It’s not a new refrain. It’s been heard throughout our history during periods of immigration of various groups, like the Chinese, to the United States. It’s a dangerous phrase that implies a delicate balance between “us” and the “other,” the immigrant, which “they” are tipping by coming into our country and taking all the jobs. It’s a phrase that cuts off all debate and has even some reasonable, otherwise compassionate people nodding in agreement.

And now we find out it’s not even true. From the Des Moines Register today:

With the Obama administration and Congress expected to push ahead with immigration reform, it’s important that lawmakers and the public shape policy changes based on fact rather than fears.

It has perhaps seemed logical to assume that the willingness of many foreigners – particularly those here illegally – to work for low pay takes jobs away from Americans. But it turns out that having a large number of recent immigrants in a location doesn’t necessarily correlate with a lot of native-born workers being unemployed, based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

That analysis, done by the Immigration Policy Center, shows that “there is little apparent relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates at the regional, state, or county level.”

The report shows, for example, that:

Recent immigrants make up 8.4 percent of the population in the Pacific region (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii), but just 2.8 percent of the population in the East North Central region (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin). Yet, the regions had similar unemployment rates of 10.8 percent in the Pacific region and 10 percent in the East North Central region as of March 2009.

Another example: In New Jersey, recent immigrants account for 7.3 percent of the population, but in Maine they are just 0.8 percent. Nonetheless, the states’ March unemployment rates respectively were 8.3 and 8.l percent.

The report found the highest unemployment rates are in counties in manufacturing centers and rural areas, which generally draw fewer recent immigrants.

The tradition of blaming job loss on immigrants is one we ought to lose in a hurry. Unemployment is very real problem, but it’s not the fault of immigrants. We need problem-solving, not scapegoating, to fix our economy and implement meaningful immigration reform in this country.

What a bunch of dim bulbs.

After all, almost anyone could probably name at least a few successful unionized companies–companies that not only survive, but thrive with a terrific union workforce. Folks have been suggesting many of these companies to add to Talking Points Memo’s post on the subject.

You can find the growing list here.

UPDATE: Sorkin apologizes. Good on him–but what about Joe, Mika, and Mike?

GOP Rep Don Young isn’t exactly known for his reluctance to toe the Republican line on key issues. So it’s kind of a big deal that he has openly broken with his colleagues when it comes to their leading talking point against the Employee Free Choice Act: The claim that it would eliminate the “secret ballot” option for joining unions.

The Anchorage Daily News reports that Young made the comments at a gathering of “Alaskans for Liberty” last Thursday. Apparently, after the outspoken Republican was asked about “card check legislation,” Young said this:

I believe in unions. I believe in working people. They say the secret ballot is eliminated. That’s not true. A secret ballot can be requested.

So there you have it, folks. Even Rep. Don Young says the “no secret ballot” argument is bunk.

The study, by Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, is titled “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing.” The study was

based on a random sample of 1,004 unionization elections from early 1999 to late 2003 and relied on a review of National Labor Relations Board cases and documents, as well as surveys of 562 lead union organizers.

A similar study done 12 years ago found that employers used 10 or more types of anti-union tactics in 26 percent of unionization drives. Bronfenbrenner’s study shows that 10 or more antiunion tactics were used by employers in 49%, or almost half of all organizing efforts. In 12 years, companies have doubled their efforts to oppose unionization among their workers.

The report includes confirmation that there has been an increase in more coercive and retaliatory tactics, such as:

plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment and other discipline, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions.

And it shows that even workers who have the determination and strength to fight through may not be guaranteed a contract, since:

Even for those who do win the election, 52% are still without a contract a year later, and 37% are still without a contract two years after an election.

For most workers who’ve tried to get a union at their workplace, the report simply confirms the bitter truth they’ve been aware of for a long time–and demonstrates the increased importance of passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

When Joanne Fowler, a Certified Nursing Assistant at Lake Village Health Care in Wilmot, Ark.,and her co-workers tried to organize their workplace, management threatened workers with layoffs and tried to bribe workers with raises if they would vote against the union. She said that:

under the Employee Free Choice Act, it will be the workers’ free choice to organize. You won’t have to worry about the company threatening you.

At a briefing today on Capitol Hill to unveil the study, California Rite Aid worker Angel Warner, who is trying to form a union and get a contract with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union spoke out about anti-union tactics and intimidation:

We wanted to form a union so we would be treated with dignity and could speak up without fear of losing our jobs. Now we finally got through the harassment to form a union and we still don’t have a contract. It shouldn’t be like this. If my coworkers and I want a union, we should have one.

Check out the great video and be sure to spread the word.

They’re intimidated, and they are afraid. My family and other families have paid the price for freedom. And when you tell me I can’t talk about a union, you’re taking my freedom from me.

Workers in more than 100 stores in 15 states across the country have joined together and signed union representation cards, citing a lack of respect from the company, as well as poverty-level wages and sub-par benefits as reasons they need a union voice on the job. Even though Walmart’s got a long and well-documented history of anti-worker activities, workers say they Obama’s election has inspired them to take action, as has the introduction of the Employee Free Choice Act in Congress. The campaign comes at a time when workers find their wages have stagnated, even as Walmart and the Walton family continue to make record profits. Walmart’s recently released 2009 10K shows the company made $13.4 billion in profits last year. In the new video, which can be viewed at http://www.walmartworkersforchange.org/index.php/pages/articles/walmarts_war_on_workers, 10 workers from coast to coast detail the company’s response to their organizing efforts, including:

Dominique Sloane and Mark Moore, of Dallas, Texas, were told that their store would be closed if workers voted to organize. In Miami, Florida, Cheryl Guzman was interrogated by a manager about who among her colleagues supported a union. Linda Haluska, of Glendale, Illinois, was called into four mandatory meetings in one week, where she and her colleagues were shown anti-union, anti-Employee Free Choice videos.

Walmart Workers for Change is a new campaign made up of thousands of Walmart workers joining together to form a union and negotiate better benefits, higher wages, and more opportunity for a better future.

When our parents were learning to drive in the 1960s & 70s, American car companies were roaring industries raking in incredible sales and profits. Auto workers demanded a fair share of the profits, fought for the benefits they deserved, and the middle class in America grew strong. Blinded by their successes, the American car companies continued with their trend of building big gas-guzzling cars, and in the 1990s, this business model culminated with the SUV. Over the last few years, with the downswing in the economy, auto workers sacrificed many of their previous benefits in order to keep the car companies afloat, but they couldn’t save the auto industry on their own. Then things really got tough, with the mortgage crisis and the credit crunch.

You may remember that Wall Street was bailed out not too long ago. Some people groaned about the bailout, but it was seen as necessary to keep the financial institutions going.

So why are the same people who suppoted the Wall Street bailot against the auto bailout? Why so much talk about letting people “learn their lesson the hard way”? The difference is Wall Street represents the interests of the rich, and Detroit represents the interest of hard-working middle-class America.

In these times of real economic hardship, the people with all the power in these companies still don’t quite seem to understand what it means to suffer. When they went to Congress last week to ask for a $25 billion bailout, the CEOs of these giant companies each flew to DC in a private jet! In case you missed it on the Daily Show, here are the chiefs of America’s floundering auto industries, unwilling to part with their private jets:

The good news is that GM is now giving up two of its five corporate checks. Apparently “G.M. says the timing is coincidental since it was already in the process of returning the two jets.”