Thomas Sowell makes a good point: “‘Cheap labor’ can turn out to be the most expensive labor this country has ever had.”
… Amnesty would mean, for many illegal immigrants, that they would not merely have the same rights as American citizens, but special privileges as well.
Affirmative action laws and policies already apply to some immigrants. Members of a multimillionaire Cuban family have already received government contracts set aside for minority businesses. During one period, an absolute majority of the money paid to construction companies in D.C. went to Portuguese businessmen under the same preferences.
Immigrant members of Latino, Asian or other minority groups are legally entitled to the same preferential benefits accorded native-born members of minority groups.
The moment they set foot on American soil, they are entitled to receive benefits created originally with the rationale of compensating for the injustices minorities had suffered in this country.
The illegal status of many “undocumented workers” can at least make them reluctant to claim these privileges. But, take away the illegality and they become not only equal to American citizens, but more than equal.
Preferential access to jobs, government contracts and college admissions are among the many welfare state benefits that add to the costs of immigrants not paid by employers of “cheap labor” but by the general public in taxes and other ways.
Even when illegal immigrants do not claim preferential treatment, employers are still under pressure to hire according to the demographic composition of the local labor force, which includes these “undocumented workers.” Employers are subject to legal penalties if the ethnic composition of their employees deviates much from the ethnic composition of the population.
I would think the bigger costs will be:
1) earned-income credit
2) workmans comp, disability, etc.
3) eventual social security benefits in excess of contributions
All of these “programs” take from high income people, including many legal immigrants, and give to low income people. Most current illegals will stay at the low end because they are uneducated and tend to stay that way, which will mitigate the effects of AA.
Wow. a wingnut learns about externalities. Next thing you know he’ll be proposing we regulate the market for labor.
But this is a nice new argument against regularization.
“Employers are subject to legal penalties if the ethnic composition of their employees deviates much from the ethnic composition of the population.”
For real?
Good article, as is usual from Sowell.
Also, how long do people really think it will take for illegals declared legal to unionize and promptly push labor costs sky high? We will then need millions more illegals to do the work that legalized (and unionized) illegals refuse to do.
And we’ll have another amnesty in twenty years? I do not see how we avoid it.
This isn’t an economic boon that the two main political parties are pushing (the “jobs Americans won’t do” trash); it’s a voting demographic that they are fighting over. The Republicans will make themselves Whigs if they don’t secure our borders and national security against invasion NOW.
“Also, how long do people really think it will take for illegals declared legal to unionize and promptly push labor costs sky high?”
Thats the entire point of regularizing them: to raise their standard of living.
Thats the entire point of regularizing them: to raise their standard of living.
Oh. Well, if that’s the point, why wait ’till the last minute? Why not just send the money directly to them in Mexico?
“Oh. Well, if that’s the point, why wait ’till the last minute? Why not just send the money directly to them in Mexico?”
Like with NAFTA?
But most people distinguish between just sending money to people abroad and paying well organized workers good wages and benefits.
“Thats the entire point of regularizing them: to raise their standard of living.”
In which case the argument that they are needed for cheap labor that Americans won’t do is shot. That was my point: The cycle simply begins again anew.
“That was my point: The cycle simply begins again anew.”
And the result is more and more people moving into better and better payed positions with better quality of life.
Whats the problem again?
actus,
And the result is more and more people moving into better and better paid positions with better quality of life.
What’s the problem again?
Well, the problem, as I see it, is that if the result of amnesty or something similar is largely increased wages and a greater quality of life, it’s unfortunate that it will fall, in theory (I think Federal Dog’s prediction is the more likely course) to those who jumped the turnstile, rather than to citizens who would’ve done the work all along if the increased wages you’re anticipating were real. Sorry, but it is not our responsibility to increase the standard of living of foreign nationals , and particularly not our responsibility to increase the standard of living of just that subset of foreign nationals who have proven that they don’t mind breaking the odd law. It would make more sense to offer expedited immigration treatment, and if possible ready work, to whatever sorry-but-lawful souls are currently waiting to immigrate legally from Latin America and elsewhere, and enforce the law properly against anyone who hires anyone else.
“. Sorry, but it is not our responsibility to increase the standard of living of foreign nationals ”
Well, them being citizens takes care of that. But what makes you say its a question of responsibility or of us raising their wages? They’re the ones that will organize and work, they’re the ones that will demand their lawful rights once their status is regularized.
actus,
They’re the ones that will organize and work, they’re the ones that will demand their lawful rights once their status is regularized.
Whereas merely enforcing the existing law stringently, and making certain that workers are legally permitted to work in this country, would not provoke the same response from citizens? Assuming that labor organization and higher wages would be the result of an all-legal workforce (I doubt it would, but let’s assume it arguendo), wouldn’t it be preferable for the better conditions not to accrue to people we positively know don’t much mind violating US law?
They’re the ones that will organize and work, they’re the ones that will demand their lawful rights once their status is regularized.
You mean, once their illegal acts are converted into a benefit that many others are patiently waiting for outside this country, possibly out of some foolish notion that the best way to become a citizen of another nation isn’t to begin by breaking its law.
I think many, if not most, illegal immigrants are doing, by their own lights, the best they can do for themselves and their families. That’s why I’m serious about my proposal above: Cut off employment of illegal immigrants as much as humanly possible, and at the same time offer expedited visas to all the folks who were innocent, or virtuous, enough actually to apply for citizenship before assuming its privileges.
“Whereas merely enforcing the existing law stringently, and making certain that workers are legally permitted to work in this country, would not provoke the same response from citizens?”
No, because as many people aren’t moving from lower wages in the third world to better and better standards of living here. In order for that to be happening, they have to be coming in.
“You mean, once their illegal acts are converted into a benefit that many others are patiently waiting for outside this country, possibly out of some foolish notion that the best way to become a citizen of another nation isn’t to begin by breaking its law.”
Possibly. Or possibly out of a foolish notion that its not worthwhile. Or possibly out of the idea that they weren’t lucky enough to be born somewhere like hte US, or somewhere like mexico.
actus,
No, because as many people aren’t moving from lower wages in the third world to better and better standards of living here. In order for that to be happening, they have to be coming in.
I am not really following you here. Do you mean that it’s because Third World immigrants are poor that they will be especially eager to organize? I see no reason that should be so. Indeed, you’d think a vast increase in your standard of living would encourage gratitude towards your employer, not an immediate demand for even better conditions.
Or do you mean that the net human benefit is greater because the illegal immigrants you’d legalize are coming from harsher circumstances? In that case, “outsourcing” of stuff like programming is an unmitigated good. The worker in India or Pakistan sees a great increase in his standard of living, the now out-of-work programmer who takes a job in a supermarket is still making more than the Indian probably is; and the software is cheaper. What’s not to like?
Possibly. Or possibly out of a foolish notion that its not worthwhile.
Um, I was talking about people who have applied to immigrate and are waiting in line. Presumably such people think moving here is “worthwhile.” Or is your point that they didn’t think coming in illegally was “worthwhile”? If so, good for them.
Or possibly out of the idea that they weren’t lucky enough to be born somewhere like the US, or somewhere like mexico.
Well, I suppose people born in the US would indeed find some difficulty in trying to immigrate to the US. Not quite sure what it was you were attempting to say there. About Mexico, I assume you mean that a long land border, sparsely policed, is kind of an advantage to anyone trying to enter a country illegally. And yet there are even Mexicans trying to immigrate here legally! I think amnesty/legalization for those here illegally, from all nations, should follow, not precede, the current waiting lists for immigration for each nation being emptied. No Mexican national who is here illegally ought to have a chance at citizenship until every Mexican national who has obeyed our law has had a chance first, and similarly with other nations.
And simultaneously, hiring people you know to be illegally here is an offense that honestly should be taken seriously. The farce of Clinton’s attempt to find a female AG who hadn’t actually employed an illegal immigrant to raise her children — until, on the third try, he found a childless candidate — is telling. I don’t say this to mock Clinton, only to point out that there must be legions of the rich and powerful of both parties who “outsource” their childcare right here, by hiring people illegally in the country for wages most American citizens wouldn’t take, even when making the wages plausible would have made scarcely a dent in their own paychecks.
Personally, I’d say two weeks’ jail time would be a decent start for hiring an illegal immigrant, whether you’re manager of a tiny restaurant or Zoe Baird. Because this is just the one issue in which the very rich and the very poor can really be in the same boat, and it’s a boat I would love to see some rich American hypocrites occupying.
“I am not really following you here. Do you mean that it’s because Third World immigrants are poor that they will be especially eager to organize?”
I mean that the dynamic I’m imagining is where we have regularization, which leads to higher wages, which leads to making room for more illegals to come in, and thus the cycle gets repeated. And I don’t see a problem with this because its basically people moving up into higher incomes.
And that doesn’t happen with people here because they start already at a higher baseline.
“In that case, “outsourcing” of stuff like programming is an unmitigated good.”
Sure. Outsourcing is a net total gain. Nothing new about that.
“Or is your point that they didn’t think coming in illegally was “worthwhile”? If so, good for them.”
Sure. You can imagine its qutie hard.
“Well, I suppose people born in the US would indeed find some difficulty in trying to immigrate to the US. ”
Well, theyd’ find no difficulty. They’re lucky to have been born here. Others are lucky to have been born where the difficulty is smaller, or the where the calculation is easier, because their situation is more desperate.
“Personally, I’d say two weeks’ jail time would be a decent start for hiring an illegal immigrant, whether you’re manager of a tiny restaurant or Zoe Baird”
even if I find them on craigslist to clean my apartment?
actus,
I mean that the dynamic I’m imagining is where we have regularization, which leads to higher wages, which leads to making room for more illegals to come in, and thus the cycle gets repeated. And I don’t see a problem with this because its basically people moving up into higher incomes.
And that doesn’t happen with people here because they start already at a higher baseline.
In other words, you do think that we have a responsibility to raise the wages of the poor of other nations. Anything we do that raises the pay of any country’s poor is good, so long as it doesn’t make our own poor even poorer than Third World poor. Am I right? You’ve no problem with outsourcing.
Sure. You can imagine its qutie hard.
Have tried to guess what that was meant to say, and failed. Sorry.
[me:] “Personally, I’d say two weeks’ jail time would be a decent start for hiring an illegal immigrant, whether you’re manager of a tiny restaurant or Zoe Baird”
[you:] even if I find them on craigslist to clean my apartment?
Especially if you found them to clean your apartment. Most of us can clean our own apartments, and haven’t got the excuses of people who need much more urgent things done quickly and can’t inquire into credentials properly in the time. Weigh the cost of doing the work yourself against the legal costs of hiring someone to do it for you.
[Query: is the “them” an attempt at a gender-neutral singular pronoun, or an admission that one craigslist hire alone wouldn’t suffice to deal with your apartment?]
“In other words, you do think that we have a responsibility to raise the wages of the poor of other nations.”
I think its a good result if it does happen. Which is different than saying we have a responsibility to do it. Lots of things are good, and we don’t have a responsibility to make it happen.
“Am I right? You’ve no problem with outsourcing.”
Oh. This is different than outsourcing. This is bringing workers and jobs here: not sending them out. Here workers and jobs have a better quality of life. Here they also spend their income here, or more so than if we outsourced.
All of which is not argue against the brutal efficiency of outsourcing.
“Especially if you found them to clean your apartment. ”
Really? I want someone to come in for a few hours and I got to check their immigration status? What other lawfulness am I responsible for? Like, do I have to make sure my plumber has a license for that? my cab driver?
actus,
Really? I want someone to come in for a few hours and I got to check their immigration status? What other lawfulness am I responsible for? Like, do I have to make sure my plumber has a license for that? my cab driver?
If an illegal immigrant needs “a few hours” to make your apartment presentable, I seriously don’t want to know what it looks like right now. But, seriously, is your position that no one ought to inquire into the limmigration status of who mowed the lawn, who minded the children, who built the house?
“But, seriously, is your position that no one ought to inquire into the limmigration status of who mowed the lawn, who minded the children, who built the house?”
Of a one-time short term contractor? Not really no.
If I need some help moving, I’m not going to ask for a passport or proof of citizenship. I don’t think people carry that sort of stuff on them.
“And that doesn’t happen with people here because they start already at a higher baseline.”
Of course it happens here. People start in minimum wage jobs, then get more education and experience and get better paying jobs.
“People start in minimum wage jobs, then get more education and experience and get better paying jobs.”
Right. They’re getting more pay with experience and education. Not with legalization.
“I mean that the dynamic I’m imagining is where we have regularization, which leads to higher wages, which leads to making room for more illegals to come in, and thus the cycle gets repeated. And I don’t see a problem with this because its (sic) basically people moving up into higher incomes.
And that doesn’t happen with people here because they start already at a higher baseline.”
The problem is that they are here illegally.