http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/busin ... ref=slogin

I don't know how many of you will be able to access that article -- some articles on the NYTimes site require you to log in. Setting up an account is still free, as far as I know, but that's still a deterrent for some people. For those who don't want the hassle, I'll summarize.

American Apparel -- a clothing company that routinely prints ads that have been criticized for being nearly pornographic (though they're not nearly as graphic as Abercrombie & Fitch's ads) -- has recently taken a new tact with their advertising by making an issue of immigration law. The new ad campaign features photos of the company's Guatemalan workers and have called for an overhaul of the U.S. immigration system as it stands, saying that it currently "amounts to an apartheid system."

Here's the text of one ad that ran in the Times.

So, a couple of questions:
First, what do you think of American Apparel's message?

And secondly -- and perhaps, in the context of this thread, more interestingly -- what do you think of American Apparel's decision to mix politics and commerce in its new ad campaign. A lot of advertising agencies are calling it a radical move, not so much because they're making their ads political -- other companies have done that in the past -- but because they've done so with an issue that is volatile and mostly undecided on the national scale.

Looks good to me. We do need to provide a path for some or most illegal aliens to become legal workers. Agriculture and several other industries depend on it. I saw a story where one city elevated illegal alien status to a felony - houses are not being built in that town.

Almost all corporations seek to influence Gov't policies to their benefit. American Apparel is one of the few that makes it obvious.

I can't help but think that one rationale for allowing immigrant work is to keep domestic costs down to a level they wouldn't hold if all our workers were documented. And if that's the case, then I'm not sure how you could integrate previously undocumented workers without undermining the rationale that motivated integration in the first place.

It depends on the as yet to be determined plan - if they're documented and so avoid legal problems, but aren't paid a significantly higher wage, then the rationale holds.