What price labor?

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.

Comments

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.

Posted by Half Canadian | August 27, 2007 12:05 PM

"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.

Posted by Justin | August 27, 2007 12:13 PM

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).

Posted by Rex | August 27, 2007 12:21 PM

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...

Posted by D | August 27, 2007 12:32 PM

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.

Posted by liberalrob | August 27, 2007 12:38 PM

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.

Posted by LizardBreath | August 27, 2007 12:40 PM

>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.

Posted by Matt B | August 27, 2007 12:43 PM

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.

Posted by Amy P | August 27, 2007 12:43 PM

"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.

Posted by Cerro | August 27, 2007 12:51 PM

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.

Posted by Henry | August 27, 2007 12:54 PM

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.

Posted by benp | August 27, 2007 12:56 PM

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.

Posted by LizardBreath | August 27, 2007 1:03 PM

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.

Posted by benp | August 27, 2007 1:03 PM

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?)

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 27, 2007 1:05 PM

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.

Posted by liberalrob | August 27, 2007 1:14 PM

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.

Posted by Henry | August 27, 2007 1:34 PM

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.

Posted by JSinger | August 27, 2007 1:41 PM

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?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 27, 2007 1:46 PM

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.

Posted by MikeT | August 27, 2007 2:03 PM

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/6944.html#comments

Posted by John B | August 27, 2007 2:22 PM

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.

Posted by Duncan Brown | August 27, 2007 2:27 PM

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?

Posted by Tom Kelly | August 27, 2007 2:56 PM

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.

Posted by Cerro | August 27, 2007 2:58 PM

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?

Posted by Cerro | August 27, 2007 3:02 PM

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.

Posted by liberalrob | August 27, 2007 3:25 PM

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.

Posted by Amy P | August 27, 2007 3:31 PM

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.

Posted by liberalrob | August 27, 2007 3:45 PM

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.

Posted by liberalrob | August 27, 2007 4:06 PM

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?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 27, 2007 4:06 PM

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.

Posted by spencer | August 27, 2007 4:06 PM

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!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 27, 2007 4:14 PM

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.

Posted by Tom Kelly | August 27, 2007 4:25 PM

Tom

Are you suggesting a guest-worker program now or what?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 27, 2007 4:30 PM

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.

Posted by sam | August 27, 2007 4:36 PM

"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.

Posted by sam | August 27, 2007 4:37 PM

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.

Posted by T | August 27, 2007 4:59 PM

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.

Posted by dalea | August 27, 2007 5:04 PM

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.

Posted by Cerro | August 27, 2007 5:13 PM

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.

Posted by Immoralist | August 27, 2007 5:14 PM

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?

Posted by tom | August 27, 2007 5:18 PM

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.

Posted by Mike | August 27, 2007 5:23 PM

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.

Posted by Ed Reid | August 27, 2007 5:43 PM

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.

Posted by liberalrob | August 27, 2007 5:47 PM

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?

Posted by Tom Kelly | August 27, 2007 5:47 PM

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

Posted by don johnson | August 27, 2007 6:00 PM

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.

Posted by Becky | August 27, 2007 6:05 PM

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.

Posted by accountant | August 27, 2007 6:10 PM

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?

Posted by Immoralist | August 27, 2007 6:22 PM

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.

Posted by Stan Smith | August 27, 2007 6:24 PM

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.

Posted by The Raging Patriot | August 27, 2007 6:34 PM

"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.

Posted by BP | August 27, 2007 6:36 PM

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.

Posted by Becky | August 27, 2007 6:37 PM

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.

Posted by Jay | August 27, 2007 6:37 PM

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.

Posted by Big D | August 27, 2007 6:37 PM

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.

Posted by A.W. | August 27, 2007 6:41 PM

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.

Posted by Tom Kelly | August 27, 2007 6:43 PM

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.

Posted by Michael in Seattle | August 27, 2007 6:43 PM

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?

Posted by holdfast | August 27, 2007 6:45 PM

"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?

Posted by Becky | August 27, 2007 6:51 PM

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...

Posted by Hugo | August 27, 2007 6:52 PM

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/

Posted by Muggins | August 27, 2007 6:55 PM

"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.

Posted by Erika | August 27, 2007 6:57 PM

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.

Posted by Becky | August 27, 2007 6:57 PM

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.

Posted by Tom Kelly | August 27, 2007 6:59 PM

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...

Posted by RMc | August 27, 2007 7:06 PM

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.

Posted by Suzy | August 27, 2007 7:14 PM

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?

Posted by Bob in Texas | August 27, 2007 7:24 PM

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)

Posted by Becky | August 27, 2007 7:37 PM

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.

Posted by Becky | August 27, 2007 7:53 PM

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.

Posted by Ed Reid | August 27, 2007 7:55 PM