Chris Hayes of In These Times and The Nation writes today on his personal blog:
There are few things that irk me more than when conservatives advocate for increased immigration for low wage workers by saying that immigrants do jobs that Americans don’t want. I don’t want to buy a slice of pizza for $45. It doesn’t mean I don’t like pizza! I’m not particularly interested in writing a book for the total payment of $9. It doesn’t mean I don’t want to write a book!
But what about the demand side of the labor market, she asks? To invert Mr Hayes' formulation, I don't want a job eating live roaches. But at $1 million a roach, or thereabouts, I would take it. The problem is, I very much doubt that anyone thinks it's worth $1 million to see me eat a live roach.
Many of the jobs that illegals do are jobs that cannot economically be done by Americans. It does no good to say that American workers would be happy to gut chickens, or clean houses, or landscape your yard, for $20 an hour, if other Americans cannot afford to purchase those services at that price. If we had no illegals, some Americans would undoubtedly get their jobs at higher wages. Other jobs, such as fruit picking, would probably be automated. Meanwhile, many Americans would have to go without the services that illegals currently provide, such as landscaping, construction, and home care.
One particular consideration I think is underdiscussed is the fact that much of the labor illegal immigrants provide substitutes for women's home labor. And I don't just mean nannies for rich women. I mean cleaning services, and food processing, and dry cleaning, and grocery delivery, and all the other things that make it possible for large numbers of women to work outside the home. In an ideal world, of course, women and men would take equal responsibility for the household. But in the less than ideal world that we actually inhabit, an increase in the price of those services would probably mean that fewer women would find it cost-effective to work outside the home.
Is it really that bad if people have to landscape their own yards? Or clean their own homes? Or if we automate more low-skill jobs? Long-term, this would be better for us. Mechanizing low-skill labor would not require social welfare services. Higher wages would reduce poverty (quick, has the poverty rate for Hispanic families gone up or down? For black families?).
The fact is, no one has a right to hire someone at minimum wage, much less $20/hr, just like no one has a right to hire me at minimum wage. We get to chose our jobs, and if someone can't make a profit off of legal labor, then they should find a different venue.
"Many of the jobs that illegals do are jobs that cannot economically be done by Americans. It does no good to say that American workers would be happy to gut chickens, or clean houses, or landscape your yard, for $20 an hour, if other Americans cannot afford to purchase those services at that price."
This seems to be the same argument liberterians make about slumlord housing conditions. There's nothing wrong with saying that if a job cannot be done in a way that does not conform with the moral obligations of minimal standard living conditions for all, society can live without the job being done, or can find a technological replacement.
As someone who doesn't live in a big city with a plenitude of illegal aliens, I have to pay $20/hour for both landscaping and housecleaning services, so I don't view cheap labor as a reason to promote illegals in this country.
But as a believer of sorts in a meritocracy, I believe that we should only allow new citizens from those who have demonstrated their superiority to the "unwashed masses" in some way (and there are many possible ways to do that).
the thing about this Q? is... the market will find a new level. If you just shut off the spigot, sure, there would be an economic earthquake. The cost of labor to build a house would go way up. so the price of the house would go up, and adjustments would have to be made. The price of food similarly, and so on. This just points out the fact that we have an illegal underclass mired in defacto sevitude, and have grown the economy a lot based on that fact. Like cheap merch. from China, the economic gain we enjoy is based on a huge cost differential with the workers, and that WILL come back and bite us eventually.
It will only grow worse as we wait. It will in fact cause trouble if we gave in and made a guest worker program. Things that legitimize working here will inflate the job cost through wage increase, and people will be less inclined to buy services, because they are more expensive.
The illegal immigrant is a bargain, because of his illegality... he takes what he gets to avoid capture...
I think this IS a case of pay me now/ pay me later...
Westley: Truly, you have dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait 'till I get started!
Many of the jobs that illegals do are jobs that cannot economically be done by Americans...many Americans would have to go without the services that illegals currently provide, such as landscaping, construction, and home care.
"Cannot be economically done by Americans" is simply an amazing statement. The whole point is that these are jobs that CAN be done by Americans, but we choose to have illegals do them instead! The very fact that illegals DO perform these tasks means they ARE infact economical to do; otherwise even illegals wouldn't be able to do them! What you are refusing to see is that the reason Americans "cannot economically do them" is Americans expect a certain standard of living to result from their work, while illegals expect another. It's the "free market" that has priced American labor out of those businesses, not the myth that illegals are better or more efficient workers and thus able to undercut American workers on the price of their labor.
We give illegals the crap jobs because for them it's a step up (and the only choice they have), and for us (as employers) it allows us to keep the prices on those services low. It's inherently an unfair exploitation of their labor at the expense of American labor; use of illegals artificially keeps wages down when otherwise they would rise by enlarging (and thus diluting) the labor pool. Some economist if you can't see that!
I have long known, after living in Mexico for three years in the late 70's, that inevitably the economic disparity between the average American and the average Mexican was simply too large to be sustainable. There WILL be a leveling, either by raising the average Mexican or lowering the average American standard of living. Illegal immigration is one of the mechanisms by which that levelilng will occur.
But in the less than ideal world that we actually inhabit, an increase in the price of those services would probably mean that fewer women would find it cost-effective to work outside the home.
No way. What would happen instead would be that women would demand higher wages to enable them to continue in the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed, just as men would do. You can't tell me that a female lawyer working 60-hour weeks is going to quit being a lawyer because it's no longer cost-effective. That's simply a bizarre contention.
Many of the jobs that illegals do are jobs that cannot economically be done by Americans.
Sure they can. Demand for them may go down as the price goes up, but there's nothing in the laws of economics that says that people legally in the country can't garden/care for children/whatever.
And we can always allow people to immigrate legally if we as a nation decide that we'd be better off with a larger labor supply.
>If we had no illegals, some Americans would undoubtedly get their jobs at higher wages.
"Illegals?" C'mon, Jane/Megan, do you have to use this sad terminology? They may be here illegally, but surely you can stipulate that they at the very least have "noun" status.
Rex,
Even in DC, I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a private housecleaner to work for less than $20 an hour. So your point holds for the big city, too. As far as landscaping is concerned, I recently got a quote of $45 from a one-man business for our medium sized lawn in central Texas (average household income $26K). So, no, we're not talking about minimum wage here. Of course, both landscaping and housecleaning require transportation, fuel, and materials costs, not to mention taxes. (We do twice a month commercial housecleaning, but my husband is bravely holding out and is mowing the lawn himself.) Nannying is less lucrative than housekeeping, but a couple years ago the going rate in DC was $12 to $15 an hour for one child, with a couple dollars extra expected for more than one child. As a stay-at-home mother in DC, I babysat an extra child for $13 an hour. When I hired sitters, I was eventually paying DC college students $10 an hour for babysitting. After our move to Texas, I was surprised to discover that college students here consistently expect $10 an hour, too, although they do seem more experienced.
"if a job cannot be done in a way that does not conform with the moral obligations of minimal standard living conditions for all, society can live without the job being done, or can find a technological replacement"
How very thoughtful of society. But if person A freely chooses to enter into an agreement with person B, how is it any of society's business to pontificate on the morality of said agreement?
If you're so worried about the conditions immigrant workers have to deal with, why don't you let them judge whether those conditions are good enough for themselves?
I don't mean this to be snarky, but I honestly don't hear much complaining coming from desperate Mexican labourers. I see them getting on with working to provide for their families.
What you are refusing to see is that the reason Americans "cannot economically do them" is Americans expect a certain standard of living to result from their work, while illegals expect another.
Actually, liberalrob, I think that is exactly Megan's point.
So when everyone demands higher wages to cover the cost of more expensive services, where does that money come from exactly? All you've come up with is a recipe for inflation. Why not just give everyone a bucket of money and we can all retire.
I don't know if your hypothetically high powered female lawyer will work less when the budget tightens up. Maybe she'll just put up with a dirtier house and weedier lawn. Something will give, though.
Maybe my economics is not so good, but I thought if a job was low paid, it either wasn't very important or there were many people willing to do it. Why the concern about these jobs?
Second, how can the illegal immigrants work at such lower wages than Americans? I think its because they effectively consider governmental services as part of their compensation.
How very thoughtful of society. But if person A freely chooses to enter into an agreement with person B, how is it any of society's business to pontificate on the morality of said agreement?
If this argument means anything, it means that society has no business passing any labor laws: minimum wage, overtime, workplace safety, and so forth. If that's what you believe generally, it's consistent, but not a popular position. If it's not what you believe generally, I don't see why immigrant workers and those who employ them should have any particular claim to be free of all regulation.
To Cerro,
This is America, parties A and B never get to do anything by themselves. Party C (the US government) takes money from both A and B and give it back directly or indirectly to both A and B.
You can't have open immigration and a welfare state. And if anyone knows how to get rid of the welfare state, I am open to suggestions.
Smells as if the question really is:
Are the costs of having illegal immigrants larger than the benefits?
The costs are mainly the loss of tax money (although theses taxes would be marginal - we are talking about minimum wage).
The main benefit of an immigrant worker to the overall economy (legal or not) will always be that the state has never spend a single tax dollar on her (while she was young and needed schooling or health care for example). That an illegal is ca 30% cheaper than a legal immigrant worker will remain the main benefit of a soccer mom? Keeping it illegal in-deed seems to make sense?
What are the (dis)advantages of a guest-worker program? They too are marginal? How much more the employer would have to pay per hour is not clear but the best "guest-worker" program should NOT have a MINIMUM wage (that would be defeating the purpose of comparative (dis)advantages!!! (I will not manufacture in China to offer poor Americans access to cheap computers if China suddenly gets as pricey as the US.)
In case that someone wants to run for office - you lose the risk of an illegal nanny scandal? Other than that - the state does not benefit much (how much money does the US lose because of bureaucracy related to dealing with caught illegals?)
Maybe a smart guest-worker program could produce more pros than cons? We could all shop for the best immigrants on barelylegal.com? But I am not aware of a "smart" guest worker program - please englighten me if you work out or find one?
(NAFTA should have dug deeply into this issue but, again, I am not aware of any decent research?)
Actually, liberalrob, I think that is exactly Megan's point.
I interpreted her point to be "Americans cannot economically do these jobs" which, along with being exactly what she said, is patently ridiculous. Of course they can economically do these jobs. All it requires is either a) they work for less, or b) we pay more for their services. Employers have opted for option a) and when Americans won't work for less they hire illegals who will. It's not that Americans CAN'T work for less; it's that they WON'T, for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with being able to actually do the work. The more you look at it, the uglier it gets.
I thought if a job was low paid, it either wasn't very important or there were many people willing to do it. Why the concern about these jobs?
Because the availability of immigrants willing to work for lower wages artificially keeps wages down, as long as there is a continuing stream of such immigrants. If we had a closed system with no immigration, wages would rise. So that's the concern about these jobs.
In the context of illegal immigration, the concern is that along with artificially keeping wages low, the illegal immigrants are being EXPLOITED. Through threats of denouncing and deportation, their wages might be kept even lower than they might otherwise be. Employers are perfectly happy to do this, as every dollar they can reduce labor costs goes to their bottom line. There are other arguments for and against, of course.
It's not that Americans CAN'T work for less; it's that they WON'T, for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with being able to actually do the work. The more you look at it, the uglier it gets.
That's funny. It sounds almost reactionary. Anyway, to me, "CAN'T" and "WON'T" seem like a minor quibble.
I totally agree with you that exploitation is untenable. But part of the cost for fixing the system is that some service markets really would shrink a great deal.
So when everyone demands higher wages to cover the cost of more expensive services, where does that money come from exactly?
Consumption of those services is going to drop. When landscaping or washing cars becomes a low-income job instead of a sub-low-income job, many consumers are going to do without rim detailing and having their sidewalks leaf-blown every morning. People in areas without large numbers of illegal workers already manage to survive without them.
Incidentally, when did "immigrants do jobs that Americans don’t want" become a specifically (or particularly) "conservative" position? It's something I've always heard mostly from Latino groups and their allies.
liberalrob.. may I call you Bob (shorter)? you make decent points - that in theory supports a guest worker program?
As with the 2nd best theory discussion - one of the complexities of gauging the whole spectrum is that there are also (well-meant) distortions in place - as eg minimum wage for legal immigrants?
What is your suggested solution in the end?
Yes, illegals are being exploited - but it is NOT like California entering the union. All Mexican, dark skinned illegals are, in theory, recognized by the law as deserving basic rights. In that both reality and theory are different than during other times of institutional exploitation (you know my environmental and animal reference by now)?
A guest-worker program that is smart (avoiding too much bureaucracy while keeping the economic advantages of below-minimum wage in place) would still lower wages as you claim - but not artificially? If anything - the minimum-wage increases wages artificially?
Actually, I believe what Megan's trying to hint at is that solving our illegal immigration problem will also help with the obesity epidemic as American's are forced, en masse, to put down the remote and start up their lawn mowers.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/6944.html#comments
Whose "illegal immigration problem" is that, Mike?
That sounds like someone who has never worked outdoors, in the weather, inhaling things like drywall dust and pesticide residue, or risking your limbs on a roof!
The recent enforcement/propaganda push by the Department of Homeland Security (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) will temporarily raise the cost of roofers, and crop workers, and thus of homes and food. I might swing a few Rovian votes, is all
But really, us Anglo-Americans are just plain too fat and lazy and too accustomed to subsidies at every step of our lives to volunteer to pick hops or thin lettuce, I think.
What are the real consequences of losing the illegal workers we have today?
At $200 a month, I pay a service to do my lawn.
At $400 a month, I pay a dry cleaning delivery service to do most of our laundry.
At $100 a month, I pay a service to clean the pool.
At $300 a month, I pay a maid service.
What do all these services have in common?
They are owned by upper middle class U.S. citizens who live near me in my neighborhood but employ workers that look to me to be possible illegal aliens.
So what happens if there are no illegal aliens?
1. The price of each of these services at least doubles.
2. The doubling of prices means I can't afford them.
3. My neighbors who own these services can no longer afford to live in the neighborhhood, so their houses go on the market.
4. My house is worth less because there are so many homes on the market.
So, I'm stuck doing a lot of extra work around the house that is worth less while I struggle to save my own business from the calamity caused by eliminating the illegals.
Are you nativists just stupid?
LizardBreath,
I actually think there’s a significant difference between what I said and what you think I said, though perhaps the fault is mine for not being clear enough with my post.
The difference is between society (by which I mean American citizens) passing judgement on acceptable working conditions for themselves and society doing the same for others (illegal immigrants - non American citizens). This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, but I got the feeling from the post I was quoting (“if a job cannot be done in a way that does not conform with the moral obligations of minimal standard living conditions for all, society can live without the job being done”) that some people’s concern for the welfare of illegal immigrants would lead to them stopping them working in such jobs, by whichever means.
What I’m saying is that it’s thoroughly condescending to prevent people from doing work they otherwise wish to do for what you may suppose to be their benefit.
I take your point that this point of view could be equally adopted towards labor laws for non-immigrants, but at least they would have been “consulted” in some sense before the laws were adopted.
benp,
“You can't have open immigration and a welfare state”
True enough, if you’re planning to extend the welfare state to all the immigrants. But why is it not possible to make welfare (or at least a certain degree of it) just for non-immigrants? Genuinely interested, if anyone has a view?
liberalrob.. may I call you Bob (shorter)?
No. "Rob" is acceptable.
What is your suggested solution in the end?
That we expend more effort considering how to elevate the standard of living in Mexico and the rest of the 3rd world than in protecting the standard of living in the United States. The particulars of how to do that are not really my field; I merely state that it must be done.
I don't consider a guest-worker program a good solution. I consider it making the best of a bad situation. And I'm not convinced that there is sufficient incentive for potential guest workers to participate in the program, given that the one currently proposed calls for them to return south every few years. In any event, a guest-worker program only legitimizes importation of cheap labor to continue staving off the inevitable leveling that simply MUST occur. I would rather we be pulling them up to our level than them pulling us down to theirs.
The minimum wage does increase wages artificially, but it's a good intervention in the labor market; if we relied on laissez-faire market forces to determine wages the lives of the underclass would be horrific indeed. It has been pointed out repeatedly that even with the modest increases recently passed, the minimum wage hs never been sufficient to raise a solitary worker's income above the poverty line.
Tom K.,
Your point 4 is going to happen anyway, no matter what the government does about illegal immigration, given the housing bust that is underway. If it makes you feel better, there are going to be many housing industry workers (builders, realtors, mortgage brokers) available to mow your lawn and clean your house. Unless you're in the housing industry right now, in which case, you have my heartiest sympathy.
Anyway, to me, "CAN'T" and "WON'T" seem like a minor quibble.
There is a world of difference. CAN'T (Megan's position) means there is simply no way for American workers to be landscapers, roofers, and hotel staff. Can't be done. It is simply economically impossible for the American worker to live doing that job.
WON'T means that for whatever reason (going on government assistance, working other jobs, relying on family/church support, etc.) Americans who MIGHT take those jobs at the pay rates offered decide not to do so.
Legal and illegal immigration results in a larger pool of labor to draw from. The result is, instead of pay rates rising to stimulate American workers to take those jobs, employers take advantage of immigrant laborers who will take the lower pay.
I can understand how this view might be seen as slightly reactionary; Pat Buchanan uses it as an argument for his Berlin Wall-style no-man's land border fence and draconian deportation schemes. But I see it rather as acknowledging the reality of the implications of immigration, legal and illegal, and inspiration for tackling the true issue in a rational manner.
So what happens if there are no illegal aliens?...I'm stuck doing a lot of extra work around the house that is worth less while I struggle to save my own business from the calamity caused by eliminating the illegals.
You're right but for the wrong reasons, Tom. The prices for those services performed by illegals have been kept artificially low (by exploiting the cheap labor of the immigrants). If there were no illegals, the prices would rise to the level where American workers would fill those positions. You in turn would raise the prices of YOUR services to cover the added expense. There would be a cycle of inflation, but it would level out after a time.
But it's not the real issue. The real issue is the existence of that pool of cheap labor. To truly help the American worker, that pool needs to be eliminated. Since physically eliminating the 3rd world is not practical or desirable, it seems to me the best approach would be making it unattractive as a source of cheap labor by (gasp) making its labor not so cheap. To an extent this happens naturally; I have read in the tech industry media how the outsourcing destination du jour has moved from country to country as labor costs in each country have risen. This is what needs to happen in all industries. It needs to be as attractive (or almost so) to be a lettuce picker in Paraguay or a roofer in El Salvador as it is to be one here. Then the illegal immigration incentive would dry up, labor markets would tighten up and wages would rise to where it would attractive to the American worker.
Rob
What's your solution: That we expend more effort considering how to elevate the standard of living in Mexico and the rest of the 3rd world than in protecting the standard of living in the United States.
Mexico is not part of the 3rd world (but closer to it than the US). But WHY and if - HOW should the US suddenly intervene there?
Direct action - like in Iraq or Vietnam is not without its expenses and inefficiencies. Merely educating the world and raising awareness about the advantages of free-economics is going on anyway. (I can see the US leafleting to all the dictators who pass by about the advantages of democracy and free market. Free your people and you will live a healthier life... but many do not listen - poke fun at the activists - unless they take direct action..?) Some listen to the advice (like the Tiger states, China, parts of Europe ;-) and some in Middle East, South America, Africa and Asia take longer?
The only thing that EVERYONE in the US concerned with equality and against exploitation (like Rob) should/can do here and now - is to reduce his/her ecological footprint? In the long run - all the 3rd world countries - when they liberate their individuals and hence experience more wealth - they will need land, water, healthy animals - a healthy nature and ecology - to survive? If we cannot do that - we should never blame bloody dictators for never stepping down or introducing individual rights?
http://web.conservation.org/ecofootprint/
You CANNOT be a conservative without it... you cannot be a liberal about it.. no intervention necessary?
This is the biggest problem I have with libertarians. Why you always seem to think you improve standards of living with cheap labor is beyond me.
If the relative price of something is cheap you will use more of it. Consequently if you keep the price of labor low through immigration you encourage labor intensive production process. This does not raise living standards. If you want to raise living standards you want to shift the production process towards a more capital intensive process where the additional capital per worker allows them to be more productive and raise living standards.
OK, over the last few decades we have had more women go to work and many of them are in much more productive jobs than they use to be at home cooking, cleaning and raising children. We had two alternatives. One we could develop technology that made people doing these jobs more productive
and thus release the women for more productive jobs. Or we could import cheap labor and continue to use the old labor intensive process and limit the growth in our standard of living. But also womens wages in the US are still below mens wages so to a certain extent the increase in the labor participation rate was just another force bring the last source of cheap labor into the market and immigrants were just another leg in this process.
So to a great extent because of bring in immigrants to replace women and allowing women to displace men what we have gotten is a lot of extensive growth rather than intensive growth.
Now it would be an extremely difficult econometric jobs to try and disentangled all these forces and
determine if we are better off with extensive growth-- more labor working at the same productive level to produce more goods -- or intensive growth -- same labor with higher productivity producing more goods. But your ignoring this issue means essentially that you are making claims that you know something you do not know.
PS: I still do no get your vote Rob. Independent of your concern for the 3rd world... You are against illegal immigrants (they are being exploited) and against a guest-worker program? Which ONLY leaves the option of legalizing everybody automatically?
I kind of like it - if I understood you correctly? I too would grant anybody - no matter what - a citizenship? Like Google - keep it free but drown them with advertising?
You are more laissez-fair than you want us to know? I like it!
No one really wants a job, they want a high standard of living with as little work as possible!
Illegals raise our standard of living and therefore are good.
Here is a proposal that it should be hard to disagree with:
Let's allow in all the immigrants possible but subject them to an "immigrant tax" and prevent them from getting any government handouts that aren't generally available without special application. In other words, drive on the public street-yes, food stamps- no.
Say the tax is 20% of income- over and above regular income taxes and social security. We would still be flooded with immigrants and the more, the merrier. No more concerns about social security collapsing.
The immigrants tax would be an investment in their future in their new country. After ten years or so, when they were eligible for citizenship and passed a test on English and America culture, they could get out from under the tax and be proud American citizens.
Tom
Are you suggesting a guest-worker program now or what?
Reading into "equal responsiblity of the household".
Why is it a given that in an ideal world man and woman would take equal responsibility for the household?
Wouldn't it be the case that ideally one would specialize in working outside the home and the other would specialize in working in the home? Certainly some crossover is needed...the homemaker should know how to take the car to get the oil changed and the office worker needs to know how to clean the dishes and do house work. But sometimes when people say "equal reponsibility in the home is the ideal" they seem to be implying that both work outside the home and both pitch in for the house work. This concept, while it may work, to me seems far from ideal at best. At the very least it's entirely subjective and up to debate in which case its a disservice for you to label it as ideal.
I have the luxury to work from home 90% of the time, but my wife stopped working when she had a child, even though it cost us 40% of our net income and an awesome health insurance plan (so really it cost us about 50% when you factor in we had to buy insurance). But our family was more important than having her work for: money, service to others, and her personal fulfillment. I would never force anyone to make the decision, but it's too bad people can't literally put THEIR focus on THEIR children and instead talk about how great it is that scores of women are not out working. Yes it's great you feel empowered, but certainly it came at the sacrafice of many families.
"and instead talk about how great it is that scores of women are not out working. "
should read:
and instead talk about how great it is that scores of women are out working.
Cerro,
True enough, if you’re planning to extend the welfare state to all the immigrants. But why is it not possible to make welfare (or at least a certain degree of it) just for non-immigrants? Genuinely interested, if anyone has a view?
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that was tried in California and struck down by the courts.
There are signifigant costs associated with illegal immigration.
One is a health care issue. Legal immigrants are subject to health screening, those with health problems are not allowed to come here. Illegal immigrants do not have this screening. Conditions and diseases that long ago were eradicated in the US are reappearing. And as illegals usually don't have health insurance, the emergency rooms are filled with sick people, far more than were ever planned for.
The whole Lou Dobbs list of problems should be taken into account.
One confusion in the post is that costs do not determine price, prices determine cost. So having illegals work cheap does not necessarily make things more affordable.
T,
Do you know what the grounds for the striking down were?
It just seems like the only compromise between 1. open borders and no welfare state, and 2. closed borders and a comfortable cushion.
I don't like the idea of making an ablsolute choice either way. I'm totally pro-immigration, and I just can't see welfare states disappearing anytime soon.
Megan wrote:
One particular consideration I think is underdiscussed is the fact that much of the labor illegal immigrants provide substitutes for women's home labor. And I don't just mean nannies for rich women. I mean cleaning services, and food processing, and dry cleaning, and grocery delivery, and all the other things that make it possible for large numbers of women to work outside the home.
I think you overestimate the extent to which American working women (and men) rely on "substitutes for women's home labor." Let's take them one at a time:
(1) "Cleaning services." Leaving aside whether someone who doesn't have any kids or pets actually needs the assistance of a maid or is just really slovenly and/or lazy, it seems reasonable to doubt that many would quit working just so they could spend more time cleaning house. "The dust, it is too thick! No choice but to quit job and clean!"
(2) "Food processing." Huh? You mean, like, planting, irrigating, cultivating, and harvesting crops? Maybe you're talking about increases in food prices, I don't know...anyway, why would higher food costs drive women out of the workforce? Sounds like it ought to encourage them to work more in order to match the increase in prices.
(3) "Dry cleaning." I give you credit for circumscribing this example to exclude general laundering (honestly, that people would actually pay others to do their own goddamn laundry...). But I still think it's more reasonable that working women would choose to forego a couple trips to the cleaners and endure wrinkled suits rather than quit their jobs altogether.
(4) "Grocery delivery." Yeesh. Is this really a vital service to so many working women? So vital that they wouldn't opt instead to make the trips themselves or order Chinese food rather than quit their jobs? (I had no idea that going to a grocery store constituted such an opportunity cost to some people...)
(5) "Personalized tushy-wiping service." Buy a Japanese toilet. It'll save you in the long run. Ooops, you didn't mention this one. ;-)
To wit, the case still hasn't been made that the increases in service prices and food production costs resulting from increased immigration enforcement would drastically impair most American women from working outside the home.
And Tom Kelly wrote:
So, I'm stuck doing a lot of extra work around the house that is worth less while I struggle to save my own business from the calamity caused by eliminating the illegals.
Please, please let there be increased immigration enforcement so that we may watch Tom Kelly choke on his own rage at having to possibly do his own lawn service, laundry, pool and house cleaning. And please, dear Lord, let him videotape it and post it on YouTube for our collective viewing pleasure.
It would certainly amuse me.
To say boldly that illegals raise "our" standard of living needs some clarification.
Do you mean... You and your family, you and your neighbors, All americans? Does this include American construction workers? Do you mean short term or long term?
And how about other costs? schools for all these immigrants children? If they get that benefit, who pays?
Actually, Duncan, you're probably not going to get much idea of my biography based on one silly joke. But I'll give you a hint about my belief on immigration: I don't care if the America of 100 years hence has white skin or brown, speaks English, Spanish, or Farsi, is fat or thin, lazy or not, as long as they still have the Bill of Rights and respect the ideals that have made this country great.
Most of the great complexities surrounding this issue are the direct result of someone trying to set parameters for a wage negotiation between the buyer and the seller of the service. There is a minimum wage law in the US because living in the US costs more than some fraction of the populace could earn without the minimum wage, simply based on the value their energy, knowledge and skills (or lack thereof) can add to a business' product or service. Correspondingly, the cost of living in the US is higher, among other reasons, because some people are paid more for their labor than the value it provides to their employer or its customers.
Illegal aliens sneak into, or pay to have themselves snuck into, the US to work because they believe, with very good reason, that their energy, knowledge and skills will allow them to earn more in the US than they could in their own countries. To the extent that they are "victimized" in this process, they are self-victimized. If they were truly being victimized, they would simply not come here or return home to their own countries and resume thier lives there.
Legal aliens also come to the US seeking opportunities not available to them in their native countries. It costs them more money and takes them far longer to receive permission to live and work in the US. However, they continue to come, even from many other developed countries, because their opportunities are greater here than at home.
While the US may have an obligation in charity to assist foreign governments in improving the lives of their citizens, I do not believe we have any obligation in justice to force the issue, nor any right to do so.
Hugo:
But WHY and if - HOW should the US suddenly intervene there?
"Why" is easy- it's in our own interest. "How" I'm not sure, as I said. Not direct MILITARY action; we should not be in the business of overthrowing regimes except at the direst need. There are other ways of taking "direct action," a few of which you listed. Of course you don't drop leaflets to dictators; you drop them to the people they are oppressing. Yes, education is going on anyway but imagine if the hundreds of billions we are wasting in Iraq were instead used to educate poor Latin Americans.
You are against illegal immigrants (they are being exploited) and against a guest-worker program? Which ONLY leaves the option of legalizing everybody automatically?
No, I'm not for that either. Rules are rules.
The way to end illegal immigration is to remove the causes of illegal immigration. Attempting to build a massive brown-people-repelling force field around the country is not going to work.
You are more laissez-fair than you want us to know?
No, I don't think so. I may not completely fit your conception of a "liberal" however. Almost no one fits a label 100%.
And one for "tom":
schools for all these immigrants children? If they get that benefit, who pays?
They do, through their (or their landlords') property taxes and sales taxes. And we do, because we are generous people who don't mind helping those in need, and we hope that if the next Pasteur is hiding amongst them, we will also benefit directly.
Immoralist:
Over the past 25 years I have started 9 different companies that collectively employ thousands of people.
I can do my own laundry, clean my own pool, mow my own lawn, and clean my own house. How many jobs will be lost because of the company I do not start while doing all those things?
Have you ever heard of the division of labor?
Another thing to consider the demand for illegal farm labor took off in the 1970's when child labor laws made it impossible for kids to pick strawberries and do other farm work.
I used to do it for a summer job and it was a great job for a 12 year old kid. But at 13 I couldn't do it anymore because the law changed, that sucked.
-don
I'm not sure I get Megan's point. Is she saying that because working out side the home is something that American women want to do, that it is morally OK to keep millions of people living in a shadow class?? I must be missing something.
All of the arguments for keeping ILLEGAL immigration are the same arguments that were used to condone slavery. We don't want to do those jobs, the economy depends on it, the little brown folk are eager to do the jobs we don't want.
The big problem for making illegal immigrants legal is that suddenly, they too will no longer want to do the jobs that Americans won't do. So everytime you provide blanket amnesty, then you have to once again load up the slave ships from afar to bring in the little brown folk willing to slop for less than the market rate.
In the end, this is, like slavery a moral argument. It simply wrong to force immigrants to live in the shadows where they can be taken advantage of so that we can live like more like Scarlett.
Illegal immigration, like slavery, is morally wrong. End of story.
There seems to be an assumption that illegals work for less than the minimum wage. Here on long island unskilled laborers picked up from in front of the 7-11 cost $100 per 8 hour day plus lunch four yeats ago. I imagine they cost more now. Typically house cleaners charge $60 for less than 3 hours work - still well above minimum wage even with supplies and travel. Many illegal immigrants have skills or learn them and make more.
What's wrong with illegal immigration is that it is illegal. A rational guest worker program or immigration policy that allows people who can support themselves without government assistance to enter the country legally would be good for everyone.
However, a general amnesty for law breakers would be a bad thing since it erodes respect for democratically passed laws. We have enough trouble with that without importing it.
Tom Kelly:
Over the past 25 years I have started 9 different companies that collectively employ thousands of people.
Bully for you. Sounds like you make more than enough bank to pay for any increase in cost associated with cleaning your house, mowing your lawn, etc., etc.
I can do my own laundry, clean my own pool, mow my own lawn, and clean my own house. How many jobs will be lost because of the company I do not start while doing all those things?
Technically speaking, no jobs would be lost because you haven't created them yet. The violins only start playing if one of your companies goes tits up because you're too busy vaccuuming rather than CEO-ing.
Yeah, yeah, opportunity costs, hosanna in the highest, and all of that. If you need to devote the time that you might spend cleaning and mowing to running your companies so that thousands don't lose their jobs, then by all means, hire them illegals to pick up your stuff.
But let's look at your math for a second. You currently pay $1000 a month for the services of illegal aliens (assuming, of course, that they *are* illegal aliens). Assuming that your assertion that these costs would "at least double" if immigration enforcement was increased is correct, you're only looking at an extra $1000 per month to keep your servants. Surely a titan of industry like yourself could cover the increase.
If not, then may I suggest you find a new business model with higher profit margins.
Have you ever heard of the division of labor?
Derpa durrrr?
Gosh, doesn't anyone remember when the people who served you at McDonald's were teenagers instead of immigrants? When babysitting was something that young people did for pocket change? Remember when a minimum-wage job was for people who were living at home and NOT for the purposes of raising a family of four?
Folks, that's what's given you an illegal immigrant problem. The incessant insistence that all jobs should be those capable of supporting entire families, instead of entry-level training for American youth. I recall working at a movie theater in college; when I started, all the employees were college students. When I left 4 1/2 years later, all the employees were high-school kids; now they're adult illegals. It's not that these jobs are jobs that Americans CAN'T do, it's that we as a society have priced them out of their intended purpose: entry-level training for unskilled labor. Paying $10 per hour for babysitting (and here I'm speaking of the 4 or so hours for a couple's night out, not nannying) is insane.
A capitalist society cannot exist without sovereign borders.
The cornerstone of capitalism is the law of supply and demand. A capitalist nation cannot exist without secure, sovereign borders. The exportation and exploitation of illegal aliens circumvents the law of supply and demand at the expense of our borders, language, culture, and economy. Cut off the supply of dregs from third world countries, wages go up, tax base goes up, people have more money to spend, they buy stuff, demand for stuff goes up so manufacturers meet demand by making more stuff which creates jobs, etc. A circle, see?
It's so damn simple that even a monkey could figure it out. Of course it requires a bit of forward thinking that encompasses the larger picture. Something that politicians and corporate types can't seem to do.
"but I honestly don't hear much complaining coming from desperate Mexican labourers."
That's because you probably don't know any. I do, and I hear endless crap about how the US stole Mexican land, and they deserve it back and the US is opressing them and they are gonna kick out the white folks when they take over. But then again my idiot sister married an illegal alien with an eighth grade education, so I have to hear this crap all the time from his family.
Everyone likes to talk about their low wages. But are their wages really that low? Or is it that the employers who hire them are just paying them less, and we the taxpayer have to pick up the difference through low cost housing, food stamps etc - which they need in order to live?
Look - you and I subsidize ANYONE, legal or no, who is not making a living wage. We do this by paying more in taxes than we would have to pay were the employer to pay what their time and money is really worth. So in effect, the EMPLOYER gets to pays them less per hour but you and I the taxpayer, make up the difference by having to pay increased taxes for their low cost housing, food stamps, social security etc - as well as increased insurance premiums for auto, hospital, etc.
So they aren't really making $10 per hour. It's just that the employer gets to pay them that knowing that the taxpayer will fund the difference.
Besides - illegal immigration, like slavery, is immoral.
Becky is right.
Illegal Immigration IS morally wrong. But it is because millions of people are breaking the law and jacking up another country's economy by screwing up the balances of the employment market, and incomes, and prices.
All of this is beating around the bush, to me.
Illegal means illegal. That's what has a bunch of us upset.
Treat illegal actions as though they were, you know, *illegal*, and then we can have this debate all day over the proper number of immigrants to grant citizenship to each year. Heck, personally I'm fine with opening the floodgates to millions a year, as long as each immigrant legally completes all the steps to becoming a citizen, and as long as the legal immigration process can be reformed to handle the increased quantity (right now, thousands of people who want to *legally* immigrate, are stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare that lasts years) while disallowing the folks who do things like run drugs, rape/murder/steal, etc.
The other thing this feeds into is that the illegal immigration issue is also fed by the minimum wage. Part of the goal in hiring illegals is often to get around the minimum wage. In this sense, it is proper to think of the illegal immigration issue as a black market for labor. Remember your economics 101. When you regulate the market it invites the creation of a black market. Its inevitable.
And every increase in the minimum wage has at least a partial effect of moving more labor from the regular market to the black market.
Anyway, big picture on immigration. We have to shut down the border. All of this talk of workplace enforcement is misplaced. Stop the flow. Then, yes, i support amnesty. I even have the balls to call it that.
I know, I know. Bush would say that was what the last amnesty bill offered. But the mistake he made was in trying for both at once. All of my life the immigration laws have been a joke, and it is hard for me to believe that any politician will suddenly take it seriously. We, the people, have absolutely no faith in the government on this topic. So there has to be a demonstration of ability before we can support amnesty.
Immoralist:
You speak so much but know so little.
Starting 9 companies does not make me a titan of industry- it makes me a person who starts companies.
Some of those companies made a lot of money but others lost a lot of money. At this stage, an extra $1000 month would be very significant to me and cause me to cancel some or all of those services.
The point remains the same regardless of my personal circumstances- getting stuff done cheap is better than getting stuff done expensively!
If you believe in freedom for yourself, why not believe in freedom for others, no matter where you happen to be born.
If interested see my "We are the World" post on the other immigration thread that started here after this one.
Good lord Becky. I had no idea we were running Slave ships to Juarez. I'd best start a protest group! No Blood For Lawnmowers!
Just a small quibble: no one FORCED illegal immigrants to enter the US to seek employment. They volunteered. The entire 'exploitation' line of reason seems to fall apart with that one little fact.
Personally, I'd like to do away with undocumented immigration, increase automation and increase documented immigration while encouraging a reduction of corruption and an enhancement of liberal entrepreneurial laws in Mexico. (you know, that whole bit of why Economic Liberalization is good for the entire spectrum of individuals within a national market).
But really. Exploitation? Equivocation with slavery? Come off it.
What's wrong with Illegal immigrants?
-They are off the grid and therefor can pose a larger security threat - they've never been vetted (see the Fort Dix plotters here in NJ).
-They depress wages in certain industries that American workers most certainly are willing to do - Construction as a good example.
-They (or their children) recieve many welfare state benefits - schooling, emergency healthcare etc - while paying little or no taxes (because they are off the grid). In many border areas, this is killing local governments, especially hospital emergency care.
-Because they are here illegally, it is harder for them to integrate, which leads to more ghettoization, lack of trust in communities etc.
-They often take jobs that used to be done by teens and students - fast food counter-servicec, seasonal road-work, crop-picking etc. This means that college students have to rely even more on loans, and they don't learn a work ethic.
-Finally, because it has become accepted that there will be a million+ illegals entering every year, it is impossible to craft a rational immigration program that would allow the US to admit the workers that the economy demands in a safe and organized fashion. It would also allow the US to pick which immigrants get in, rather than having it based on the proximity of Mexico. What about Africans or Central Asians who would be ecstatic to come to America, and might bring higher skill-levels?
"But it is because millions of people are breaking the law"
I respectfully disagree. Opportunity makes a thief. What good is a government that doesn't enforce its own laws to the point that its entire economy depends on them being broken?
So don't blame immigrants - they are only taking advantage of an opportunity that our employers have encouraged them to take advantage of. The way I see it: if it were me, and I was living in Mexican poverty and the El Norte opportunity existed, I'd BE there! At least I'd like to think that I would have that kind of get up and go. What about you?
accountant, I liked your sentiments - especially the point about respect for democratically passed laws. and i think that me too is in favor of a smart guest-worker program as a 2nd best?
but it is generally (statistically) not true that immigrant workers earn "more". i think your examples are misleading unless one also mentions the possibility that a legal US citizen who is even less educated than an illegal immigrant cannot earn less than the minimum wage and ends up as unemployed!
yes - there are those Indians who have had success with Silicon Valley start-ups but we are not talking about those. Even in the Valley - the average H1b worker (very smart US policy) is getting up to 1/3 less...
but that is ok - they H1Bs have a good standard of living compared... and of course are "legal". As I said - I do not see why the white coaler example could not work for the blue..?
But one needs to have a plan how to tackle potential unemployment among uneducated, unskilled US citizens.. they could work move to and work in Mexico for example? Hmm.. If we educate them it will potentially cost us more money than educating 3-4 Mexican and as LiberalRob commented - one should work on more geographic equality? Hmm.. where is the viscous circle that I feel? Hmm... No - I say - opened the borders and scrap the minimum wage.. and legalize drugs...
either we are supporting modern-day slavery or the mafia (although I think that animals are our true modern-day slaves and not illegals. We have our Geneva convention).. we have to get rid of the market distortions and use the economic benefits to balance the social costs? i am somehow afraid of this path myself as it smells like anarchy and not Mr Smith's invisible hand.. but illegal immigration happens anyway.. here and now.. and we are not talking about a few hundred here and there...
Another under-discussed angle to the illegal immigration problem
is that Americans, who don't graduate from high school, compete
with illegal migrants, who constantly break the law, living in
overcrowded barracks conditions with their compadres. It's rather
Draconian to allow illegals to put downward pressure on the wages
of the bottom rung of our workforce.
http://calling-muggins.blogspot.com/
"Many of the jobs that illegals do are jobs that cannot economically be done by Americans"
I don't agree with this statement simply because it is not a matter of Americans not being able to economically do the jobs, but rather of not wanting to do these jobs. Americans want a certain standard of living for the work they perform, and much of the work illegal immigrants do does not pay enough to support that standard. Yet, this is clearly a step up for these illegal immigrants, because otherwise they would not have crossed the border. The income disparity has led to the development of an entirely new socioeconomic class comprised of these illegal immigrants. The reason it has remained, is because Americans want to continue having cheap labor. The moment we legalize immigration or give amnesty, the labor prices will increase.
As for the matter of women quitting their jobs without illegals, I think that is a bit much. As a woman, I'm quite capable of doing my own laundry, buying groceries and cleaning the house, all while going to school and working. Still, it is a convenience that many people enjoy. Because of our free market economy, if people are willing to pay for the service, I see no reason for it to be stopped.
Michael, what I said was, "All of the arguments for keeping ILLEGAL immigration are the same arguments that were used to condone slavery. We don't want to do those jobs, the economy depends on it, the little brown folk are eager to do the jobs we don't want.
I didn't say that illegal immigration was on a par with slavery - for the very reasons that you expressed.
What I said was that the ARGUMENTS FOR KEEPING IMMIGRANTS ILLEGAL are the same arguments that were used for condoning slavery. I'm sure you can see the very big distinction.
If you are condoning ILLEGAL immigration, you are condoning keeping people in a shadow class, unprotected by the law using the same arguments that were used to condone slavery. It's just a fact, Mike.
The illegal argument doesn't stand.
Our immigration law is immoral.
Why should accident of birth convey privileges?
Everyone in America could have just as easily been born somewhere else.
Compare our immigration laws to other commonly broken laws- say speed limits. I would venture that 98% of the people who read this post are "criminals" who break that law virtually every day. Or, more seriously, tax laws- who among us fully and completely complies with every word?
Our immigration laws are not just immoral, they undermine the rule of law by making illegal that which is in great demand for reasonable, legal reasons.
Megan, Megan, Megan. You really need to stop exposing your ignorance on the illegal immigration question. Wasn't the spanking you took last time (from your own near-fanatically loyal readers, no less) enough to dissuade you?
At least you're not calling anyone a Nazi this time...
I live in San Diego and cannot find anyone to clean my house for less than $20 an hour (and they do a terrible job). Our gardener charges us $100 month for less than 4 hours of work ($25+ hour). I also can't wait until my 2 year old son is old enough to mow the lawn-- I would rather give my kids the $100.
Why do we need ILLEGAL immigrants to do the low-paying jobs discussed here? Why are we allowing only Mexicans to take those jobs? There are plenty of workers also eager to take those jobs who live in Poland, Nigeria, or Thailand and so forth. Why does our immigration policy deny these type of jobs to those folks while demanding that Mexicans alone fill those jobs? Why not block ILLEGAL immigration while increasing the number of LEGAL work and immigration visas to people from countries all over the world including Mexico rather than allowing Mexico to bleed its talent and labor to us via illegal means?
An Excerpt from "Slavery in the Light of Social Ethics," by Chancelor Harper, printed in Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavry Arguments: Comprising the Writings of Hammond, Harper, Christy, Stringfellow, Hodge, Bledsoe, and Cartwright, on This Important Subject, E.N. Elliott, ed. (Augusta, GA: Pritchard, Abbott & Loomis, 1860):
In one thing I concur with the abolitionists; that if emancipation is to be brought about, it is better that it should be immediate and total. But let us suppose it to be brought about in any manner, and then inquire what would be the effects.
The first and most obvious effect, would be to put an end to the cultivation of our great Southern staple. And this would be equally the result, if we suppose the emancipated negroes to be in no way distinguished from the free labourers of other countries, and that their labor would b equally effective. . . Imagine an extensive rice or cotton plantation cultivated by free laborers, who might perhaps strike for an increase of wages, at a season when the neglect of a few days would insure the destruction of the whole crop. Even if it were possible to procure laborers at all, what planter would venture to carry on his operations under such circumstances? I need hardly say that these staples cannot be produced to any extent where the proprietor of the soil cultivates it with his own hands. He can do little more than produce the necessary food for himself and his family.
And what would be the effect of putting an end to the cultivation of these staples, and thus annihilating, at a blow, two-thirds or three-fourths of our foreign commerce? Can any sane mind contemplate such a result without terror? I speak not of the utter poverty and misery to which we ourselves would be reduced, and the desolation which would overspread our own portion of the country. Our slavery has not only given existence to millions of slaves within our own territories, it has given the means of subsistence, and therefore, existence, to millions of freemen in our confederate States; enabling them to send forth their swarms to overspread the plains and forests of the West, and appear as the harbingers of civilization. The products of the industry of those States are in general similar to those of the civilized world, and are little demanded in their markets. By exchanging them for ours, which are everywhere sought for, the people of these States are enabled to acquire all the products of art and industry, all that contributes to convenience or luxury, or gratifies the taste of the intellect, which the rest of the world can supply. Not only on our own continent, but on the other, it has given existence to hundreds of thousands, and the means of comfortable subsistence to millions. A distinguished citizen of our own Stat, than whom none can be better qualified to form an opinion, has lately stated that our great staple, cotton, has contributed more than anything else of later times to the progress of civilization. By enabling the poor to obtain cheap and becoming clothing, it has inspired a taste for comfort, the first stimulus to civilization. Does not self-defense, then, demand of us steadily to resist the abrogation of that which is productive of so much good? It is more than self-defense. IT is to defend millions of human beings, who are far removed from us, from the intensest suffering, if not from being struck out of existence. It is the defense of human civilization. (pp. 617-618)
if you didn't read the whole thing - just read the conclusion:
"By enabling the poor to obtain cheap and becoming clothing, it has inspired a taste for comfort, the first stimulus to civilization. Does not self-defense, then, demand of us steadily to resist the abrogation of that which is productive of so much good? It is more than self-defense. IT is to defend millions of human beings, who are far removed from us, from the intensest suffering, if not from being struck out of existence. It is the defense of human civilization"
Sooo.. it might be a good time to ask yourself how your grandchildren will view your attitudes on keeping millions in the shadows for your own personal comfort?
And funny thing is, cotton is still grown in the US for a profit. Go figure.
I'm not for blanket amnesty. To provide blanket amnesty would be little different than simply ending illegal immigration. Why? Would they not then be American citizens, unwilling to do those jobs>
A legal guest worker program would allow citizens of third world countries to come here and provide cheap labor that would benefit us all. The main difference is that it would force the EMPLOYERS to pay them an adequate wage, rather than having the taxpayers being forced to make up their inadequate wages in the form of subsidized housing, food stamps, hospital care, auto insurance, etc.
Becky,
The slaves were brought here against their will and could not leave. The current illegal immigrants came of their own free will and can leave the same way at their convenience.
I have read similiar pro and con arguments written during the 19th century concerning slavery in the Americas
I and many thousands of Americans in the construction industry have lost our jobs or have seen our wages decrease year after year due to illegal aliens. If you failed to have a college education one could always find a job in the construction industry whether it was an iron worker or an electrician today that option is under assault.
You can only do anecdotal data because the whole situation is shadowed from review, because they are illegals, they have no recourse through our legal system when their employer that is employing them illegally screws them.
A roofing company in Dallas hires a high percentage of illegals. What happens when one of those illegals falls from a ladder while carrying a hundred pounds of shingles and breaks some ribs? he is driven and dropped off at the local clinic, and if he seeks help in paying for the injuries from the employer he is ignored. If he doesnt show up for work in a couple of days he is replaced.
This happens frequently in the trades and in agriculture (to varying degrees), because it is not economically feasible for the millionaire owners of the businesses to pay for healthcare.
Betty - I was thinking of similar articles in this context. thank you for posting.
But how do we really avoid "exploitation" and breaches of individual rights in our modern day situation?
As you posted yourself, both Mexicans and poor Americans are better off than blacks during slavery. You say: "We are just using the same pro-slavery arguments for defending low-wage-illegal- immigrant labour..."
And that is the only point where you potentially err? The slave-free North was absolutely in favor of low-wages since these are forces of demand and supply? You cannot invent more resources than there exist but one can, through freedom of the individual, find more creative and self-governing ways to grow...? blacks evolved from property to consumers&producers.. they lost their life-long "job" as slaves and traded them for the "right to go bankrupt" but be free?
Low-wages are not, necessarily, a breach of individual rights. An animal should have the right not to be abused by humans for taste - but it should not have the right to be force fed when her natural food supplies cease to exist or if attacked by a real carnivore.. because where do you take this feed/protection from? i am NOT going to rescue a stray dog and cat and then feed them factory farmed meat for the rest of their lives...?
Anyway - do you open up the borders for some but make sure they get US minimum wages and health care? What happens to those you leave outside the door (No-Kill Animal shelters do not kill animals but simply close the doors when they are full or they warehouse animals for years in small cages...)?
What happens to those who enter anyway because due to the better treatment of those "allowed" the labor-prices have risen across the border again and it is "worth it more than ever"?
Or do you open the borders for everybody but do not guarantee minimum wage but at least some basic health care (there are fixed resources and every mix has different pros and cos. one could in theory offer more health care if the minimum wage disappears and there is more economic productivity).
anyway - every mix - every choice has pros and cons? what is your theory or gut feeling again? close it, open it - only some? or are you merely against "low-wages" in the US?
PS: thanks again for posting it. one thing that your article stresses is that the South had not clue of economics! As little as modern day farmers and consumers have of ecology!
Ed Reid - I'm not arguing that illegal immigration is as evil as slavery. I'm arguing that the arguments for keeping millions of laborers in an unprotected shadow class are the same arguments that were used to condone slavery: The economy depends on it, we don't want to do those jobs, , the little brown folk are better off oppressed than they would be back in their native jungles.
If you are condoning ILLEGAL immigration, you are condoning the preservation of an underclass, using the same arguments that were used to condone slavery.
We should end illegal immigration for the same reason we ended slavery - simply because it is immoral.
Gah! WE DON'T NEED ILLEGALS!
We need IMMIGRANTS.
Raising the LEGAL limits would cover all our labor needs with plenty to spare, as huge numbers of people want in to our country. We could then weight in favor of things like education or knowledge of the English language.
If we need 10 million people, having control over our borders gives us the power to decide which 10 million make it in. That's not the same as closing the borders and pretending not to need anyone, which would be economic suicide. We need a lot of people, true, but they need us more than we need them. We have power in this market; we should use that power to our advantage. We can neither do that with an unsecured border nor with a closed one.
We can build the fence if we open the gates. The advantage of such a scheme is that we get the workforce we need and control over who comprises it. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Hugo - you make some good points. It would be as you say impossible to end all the injustice in the world. However, the world IS better off without the practice of slavery and I am arguing that it would be better off without the practice of forcing millions in the labor class to hide unprotected in the shadows.
Clearly - I don't have the answer to a very complicated situation, but if I were queen for a day, I would create a program, where employers would be able to attract the exact same workers that they are attracting today - only the workers would have a legal status.
The employer would be responsible for assuring that the wage paid covers food, housing, medical insurance - etc. Yes, that would increase the cost that the employers pay, thus increasing the cost of a head of lettuce or the price of a home. But it is important to remember that as a taxpayer, you are already subsidizing much of that extra cost now in terms of welfare, social security, health care, insurance premiums, etc.
Would there still be abuses? Yes. But the difference would be that our laborers would function inside the laws instead of outside of them.
Just like we are better off without slavery, we will be better off without illegal immigration.
Zywicki argues in his 'two income trap hypothesis' that couples don't have the financial flexibility thay expected becuse of taxes. This fact is obscured because of the great change in nominal incomes and expenses due to inflation. This makes historical comparison harder. I think people feel this strain which they perceive, correctly, as having broken a social contract and and tend to retreat into a group with which they can readily identify. Thus the outsider, the Mexican, is more easily found to be the cause of the breaking of the social contract and facts found to fit this hypothesis. This retreat from empathy is seen also in the usefulness to the illegal of their wage not being recognized.
Becky (sorry for having misspelled your name before..)
I understand your arguments and especially your goals. I am with you on legalizing and integrating existing illegals. What your are suggesting is partially happening? The Bush administration has eg nationalized millions (how many I am not certain - but I think I recall 1.5 million?)
Also - under your suggestion - there would be a limited number of entries - but those would be better off? Who would we take and who makes these decisions? How would Mexicans, currently living in Mexico, vote on this if they could?
And what would happen, in your opinion, if we were to open up the borders completely? Anyone who wants to be an American can be an American - like in the good ol' immigration days.. America = Immigrants?
Hugo - I will be for opening the borders completely when all other countries have exactly the same laws that we do. Until then, I'd prefer that we at least attempt to keep the standard of living that a country with our system of government affords. As you say - you can't prevent all injustice in the world, but we can at least attempt to maintain what is the most free and just society know to date. Those living elsewhere are free to organize their own revolution if they wish.
You've asked some good questions that need to be answered, however, I fear it would take to long to answer. As it is, I just wish to make the point that those arguing to condone illegal immigration are using the same arguments that were used to condone slavery.
Tom Kelly:
Starting 9 companies does not make me a titan of industry- it makes me a person who starts companies.
Shoot, when you told me that you employed thousands of people, I guess I just kinda assumed that you were rolling in the dough.
Some of those companies made a lot of money but others lost a lot of money. At this stage, an extra $1000 month would be very significant to me and cause me to cancel some or all of those services.
Wow. That really sucks. Sorry to hear that.
The point remains the same regardless of my personal circumstances- getting stuff done cheap is better than getting stuff done expensively!
Er...I would rather that stuff get done right, and if that comes at the expense of cheapness and/or quickness, then so be it. What was that old saying? When you want good, fast, and cheap, pick two out of three...
If you believe in freedom for yourself, why not believe in freedom for others, no matter where you happen to be born.
Hey! We actually agree on a basic principle of social justice, basically! Not that I think we'd take it to reach the same policy conclusions, but that's something, at least.
The market for the labor illegals perform has found its clearing price. Whenever an artificial restraint is placed upon the market for any good or service, the clearing price changes to reflect the "friction" of the artificial restraint. If a governmental entity restrains the supply of illegal labor, the cost of that labor must rise.
Yet, one wonders what the clearing price for the labor illegals perform would be if all witholdings currently collected from my paycheck were also collected from those of illegals. Would an American perform these jobs if the NET pay (after all governmental withholdings) was equal to the net pay of illegals?
Perhaps documented labor is the restrained labor.
A lot of people don't realize how women work for less than minimum wage. Not all women are high-powered lawyers working 60 hour weeks to pay for their nanny. Many women are involved in making and selling crafts and watching other people's kids for money. When you do the math, they work for $2-$5 an hour. Women take this work partly because they can do it alongside things they're already doing (one extra kid, in addition to their kid, is not that difficult, and you can do crafts while watching TV). But they also do it partly because it offers them the flexibility that a standard job does not. If they work a standard job, after they've paid for child care and taxes, they're earning about the same amount an hour as if they stayed at home making crafts to sell on Etsy.
So when Ms. McArdle says that illegal immigrants provide a substitute for women's home labor, I would agree, and add that illegal labor is comparably priced to women's home labor.
You know, it's extremely interesting that so much of the defense of illegal workers shown here is identical to the defense of slavery in the 1800's.
Because, well, it is slavery. Exploiting a desperate poor by deliberately underpaying them, keeping them in 'working poor' while enjoying a lavish and luxurious life-style on their backs - often in the exact same types of jobs that slaves once did.
Congratulations, social elitists.
I constantly hear people saying that we need illegal labor to keep prices down. On what? I cannot see any product or service that employs illegal labor keeping their prices down.
As an accountant who works with builders of all types in Phoenix, this is what I have seen. Labor costs per job: DOWN. Revenue per job: UP. Overall profits: THROUGH THE ROOF.
The only thing using illegal labor has done in Phoenix is grow the luxury home market. Contractors cashing in and buying multi-million dollar homes.
Only in America!
"Jobs Americans won't do" is simply a lie. Like construction. Give me a damned break. I've watched citizens languish because contractors can hire illegals under the table for the same dollar citizens get because they don't have to pony up workman's comp and other expenses.
Becky
thanks for an interesting discussion. i am afraid there are more questions:
I will be for opening the borders completely when all other countries have exactly the same laws that we do.
Why? Would that not be a bit like.. we will not lower duties because other do not do so? The WTO would have never existed if everyone were to wait for a majority to form on the planet?
Until then, I'd prefer that we at least attempt to keep the standard of living that a country with our system of government affords.
So you clearly assume that the standard of living will go down? That is not so clear to me? On first sight and in the short run - some people might be worse off but many will be better off? But assuming that we do not change our good system of government (which has provided for the high standard of living) - why couldn't the system cope with more people? I am not talking over a billion like in China but say 20% more to start with?
As you say - you can't prevent all injustice in the world, but we can at least attempt to maintain what is the most free and just society know to date.
Again - why do you assume that opening the borders (as they have been for centuries) will suddenly change the most free and just society into something less free and less just?
Those living elsewhere are free to organize their own revolution if they wish.
We are talking about Mexico. A country which is slowly but surly moving toward a more stable democracy and economy. It takes time and it is not up to the individual to make a revolution happen? What do you tell him - wait? When he could make even more money now due to stricter entry restrictions into the US?
It is even less easy to organize your revolution in other places. The invention of weapons allows for a few to control many... it is easier to flee?
Ask my family about it (immigrants)!
One school of thought is that we will achieve freedom only if democracy spreads around the globe. Then and only then can we open the borders? (how does that sound?)
If this (political systems) were a business ecosystem this would sound like: Only if our competitor introduces the same values, products and services as us will we start to compete for his customer base.. what?
Calvin Coolidge is correctly, and generally considered a friend of business. Yet, he told Wall Street that without law their street would have the same value of a dusty lot in Babylon at that time, if I remember right.
Without Law and Culture, Business isn't worth much. But some businessmen want to eat Law and Culture for lunch as a short-term gain. Well, once you've turned America into Latin America with walled and gated estates protected by armed guards, near zero middle class, and vast poverty, and a strong tendency to go socialist, and a strong likelihood of people you know being kidnapped for money....well, some businessmen will still talk about overly expensive labor, and jobs Americans won't do, and similar ideas.
Its amusing to see an elitist who got there in large part because others laid the groundwork for him, who benefits from social order, who starts a corporation in order to deprive his potential victims of their legal right to sue him (yes, corporations in essence are statist), probably gets tax rebates, gets the city councilman to build roads for his new business, and so on and so forth then pontificate about How He Did It All On His Own.
I'm for Business. I'm for Capitalism. I'm just not sure how Capitalist many businessmen are.
What would happen if we closed the borders? A redistribution of wealth via the market away from people who have rigged the system in their favor, and toward the people who in a just and free market system would be getting paid more. A lot of other good things would happen, but this good thing is the essential problem. Rich man doesn't want to admit that he's getting overpaid due to his finagling with the government systems.
Tennwriter
Who is talking about getting rid of Law and Culture (mind the capital). And nobody is talking about "overly expensive labor". Economics is comparitive and uses realtivity... compared to.. it is a natural law that some people are taller and some shorter - you will NEVER get rid of this in this universe? don't tell me you are buying electronics who are only manufactored in the US.. what about other goods like Nike shoes?
btw Do i get thrown out for using wikipedia quotes? I just want to give an example regarding the problem of European demographics...
Europe, due to its wealth and stability, is aging (more wealth - less children). Since it social security is based on tax distribution - one generation pays for the next..
Here is something on Italy:
Italy would need to raise its retirement age to 77 or admit 2.2 million immigrants annually to maintain its worker to retiree ratio.
The Italian government has tried to limit and reverse the trend by offering financial incentives to couples who have children and increasing immigration. The Prodi government established a Ministry of Family headed by Rosi Bindi to encourage population growth. Bindi says the government will increase the payment childbearing couples receive and will provide state-funded day care, transportation to school and books.
While fertility has remain stagnant, immigration has minimized the drop in the workforce.
the same holds true in almost every other EU country. if it were not for immigrants - old and sick European people could not be taken care off or receive their pensions..
Luckily the US has less dependence on public pensions and has higher fertility rates... but the same benefits of a larger, local labor and consumer force hold?
Again - it is NOT clear to me from which world view we are looking at this issue? from the point of view of the overall economy (open up?), of business men, of "Americans" overall, or "some" Americans or white Americans or what?
And why do so many fear the end of civilization in case of open borders? It does read a bit like:
The first and most obvious effect, would be to put an end to the cultivation of our great Southern staple. And what would be the effect of putting an end to the cultivation of these staples, and thus annihilating, at a blow, two-thirds or three-fourths of our foreign commerce? Can any sane mind contemplate such a result without terror? I speak not of the utter poverty and misery to which we ourselves would be reduced, and the desolation which would overspread our own portion of the country.
Becky,
I do not condone illegal immigration; rather, I condemn it. I also condemn sanctuary cities, municipal day labor shelters for illegals, states which issue drivers licenses to illegals and CA cities which demand that Home Depot build a day labor shelter in their parking lot because the illegals have chosen to stand there waiting to be picked up.
The US federal government should provide potential employers with blind online access to the Social Security and Green card databases; and, require that they compare the name, age, sex and card number supplied by applicants with the database, which would provide a yes/no response. No match - no job. Violators WILL be prosecuted.
Also, cities which provide day labor shelters should be responsible for checking papers before allowing the laborers to be picked up.
That should be about enough to begin resolving the problem.
Your pro-illegal immigration stance is not one to admire or pardon. You just flick away jobs as 'uneconomical' for Americans to do, and include those jobs that we've done for years, even generations.
One category in particular that you mention is construction. That is such total BS. I don't know what your experience in construction is, but I've had years of it. To whit:
Fifteen years ago the unskilled laborer made 14-17 dollars an hour on large construction jobs I was involved in. Heavy equipment operators made 35 an hour and welders 60 an hour. Last year the unskilled laborers working in Las Vegas were making 10-12 dollars an hour (this is not adjusted for inflation, but real dollars ala 2006). Up until four years ago, these positions were paying 17-20 dollars an hour. The only difference was that now the crews were about 85% Hispanic, almost none of who speak English, and over half freely admitted to being illegal (this was before the current, laughable 'crackdown'). The Superintendent on the job had over 50 people working for him and said he was making an extra $10,000 a month for his boss, because they didn't charge less to build the house, just pocketed the extra money they made by hiring illegals at this outrageously high wage (of 10-12 USD per hour).
So, in this case (and I can relate dozens of others) the American consumer didn't get his project cheaper, but the builder (large business) made more money. Of course, it also meant that the number of Americans who worked at these former high-paying (as in, could live on it) jobs, no longer were hired because the owners would rather pay people cheaper. Kind of like our own Chinese-slave labour group.
Liberalrob - you believe in what President Bush is doing...and I'd have never thought you to be someone who supports the President.
He also wants to spend American taxpayer money in providing for infrastructure improvements in Mexico. He wants to make it so Mexicans can work in the US by taking jobs that Americans are doing now. An example? - Mexican truckers being able to work in the US using Mexican drivers licenses, driving loads anywhere in the USA or Canada, working for much less, because they cost of living is less in Mexico, and in the meantime it puts American truck owner-operators out of business. But it's just the free market.
Our President isn't really a free marketeer, he's more like what you exemplify, a big government totalitarian that doesn't give a rip what the American citizens of this country want.
Hugo, you sound like a raving lunatic. Even if there were Democracy ensconced everywhere in the world, that is still no reason to have open borders.
First of all a Democratic Republic is by far the better situation, politically, than to have a dictatorship of the people. It is way too easy now, in Latin America and other places with huge numbers of uneducated people, to be manipulated by propagandists employed by politicians. It happens all the time around the world, not just in Mexico and other Latin American countries. Heck, even Brazil is touted to be one of the more advanced countries there, and they have a man for president who has been mired in 10 times more graft and stupidity than the present President here.
Yes, the USA will become Latinized, but since you seem to agree, and don't have much in the way of gratitude towards the US in your heart, you don't really care. Many legal immigrants who don't root for Mexico's soccer team while booing the American team tehy play, who boo and heckle Miss USA in Mexico, who display signs showing a Mexican pissing on the letters 'USA' proudly displayed on his truck...these are the people who represent what many from Mexico think of the US.
And we sure aren't buying your line of BS, either.
Hugo,
Who is talking about getting rid of Law and Culture? You are.
We have an array of social rules to protect workers, and businesses. One can bypass those, and use illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens by their very nature help destroy Law, as well.
You support Open Borders. Thus that which is exceptional and fine in America would get swamped in a sea of immorality. There are a number of social habits: 1)A wide area of trust 2)generally high levels of honesty 3)non-maniacal drivers 4)And it goes on and on... These social habits form the Culture. When you stay on your side of the road, when you don't beat your wife with a stick, when you protest very loudly and actively against paying a bribe to a cop...you are helping all Americans.
**Tis the custom in Mexico when a cop stops you to roll down the window part way, and put the license on the inside of the glass window so that the cop can see it through the window. This is to spare you from having to bribe the cop to give your license back.
It takes generations of effort and much moral reform, and heroism to produce an America. Its much easier to produce a Mexico which is a poor nation run by corrupt scum who use oil, and money sent back from America to keep their grip on power.
You can obliquely call me a racist as you did. Shrug. Those Mexicans, if slowly integrated and assimilated could become not just fully American which requires the acceptance of a list of ideas, but think like Americans across the board. They could become one more element added to the melting pot. Its not race, its culture. When you expect to bribe a policeman to stay away from your street, you damage America.
Megan: "In an ideal world, of course, women and men would take equal responsibility for the household."
Those aren't the ideals I hold.
In an ideal world, a couple would divide labor based upon peer to peer negotiations (in the abstract sense), where a division of labor may not be equal in space or time or deed. By predefining the ideal, you limit the individuals and the emergent union in their respective pursuit of happiness.
The feminist abstraction of the traditional family makes valid points. Structural power issues may exist, and pointing them out is legitimate. But the notion has been taken too far when the corrective ideal necessarily limits the freedom of individuals. The fact is that individuals enjoy different tasks to different extents, thank God, and they should not be prevented from forming a complex that maximizes their collective (family) wealth creation just because of some feminist theory.
As far as the argument that immigrant labor fills in for the jobs women don't want to do, I think you make a legitimate point, but it doesn't hold up when you step back and take a broader view. Those jobs are still being done by people, often women, who are now not at home with their own children, and yet make insufficient money to outsource those same tasks they are paid for, and so perform them twice.
I have no doubt you are well intentioned, but a quick delve into Marxian analysis (not my prefered viewport, let me tell you), demonstrates your argument as a dominant class searching for a rational to pass off labor to a subservient underclass.
Lastly, your economic points are all wet, so to speak. The core problem that needs to be dealt with is that cheap immigrant labor costs us more than the value of the labor. While moral obligations (and the ideals of a Democratic Republic) require societal support of such native low performers, there is certainly no reason to import more of them.
I suggest moving away from your current framework and taking a Liberty view of the system instead. Liberty has the significant advantage of internal consistency.
Regards,
Josh Davenport
Ed Reid - I reread my post and did indeed imply that "you" support illegal immigration. But I meant the "collective you". :-)
I agree that those measure would be a great start. It seems a bizzaro world to me that we have come to the point where we just accept a shadow underclass, unprotected by law, to do our laundry or as Josh Davenport well said above, accepting illegal immigration "demonstrates your argument as a dominant class searching for a rational to pass off labor to a subservient underclass."
Slice it, dice it any way you want to. In the end, it is simply morally wrong.
beneficial tennwriter
I am sorry but there is a misunderstanding... i did not call you a racist? but more importantly:
When referring to "opening the borders" - I mean the same as we do when we speak of "free-trade"..
No more entry-barriers! NO MORE ILLEGALS because every and anyone would be naturalized.. you know - like 100 years ago or 200 years ago or 300 years ago.. you know - when all the uneducated "criminals" were pouring in from Europe and when the US Constitution was established and improved, etc.
If you had read my posts - I am for more legalization of illegals and better guest-worker or immigrant laws as a so called "2nd best policy"? I just wanted for somebody to answer the question:
What "would" happen if we opened the border - what would happen if we offered everybody who can flee a dictatorship a free and immediate citizenship? it is BTW a wrong assumption IMO that "only" uneducated criminals would pour in... Knowledge workers as well as eg construction workers? You claim that we would be latinized? You describe the same apocalypse as the slave owner of the South? The end of democracy, the end of culture and law...
a bit like California? (where Silicon Valley is 60% immigrants and low labour 70%? where more than 50% have another mother language than English, where the senator is a bodybuilder who cannot be understood when he opens his mouth.. does Arnie speak English or Spanish?)
You do understand that Beverly Hills must be aware of what goes on in LA? You are right and we agree that Beverly Hills has more to lose than West-Central.. you are right that democracy is better than dictatorship and that legal conduct can be better than criminal one (when have i ever disputed this)? But i am not sure that the ghetto approach that I understand you are suggesting is a sustainable long-term solution?
I am convinced I have the same goals as yourself! Strengthening democracy and free economies worldwide. And America as a leader should, in my book, not devolve only because it acquires more "customers"..?
It is NOT that anybody here supports "illegal action" or is pro-slavery. Quite the contrary - we are openly asking how to avoid this problem?
It seems there are two paths to get rid of "illegals":
If you are pro-closed border there are obvious implications of CONTINUED illegality and distorted economics... we all seem to agree on the pros and cons here?
If you are pro-opening-up (everyone gets US rights) there are other implications which have not been analysed and discussed in depth so far.. without ANY arguments people claim that it will be mayhem and the end of civilisation.. please elaborate so that I can follow and understand your reasoning.. this is all - no name calling - no pro-slavery.. just genuine interest in understanding all aspects of the equation?
(I was in Europe when the EU diminished its borders... the fear among the people was enormous. Everybody knew how many poor and uneducated Europeans there are in South Spain, South Italy, South Greece.. many assumed that the poorest will immediately move to the richest areas.. not only did this not happen but the EU - as posted before had to find incentives for immigrants to come into Europe and safe their aging population from not being able to produce enough for pensions, etc.)
Cheers and I await your argument for dooms-day!?
Americans can buy goods from Walmart cheaply because its prices are low. However, its prices are low because it pays its workers badly. This is bad.
Americans can buy goods from employers who hire illegal aliens because their prices are low. However, their prices are low because they pay their workers badly. This is good.
There is no argument you can make in favor of illegal immigrant labor that you cannot make on behalf of child labor (which keeps prices low, and enables the rest of us to do other, more higher-paying jobs) or of union-busting (which keeps prices low, and enables the rest of us to do other, more higher-paying jobs). People have rightly complained that American companies send jobs overseas so that they can be done by underpaid foreigners. How is that different from importing underpaid foreigners to do such jobs
here?
Variations of Ms. McArdle's arguments have in fact been used to justify slavery. Picking cotton is hard work - slaves do it very cheaply - if they do the picking, we don't have to pay free men to do it - We couldn't be doctors and lawyers and professors if we had to do the picking ourselves, etc. down to the notion that "they're better off than they would be back where they come from". If we are willing to create a new oppressed class just to avoid spending time with our kids, then let's just say so and be done with it.
A main factor that many forgets is that there is a difference in the exchange rates in most countries. For example, yesterday I bought three pounds of fillet mignon, the most expensive beef, for 30 reais, that accounts for something like 15 dollars. That´s slightly the same price of 5 lattes on a Starbucks café. And that´s because the dollar is cheaper than usually it used to be.
Many illegals aren´t being exploited. And many of them would work in the US and invest these money on Mexico if weren´t for immigration controls.
"Heck, even Brazil is touted to be one of the more advanced countries there, and they have a man for president who has been mired in 10 times more graft and stupidity than the present President here."
Err, Brazil has it´s problems(I live there), but although I´m not a Fan of Lula, he is not stupidity. At least we don´t have presidential elections being decided by the Supreme Court.
"Variations of Ms. McArdle's arguments have in fact been used to justify slavery"
BS. Slavery forced people to do some kind of work. On immigration, no one is forced to nothing, and most illegal immigrants have better lifestyle than they had in their original countries.
And, c´mon, people. In Brazil the minimum wage is something about 150 dollars, and most employers don´t pay that for their workers. You don´t compete in the internationl market paying 2,000 dollars for garderners or people that pick fruits...
There are really several different issues here:
1. "Illegals compete unfairly against US labour because they don't pay taxes." This isn't an illegal immigrant issue at all - it's a black market cash economy question. Illegal immigrants who are employed on the books, with fake documents, will have taxes withheld like everyone else. Day labourers that are paid cash in hand? I'm sure nobody is reporting their income. I'm equally sure that there is rather less than stellar reporting of, say, babysitting wages for college kids.
2. "Illegals depress the price of unskilled labour." Yes, of course, and everything that that implies (availability of cheap labour reduces capital investment in mechanisation etc.) The argument that we should keep out immigrants because they will work for less money than Americans is a variant of the union argument that, say, employing a bunch of college students to unload a truck is stealing food from the mouths of the babies of good union teamsters. Now, it may well be reasonable for a cartel of American workers to inflate their value by keeping out cheap foreign competition, but let's be clear - no such action is in the interest of the "poor exploited immigrant".
3. "Illegals are exploited." Yes, this happens. People are certainly smuggled in to rich countries, have their papers stolen, and are forced to work as prostitutes or labourers for little or no money. It happens, and it is slavery.
The average illegal is rather different, though. The average illegal may well work long hours for not much money, and may well be afraid to ask for better pay in fear of being deported, but he is free. He choses to stay because, low paid though he may be, he still earns much more than he did in Mexico (or wherever). That's not exploitation.
4. "Illegals are a drain on the local hospitals." This is a property of all low-paid workers without medical insurance - not just those who are here illegally. In as much as illegal immigration increases the supply of low-paid workers, it makes the problem worse.
5. "Illegals form ghettos and don't integrate." Again, this isn't unique to illegal immigrants. Chinatown is full of perfectly legal immigrants of Chinese origin. It is fair to say that being an illegal immigrant will make you less likely to trust "outsiders", so the illegal aspect can't help, but it doesn't make that much difference. Every major city has an area that is pretty much exclusively populated by poor African-Americans. That's a ghetto too - it just happens to be full of citizens.
6. "Illegals are illegal. They shouldn't break the law." Well, yes. The rule of law is important - but laws should both be reasonable and be enforced. Oral sex is still technically illegal in several states (although a conviction now probably wouldn't survive the supreme court). When a law is routinely not enforced, we shouldn't be surprised when people break it.
7. "I believe in social justice, and importing these illegals is stealing money from America's poor to give to the rich." This is arguable (eg. thePilot's example of construction workers) but only if you exclude the immigrants themselves from your consideration. If you want to bandy lofty ideals of social justice around, it's hard to argue that they don't apply to Mexicans. Let's be honest here, and realise that most of the arguments from both the pro- and anti-immigration camps are rooted in naked self-interest.
8. "There is no argument you can make in favor of illegal immigrant labor that you cannot make on behalf of child labor." There is precisely one argument. We as a society believe that children should be cherished and educated rather than being exploited as slaves of their parents. We believe there is a net benefit to society to have educated children growing to adulthood. We support this by providing free education to children, and by preventing them from being sent up chimneys and down mines. Immigrant labourers, whether illegal or not, are adults, and are free to make their own choices.
It should be clear to everyone that the current system is untenable. We simply cannot have what is effectively large-scale sanctioned law-breaking. If the rule of law is to have any meaning, the situation must be resolved. The problem, of course, is that half the country wants to let all the illegal immigrants stay legally, and the other half wants to round them up and ship them to Tijuana in cattle trucks.
My solution? I am, in general, in favour of free immigration (as a perfectly legal immigrant, I'd be hard pressed to claim that immigration per se was bad). Yes, economic migration will tend to average out the worldwide wage paid for a particular class of labour, which is a bad thing if you happen to be a construction worker who is faced with cheap Mexican competition, or a programmer competing against Indians. On average, people will gain, though.
I would allow completely free immigration, on the following terms:
1. All immigrants deposit a bond with the INS that will purchase a plane ticket back to their home country.
2. No immigrant will have access to public welfare (food stamps, medicaid, EITC, etc.) - if you come here, you had better be self-supporting and not want to live off the taxpayer.
3. At any point, an immigrant may move to another country and reclaim his bond from the INS. Should he do so, he is free to re-immigrate at a later date.
4. An immigrant convicted of a felony will be deported. He forfeits his bond, and will not be permitted to re-immigrate.
5. We won't let you die on the street. If you need emergency medical treatment and can't afford it, it will be provided. We'll give you a year to pay your debt, and if you can't afford it, we'll deport you. Pay the debt at a future date, and you become eligible for re-immigration.
6. Show 5 consecutive years of tax returns, each showing that you have paid at least, say, $2000 in taxes, and you're eligible to take a citizenship test. Minors become citizens along with their parents. Adults who immigrated as children may count their parents' taxes for years in which they were still minors. You may ignore years during which you were in full-time education for the 5 consecutive years requirement.
7. Anyone currently present in the country illegally will also be permitted to take part in the program. On the introduction of this system, there will be a three month grace period, during which illegal aliens may declare themselves, pay their bonds to the INS and start at the beginning. You can't count tax years in which you were an illegal alien towards the 5 year rule. There will be a limited amnesty - you won't be prosecuted for crimes that are directly related to your illegal status (eg. using a false SSN) although you must correct that within the 3 month grace period. After the 3 months is up, start deporting in earnest.
8. End automatic citizenship for people born on US soil. As it only takes 5 years of paying taxes for you and your children to become citizens, this isn't necessary.
Hugo,
Well okay, then I retract my complaint.
I think your understanding of history of the Colonial Era is a bit flawed he said gently understating things.
There are three known ways to turn a citizen of a barbaric culture into a citizen of an advanced society.
1)Immigrate and Melting Pot. You usually take the best citizens, make them sweat and suffer for years, and sometimes risk life and limb, and you only allow in a few. This number goes up and down in cycles of arrival and subsequent assimilation.
2)The English method, sui generis, 'an English constitution is like an English lawn, both require centuries'. The English were one of God's miracles. Nobody wants to wait five centuries for some of the hellholes of the world to straighten themselves out, if they can.
3)Burn a few cities to ash and impose civilization. See Germany and Japan. Also see Roman imperialism. It works, it really does, but the idea of 'everyone in this town will obey the law. Because those who don't will die, and dead men are very law abiding' is about as extreme and unlikely to happen in the next decade as your plan.
4)We're trying another method in Iraq now. Hopefully it works out. You might say what we're doing is similar to Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, or Francisco Franco in Spain. Suppress the wicked relatively politely, and give democracy a chance to flower.
But see how hard and expensive Iraq is. Even if it works, and I think it will, its still very difficult. You're supporting the creation of many Iraq's in the US. As stable and rich as we are, we aren't that stable and that rich. Plus many of our elites are hollow men. In a true storm, they'd break.
Tenn
There are three known ways to turn a citizen of a barbaric culture into a citizen of an advanced society.
why do you assume that one has to turn a citizen of a barbaric culture into something new? My parents and I fled a barbaric culture (Stalin) but needed no special adjustment once we reached democracy and individual rights?
1)Immigrate and Melting Pot. You usually take the best citizens, make them sweat and suffer for years, and sometimes risk life and limb, and you only allow in a few. This number goes up and down in cycles of arrival and subsequent assimilation.
What are the best. The US for example has been build by many many uneducated people (partly criminal) who nobody wanted to employ in their home countries? Not all - but many?
2)The English method, sui generis, 'an English constitution is like an English lawn, both require centuries'. The English were one of God's miracles. Nobody wants to wait five centuries for some of the hellholes of the world to straighten themselves out, if they can.
Here you lose me? what was it with the English? I tell you what - they were stuck in the middle-ages for thousands of years. Then one of them found a drawing of a Greek dude called Hero - who had invented the Engine 1700 years ago.. that was all (or most of it)? Yes - Renaissance - no more God and oppression of individuals and funky ideas come to light..
3)Burn a few cities to ash and impose civilization. See Germany and Japan. Also see Roman imperialism. It works, it really does, but the idea of 'everyone in this town will obey the law. Because those who don't will die, and dead men are very law abiding' is about as extreme and unlikely to happen in the next decade as your plan...
i have NO idea what topic we are discussing anymore (not even going into the rest of your text)? what is the difference in socio-economic terms for US citizens in case we practise an open rather than a closed economy? what you are know referring to is absurd.. I indulge in your distractions but what is next on the menu so that you can ignore the core? Zeus and his favorite sex position??
to be frank - I think that you are a tad.. elevated (is that good, harmless word)? let us stick to improving US citizen lives.. what is best for them? open or close...
what would happen if we stick to what we have practised for 400 years - why stop NOW and change what it means to be an American and hence America.. Was America not great - growing into what it is today? Why change that by becoming closed protectionists? Please, ANYBODY, tell me!!!
I'll tell you, Hugo.
It's not about protectionism, it's about Sovereignty, without which there is no Liberty.
We have massive iinterstate commerce, which is one of the primary forces binding us (the individual states) into the Union. Distorsions or problems in interstate commerce are corrected by the Federal Congresses commerce clause power.
While it is nice to fly a free market theory, even Milton Friedman would be the first to tell you that one of the two primary enemies of free markets is Big Business. We a have nice solid free market system in the US. The markets are relatively free because individual states wish expand there internal markets outward to other states in the union, but don't want the other 49 states to expand there markets into their own political territory. They try to maximize their own power.
But the value of expanding the market to the other 49 states is always worth more than the protectionism of the individual state. So the system works toward creating and maintaining free markets. Sure, it's choppy, but that is the tendency.
Unfortunatly, most Nation-States in the world don't have this internal configuration (and we are messing ours up. BTW, by abondoning enumerated powers). Inside most foreign states, their is not the same internal competitiion maintaining free markets. A large part of the free market infrastructure of the WORLD is held up by our internal competition.
When we let labor freely cross our border, and let our monster size big business move into Mexico, those big business are able to now play both sides of the coin. This is the trans-national problem. Basically, the big business tries to form a monopoly by playing the weaker state (Mexico), which does not have internal support for free markets, against the dominant state (the US).
By allowing labor to freely pass across the border, we undermine both ourselves and Mexico. It is this basic dynamic that is the problem with th US right now.
The left tends to see the problem from one side, and the libertarian right tends to see the problem from the other side, but its really the same problem.
Free markets are mainained by a quality State. Without a quality State, their are no free markets.
The problem with the libertarian view of markets is that the entire notion is reduced to Labor and Capital. In case you didn't notice, this is the same abstraction at the root of Marxism.
Marxism and Fascism are the exact same structure, sold to people by two different means. Third way socialism is just Fascism Lite. The entirety of the human experience cannot be productivley reduced to the simple bifurcation of Labor and Capital.
A Constitutional Republic can not exist within a system that is reduced to merely Labor and Captial. While it is true that there is a market Nash equilibrium pulling labor across the border, the primary problem is that Big Business and Big Government both want labor to flow freely because it maximizes their power at our expense.
If we continue along our current course, we will not recieve the bennefits of a free market because a free market does not exist without Liberty.
The ratio of international trade to interstate trade must be kept in reasonable balance, or the internation trade will consume our Liberty.
Sorry about the spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm at work and writing fast.
jdavenport
do not worry about the spelling and grammar -look at my own. I am also always at work and always typing fast.. and on top of it - English is not my mother tongue..
I grew up under what you refer to Marxisms (Eastern Europe). My parents risked their lives to reach democracy and free markets - and I know the difference between those to my bone! And I also know the difference between the economics of scale of "big business" (and its social-economic costs) and say the distortions of plan-economics and state (not natural) monopolies...
but I am afraid - little that you have said makes sense to me! For example:
Big Business is already in Mexico and in every other country in the World. Did you know that when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the Moon - he found a coke machine there? Illegal immigrants (by the millions ARE already in the US..)
Your analogy to the nation taking care of free economics in and between the states is nice... what is the difference between that and say NAFTA?
Free markets are maintained by a quality State. Without a quality State, their are no free markets.
What is a quality Sate and why would it crumble if we opened the borders? WE would only voluntarily open the border is we see an advantage for US?
You too seem to believe that law and culture will disappear - but I think that most immigrants come to the US BECAUSE of that.. because of law, culture (who does not love Transformers?), wealth and stability.. those immigrants usually fight for those values more than the bored kid in orange county?
REAL story:
When I was young - my family fled from an oppressive communist regime to Europe.. made enough money to send my sister and myself to Ivy league universities where we studied law (Harvard) and economics (London School of Econics). I went on to start a company in Silicon Valley (moving with my some talented Eastern European programmers). We even brought VC money from Europe to the US (and raised some later from Chinese sources as well). Here - we worked for years for less than the average.. while employing illegal immigrants from the Philippines to clean the house and Mexicans to do the garden... whenever i was in need of some special herbs - my Mexican friends would bring me some of their organic imports... (this is all a true story)
Explain to me - again - as you would to a child.. why would the quality State crumble if I were not to spend weeks/months and too many dollars on bureaucracy? what would happen if you made the existing illegals that we employed legal and also their special imports? why not make future immigrants legal? why not allow ANYBODY to enter? US culture is not difficult to learn, appreciate and live? Don't we want more America if we believe it is good and not less?
Invading a closed country far away and imposing your values in less than 10-15 years is tricky... it would be easier (and economical beneficial vs costly) to work with those waiting outside the borders and who volunteer to be "assimilated"... don't forget dear Beverly Hills - LA is out there... you will have peace if you shut yourself up for a while.. but you do not produce your movies in Beverly Hills.. the consumers are not here either...
Hugo, thanks for the response.
As far as you not understanding a lot of what I wrote, the fault is mine for the quick writing. I don't have time to remedy that now, but I will try to do a full response tonight.
Just a few quick points.
1) NAFTA created a structural problem. I'm not saying it didn't open markets in both directions, but if we are not careful, those markets will collapse. I'll explain why I believe that more fully later. The basic problem is that trade issues are resolved by an international court, which short circuits the representative process.
2) NAFTA was passed without popular support. The advantage to US is not currently being calculated by The People, but instead policy is being decided where it is an advantage to an elite class. This is a change in America from the past, where the advantage position for the American People as a whole was mostly algined with the advantage position for American high power.
The key to mainainting Liberty long term is to keep the advantage position for high power the same as the advantage position for the rest of us.
3) Most immigrants come to the US because of the benefits of our Law and Culture. That doesn't mean they understand that the benefits are due to our Law and Culture. The comprehensive immigration bill that was before the Senate would have brought in 40 million new Americans in 20 years. That is a far greater rate and percentage than at any time in our history, and there is less space to absorb those people.
As far as the money you spend on the Federal Bureaucracy, if we leave things on their current path, expect to pay a lot more.
You are obviously a smart guy and will be able to understand my points if I express them well. Again, I will try to do better this evening.
Until then, check out the 17th amendment, and look at the growth of the federal bureaucracy that followed. If you understand why the 17th amendment caused that, then you will understand what I have to say later.
Let me repeat that: Go look up the 17th amendment on wiki and study it until you understand what it did. It changes how power is calculated in a fundamental way.
Regards,
Josh Davenport
Hugo, I posted a response, but it didn't show up.
I have something I wish to show you. A graphic.
josh dot davenport at verizon dot net
"Because, well, it is slavery."
This is a joke and you're a troll, right?
People are braving the Arizona desert for the chance to work here in America and you're calling it "slavery" ... geez, what an insult to those past and present who truly suffered as slaves!
You're like those disgusting activists who keep trying to define down the word "Holocaust" so they can really stick it to things like fur coats and second-hand smoke. Shame on you!
You're also infantilizing the very people you're presumably trying to "save". If illegals weren't getting the best deal they could they'd go elsewhere -- or more to the point they'd stay home. Nowhere in Africa did free men beg to be chained aboard the slave ships and taken to a better life in the Confederacy.