust-ass manual labor and some of the guys have a little darker tan than others? They’re illegals.
I’m hesitant to use skin color as a test for someone’s legality or citizenship. I would suggest that if they DON’T speak English and only have a Social Security card for identification then they are most likely illegal. Check your own wallet and see how many pieces of ID you currently have in your name.
If the Federal Government would / could verify Social Security numbers within a matter of a few minutes instead of the months it currently takes then the forged SS and Green Cards wouldn’t be used nearly as much.
#6, Max, My remark about prisons was prompted by the first comment in the series, though. Certainly the view hasn’t been especially under represented since the subject started getting heavy play in the media.
Prison overcrowding has never been a factor with handing out long sentences in the past. And deportation isn’t working as the illegals have no disincentive not to cross the border again the next night. Jail them for fraud, just like any American citizen would be, then deport them later. They are not only here illegally, but they use forged and stolen documents.
#8, gq, I understand your point and have a hard time disagreeing with you. My own experience from living in Canada is that not everyone is capable of learning a second language. The older the person is, the more difficult it is to learn one too. If the person was born and grew up here though, there should be no reason NOT to speak English proficiently.
SN:
I stand by the remark with a little more resolve now, if anything.
This is a classic straw man argument. By themselves, your statements would be perfectly true, but it is also necessary to ignore that they rest on contradictions that invalidate them when examined in context.
The first article is very clear that the policy change was the product of necessity. The positions were given to non-english speaking firefighters because there was no one else available.
In the length of time that transpired between when the decision was made and the present, it is equally clear in both that the circumstance did not change. The second article is very explicit in stating the concern that a crackdown on illegals would significantly reduce the available manpower because there was no one to fill the positions if they were deported.
Its also pretty clear that the leads are responsible for the safety of their crews, hence the onus for bilingualism logically would be placed with them. Since three have passed since the decision was first made and it remains that the majority of firefighters do not know english when they take the job, its not at all unreasonable to conclude that leads will always have to speak spanish simply to provide for the safety of new hires.
That’s not a matter of preference; its a matter of responding to necessary changes in the job description.
I don’t argue these kinds of things for the sake of being contrary and I don’t question anyone’s honesty solely for the sake of insulting them.
What baffles me far more is that this seems to be proof of some kind of reverse discrimination to you, and its not just that I don’t know anyone who thinks that way, I’d consider myself well positioned to know at least one or two at a minimum. Honestly, I can’t deny that it seems a little paranoid that you think there are such folks — maybe you know something I don’t, but nothing that I can demonstrate from the material in question.
Certainly it sucks that people got demoted — as a fully outsourced representative of the Bush economy, I know exactly what it feels like when somebody from another country is given your job because they’re cheaper. The problem in either case isn’t bias, though — its that economics trumps ethics and loyalty.
“The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the two articles linked is that Oregon has been hiring illegals because they haven’t been able to meet demand.”
This is where the crock starts — and it’s the same crock that’s advanced in all the work categories where illegals are brought in to replace nativos. There is NO shortage of trained capable fireline workers throughout the West. Among other reasons — in most states it’s a high-paying job.
Do you seriously believe that a state like Oregon with double the population of New Mexico can’t find folks while we have no problem at all here in NM. Without checking further — because I just noticed where y’all were going with this — the reason has to be the good old “lets save $15/hour and hire illegals!”
If you cut the wages — of course, the guys who usually take those jobs look elsewhere. Fireline help is a serious gig in the West and Hot Shot crews, especially, travel as teams all over the region. Even GS-5 federal starting pay is $34K/yr. w/25%-100% bonuses and OT while on the fireline.
Update: In fact, what I’ve been able to find is that the illegals are starting at $10/hour. Case made.
Eideard:
Its been a good day for bullshit. Hopefully you don’t take this unnecessarily personally, but this isn’t the sort of thing I walk away from except under the most extinuating circumstances.
Even still, you’ve just made the same kind of false argument SN did.
The problem, as was the case with SN’s rebuttal, was that it did not address my point at all. Since I’ve been very explicit in defining it and have done so several times, including pointing out how it had been missed, the two possibilities are that it either isn’t connecting for some reason or is being ignored. In the simplest terms:
I called bullshit on this post because the conclusion implicit in the title could not be supported with evidence from the links provided.
On the contrary, the information they contained actually contradicted it.
Forget, for a second, the ultimate truth or falsehood of the original conclusion. The point, again, was that the articles did not provide support for it. The only way to refute that point is to be able to show that I am overlooking or ignoring information that would provide evidence in support of that conclusion.
Your own rebuttal is similarly tangental; you’re making a series of claims that directly contradict what’s being presented. In this instance, the reasons cited have to be taken at face value because 1) there is no way to dispute them without resorting to sheer conjecture and 2) the ultimate point in reading them at all is to establish where the conclusion presented in the title comes from.
If you could completely establish that your arguments were entirely factual and supported by evidence outside this posting, 1) I have no way of being aware of it and 2) this article would still present a conclusion it could not support.
For the record, again, at least in my own state, Washington, I would be very surprised if this were not the product of purely economic decisions, without getting sidetracked by this our state has a complicated history with the issue of the services expected by the public and what the public has been willing to pay for. Would I necessarily think that the statements presented as arguments for the decisions concerned are completely factual and truthful? I’d have to be omniscent to actually make that determination based solely on a couple of articles.
What remains? With respect to this specific issue, this is all the information I have to form a decision about. My choices are to either accept was is presented or provide evidence of some kind that demonstrates the claims are false.
If it seems like I am turning arguments into syllogisms and checking the conclusions against the premises to ensure that they do not contradict one another, its because I am. There’s a point where if anyone’s going to have a serious discussion about something, it becomes necessary to establish what is required to allow for a mutually agreed upon conclusion.
Otherwise the end product has no where to go except the land of Hannity and Colmes or Crossfire, where color-coded pundits vie to see who can out-shout whom without ever once finding a common point of reference.
To recap the dialog in slightly different terms? This article was a pretty textbook example of yellow journalism. Is that the end of the world? I can’t imagine it would be. Regardless, it’d be completely dishonest if I said I haven’t ended up even more skeptical of the opposing point of view. I’d be happy to pick this subject up, spend some quality time with google and find out precisely what the reasons are behind this issue and if there really is any way to make a case for preferential treatment. And certainly I’ll concede the point if I can find out what, specifically, is the error in my thinking. I’m much more interested in the truth of the matter than whether or not my thinking was flawed.
Lots of sophistry for such a straightforward topic, Max. Really no need to wander through the whole range of syllogistic nonsense when your first premise is invalid. Saying there aren’t English-speakers available or willing to work in a specific occupation — doesn’t make it so. The truth continues to be that they aren’t willing to work for cut wages.
If you’re up for a job that has been paying $18/hour + bonus and OT for decades — and that wage is cut to $10/hour — you look elsewhere. The federal classification for fireline work is a GS5 which means starting at $34K+/year + bonus for time on the line at higher danger fires + OT. That’s the minimum paid throughout the West.
The state of Oregon has decided they’re now going to pay $10/hour to start.
If your employer decides to cut your wages 40% or so, I imagine you would walk, too. This is the case throughout the United States. 20 years ago the average wage in the meatpacking industry was $19/hour — and employees were representative of the breadth of American ethnicity. Now, it’s $9/hour and almost exclusively illegals.
The industry I last worked in, here in NM, was homebuilding. 15 years ago, the average starting wage for laborers was $9/hour. You would think that might climb with the passage of time. Wrong. In 2006, it’s just over $7/hour. And it has become a job category exclusively staffed with illegals. There are whole trades — like block layers and stucco workers — employing only illegals at cut wages throughout the entire US.
The facts refute what you’d like to believe, bro’. It’s not a question as much of flawed logic; but, incorrect premise.
Eideard:
Again, show me where any of what you said is in either article.
The shortage of employees I mentioned is in both.
Re-read the first line of this post.
Max, your argument is – if I understand it – that the title of the article is wrong because it wasn’t Oregon’s intent to be preferential. On that, very limited point, I would say you are right. But…
50 years ago, in the South, if you were white and owned a restaurant, you excluded blacks, even if you didn’t want to. You would lose your white customers if you didn’t. You don’t hate blacks. You disagree with racism. You just happen to live in a part of the country in a time when your white customers are racists. You exclude blacks out of economic necessity. Suppose an article is written about your restaurant that states you are preferential to whites. Is that correct? Your intent is not to be preferential to anyone. It is to make money. Despite your not wanting to be a racist, don’t your policies make you one, though?
Oregon doesn’t WANT to be preferential to illegals. It doesn’t WANT to take away citizen’s rights and give more to illegals. That isn’t their desire. They want to be cheap. Because of that, they are only willing to pay what only illegals are willing to take, resulting in a condition they put into motion. They CHOSE to be cheap. They CHOSE to require citizen bosses to speak Spanish, not illegals to learn English. Just because their intent was not to be preferential doesn’t mean their result keeps them from being so.
“The second article is very explicit in stating the concern that a crackdown on illegals would significantly reduce the available manpower because there was no one to fill the positions if they were deported.”
ONLY because they are unwilling to raise the pay. If they did, there would be no shortage of citizens willing to take the job. Again, it is a choice Oregon made. Their chosen actions led to results that are preferential, even if it wasn’t their intent. Their chosen actions provides less options for non-Spanish speaking citizens than it does to illegals even if that wasn’t the intent. Does that mean “Oregon gives more employment rights to illegal aliens than to US citizens”? That wasn’t their intent, but like a non-racist who chooses racist practices rather than stand up for what is right out of economic necessity, Oregon can’t hide from the results of their actions.
BTW, Oregon, for those who don’t know, doesn’t have a sales tax. Short of funds to do the right thing? It’s a matter of choice on their part.
One more thing. You are correct in chastizing Ed that neither article explicitly states the lowered amount firefighters are paid in Oregon. However, if there is no shortage of citizens willing to take the job in other states and mainly illegals are taking them in Oregon, then given how things work in other professions, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the reason.
Eideard, I guess it all depends on the perspective you use. The lower starting wage has obviously caused a change in the makeup of the workforce. The preferential treatment being given is for BOSSES who are bilingual. Those who are not have been demoted to squad bosses, but those that are bilingual remain crew bosses.
I still don’t see how this qualifies as giving illegal aliens “more employment rights” the way SN’s headline says, except on the most superficial level. Given the starting wage, the choice is between accepting illegal workers (making accommodations for safety) OR having smaller firefighting crews with only legal, english speaking workers.
And btw, one of Max’s very first conclusions (#4) was that “…Oregon has been hiring illegals because they haven’t been able to meet demand,” the demand obviously being a function of the wage. Nothing I’ve seen refutes that, and nearly everything supports it, including outside research. So where’s his faulty premise?
Whoever set the starting wage should go back to the human resources department at WalMart. That should be punishment enough for making us have this discussion 😉 Cheers.
Oops, minor change in #17: I said “the demand obviously being a function of the wage.” Nope, I meant to say the “labor supply” was obviously a function of the wage. Using the right term always makes economic theory a little more coherent 😉
Gary — I guess my heat comes from folks who don’t recognizes these conditions as the result of a process. There wasn’t some static low wage always in place that always produced an ongoing low supply.
Oregon, like most states, used to pay a competitive wage and hired competent legal workers for fire lines. The act — which brought about the hiring of illegal workers — was deliberately cutting the wage scale to drive out the existing labor pool.
Max — and most folks who use this argument to rationalize away importing illegal labor — manages to overlook the hundreds of workers already available who were screwed out of their jobs by the wage cuts. Unless of course, you somehow combine liberal worries about the illegals with Ayn Rand workplace governance.
So it appears that states themselves, due to the foreseeable effects of their budget goals, have actually become part of the magnetic force that attracts undocumented workers over the border. What a tangled issue illegal immigration turns out to be.
¡Ay, caramba!
They’re talking about this on VNN!
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=35464