From the kick-ass blog Migra Matters:
The yearly cap on unskilled workers is placed at a 5000 maximum. This despite the fact that according to the Dept. of Labor, the US economy produces between 400,000 and 500,000 new low-skilled jobs a year and the vast majority of the nearly ½ mil unauthorized workers who enter the country each year find work in these unskilled sectors.
But as unrealistic as the 5000 cap appears, the situation is actually far worse.
Last year the total number of unskilled workers allowed into the US legally was roughly half the official cap: 2513. Out of nearly 3 million people allowed to enter the country either as temporary workers or stay as legal residents, only 2513 were unskilled workers.
But here comes that number I asked you to keep in the back of your mind ….remember it 147?…
Of the 2513 unskilled workers allotted green cards last year, 2366 were already here living and working in the US. They simply “readjusted” their status to permanent residents (most likely from some temporary worker status) …that leaves 147
147 new un-skilled workers without US citizen or legal resident family already here were allowed to enter the US last year legally and receive green cards.
147 out of 1,266,264.
147 …so tell me again how there is a legal path for all who are willing to work and wait patiently.
How long is one expected to wait… because if the ½ a million who enter each year through improper channels were to go home and wait patiently for their turn, it would take over 3000 years before they would get that chance when only 147 are allowed in each a year.
That doesn’t seem to make sense. If there weren’t any unskilled illegal immigrants already in the U.S., and if there were a need for many unskilled workers, then I find it difficult to believe that there would continue to be so few legally allowed to enter.*
I don’t know exactly how many illegal immigrants cross the border to enter the U.S. every year. Rough estimate is, what, 300,000? I’ll use the figure of 296,000 (you’ll see why in a minute.) If there were actually some way to achieve the tradeoff then I’d eat my hat if we wouldn’t happily accept 147,000 legal immigrants in exchange for 296,000 illegal immigrants. I know I would vote for that in a heartbeat.**
Not only would that level of immigration have the backing of the pro-immigration lobby, but it would have the backing of the business and manufacturing lobby who needs the workers. (I’m assuming that the need discussed in your post remains, and that the need can’t be filled by unskilled workers who are citizens. If you remove the need for unskilled labor immigrants, then there would be little political incentive to increase the # of unskilled people given green cards.)
That level I describe would, BTW, have a wait time of 3 years not 3000 years, which is a lot more realistic.
ed: yes, “what if they all waited patiently” is a crazy hypothetical, but Migra Matters wrote it, not me.</b
* Obviously it’s a lot like the tragedy of the commons and it’s difficult to fault individuals. Even saying “if all the illegal immigrants _____” is pretty unfair, as there’s no way in hell that “all” (or most) of the illegal immigrants would ever act as a single functional body. So while it may be true that a significant reduction in illegal immigration would vastly improve the U.S. willingness to loosen immigration laws, it’s probably also true that this is never going to happen voluntarily.
** This doesn’t address the issue of the illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S., which is way beyond the scope of this post.
This properly illustrates what conservatives mean when they say “if they want to come to this country, they should do it legally”.
When they say “they should do it legally” they mean “don’t come”.
147 …so tell me again how there is a legal path for all who are willing to work and wait patiently.
I’m sorry – who said there was? For that matter, who says there should be?
There isn’t a single member of Congress that in their heart-of-hearts doesn’t want to maintain some form of the status quo. That is, millions of immigrants working undocumented and on the cheap for industries like agriculture, manufacturing and construction (to name only a few).
An undocumented workforce that employers have no obligation to deal with fairly or to protect is what industry has and wants to keep. Congress answers to industry. Conservatives offer staunch opposition to any policy that proposes a legal formalization of this relationship. Because, any formalization might bring even the most basic protections to the workforce; not to mention make it easier for them to organize.
It’s a multibillion dollar game of good cop, bad cop. Conservatives play the role of scary xenophobic fascist, pitching pie in the sky “super fences,” and get tough rhetoric. Meanwhile, the “moderates” cook up deals for industry and they all pocket huge contributions from the industries committing the real crime by employing these people.
Imagine what would happen, if the Mike Huckabees and Mitt Romneys of the world actually meant what they said. For one, the prices of produce and meat would likely inflate 100 percent overnight. Thankfully, they don’t really mean it.
I’m sorry – who said there was?
Anyone who argues that it’s not fair for all those illegals to sneak in rather than waiting patiently in line like good little immigrants.
I don’t have any trouble believing the numbers admitted are low, given that they are set based on many variables that include country of origin. (Having a prominent US senator of your ethnic background seems to be a leg up.)
This 147 number seems pretty wrong. I worked in an immigrant service related job for about 2 years and I met hundreds of legal immigrants (mostly Chinese) who had low pay jobs that I assume would be classified as “unskilled”.
@drydock
Well, there’s the possibility that they arrived via the “sneak in first, legally immigrate second” approach that would cover the other lion’s share of legal unskilled immigrants.
Or, there’s the possibility that they arrived through some other category of legal immigration beyond “unskilled labour” – through a family-uniting program, or some sort of pseudo-skill that fit them in through another category (I really have no idea what I’m talking about here).
I have vague memories from the ’80s about the frustrations of a typesetter trying to immigrate, since his skill was useless in a modern, first-world country, but at the same time he wasn’t considered “unskilled” since he worked as a skilled professional in his country.
Scott said:
Conservatives offer staunch opposition to any policy that proposes a legal formalization of this relationship.
If by this you mean “conservative members of Congress” I will not dispute it. I have a low opinion of Congress (as does most of America, even lower than they have of President Bush). But if by this you mean conservatives in general, then I’d dispute it greatly and ask you to show something to back up your claim. Most conservatives I know deplore the whole under-the-table arrangement and want it removed. Now, most of them want it removed by deporting the illegal aliens, jailing the employers and forcing the companies to raise wages to the point that they attract citizens, whereas liberals want it removed by making illegal aliens citizens. But they still want it removed.
I will not dispute that there seems to be a cozy arrangement between many business leaders and the Federal legislature and executive on this point to maintain the status quo. It’s a base betrayal of America.
Mythago said:
Anyone who argues that it’s not fair for all those illegals to sneak in rather than waiting patiently in line like good little immigrants.
Well, it’s certainly not fair for them to break the law and be rewarded for it as opposed to what legal immigrants have gone through. Do you think that it is fair? But the opposition to making citizens out of illegal aliens is based on far more than that.
There is, in fact, neither a legal nor moral right to be permitted by American law to leave your country of origin and be admitted into America. America has every right to set standards for who gets in and who doesn’t. It has every right to measure applicants against a set of criteria that take into account whether or not that prospective immigrant would meet America’s needs and would contribute to American society, and to accept or deny applicants on that basis. It is the job of the Congress to pass legislation that spells out the criteria and the methods by which applicants will be evaluated against them. It is the job of the Executive to either sign or veto such laws; and once signed, to enforce them. Congress has, in fact, passed such laws, reflecting the will of the electorate in doing so. It has failed to adequately fund their enforcement, and the Executive has failed to demand such funding and to enforce the laws within the limits of its resources. This is in defiance of the electorate, which is why Congress and the Executive both got spanked when they tried to change the laws instead of enforcing them.
We certainly do need reform of the immigration process. But the reform that is needed is in the enforcement, not in the laws, unless it’s to increase the extent and enforcement of the penalties for employing illegal aliens. If such reform shows that we need more unskilled labor, then great; change the law to admit them.
Conservatives play the role of scary xenophobic fascist, pitching pie in the sky “super fences,” and get tough rhetoric.
Interesting that you paint opposition to illegal aliens coming into the country as xenophobia, an irrational fear of foreigners. For one thing, given the state of the world today, I’d say that fear of permitting foreigners to come into the U.S. with no accounting of who they are, why they are here or what they are doing is quite rational.
However; overall I’d say that all conservatives I’ve talked to or read statements from have no fear of foreigners at all and welcome legal immigrants. In my personal experience, when we had two immigrants in my workplace obtain their citizenship we all either congratulated them to their faces or wrote them notes, and a bunch of us chipped in to buy them American flags as a present. If there are people who do not, it’s quite safe to say that they do not represent conservative thought as a whole and their very credentials as “conservative” would be suspect. There’s a clear distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. Conservatives do not conflate the two; it’s the more extreme left that seems to have that problem.
Scott said:
“For one, the prices of produce and meat would likely inflate 100 percent overnight.”
I’ve heard this from advocates of those who flout the law. It seems to me that the cost of picking a head of lettuce would be a lot lower than the cost of transporting it, marketing it, retailing it, etc. What actual analyses of costs of produce, etc. and the effects of increasing the labor costs involved in picking it are out there?
RonF:
Oh, so no more of that small-government, let-the-market-decide conservatism, then? Lovely.
I have legally acquired a US work visa twice. It’s been stressful, expensive hell on both occasions. There were at least three outright lies in my last application; the visa was delivered by courier yesterday. I’m imagining that many of those who cross the border illegally would not line up and cross legally – a substantial number of them would not be able to afford to, especially if they had to employ a translator for their documents and their interviews. If you think the legal process should be open to more people, great, but you’d need to reform the process to make it affordable to the unskilled without sacrificing the current level of security and public health control. Unless you can convince the entire country that the current level of security and public health control is a complete waste of money because the most dangerous people on both counts would just come illegally anyway.
Good luck with that.
Oh, so no more of that small-government, let-the-market-decide conservatism, then?
I take it from your post that you are not an American citizen. I would suggest, then, that you take the time to read the U.S. Constitution. It is the basic law of the country you work in, and it’s not long; only a few pages. In Article I, Section 8, which lists the powers of the Congress, we see that it is among the functions of Congress to:
provide for the common Defence
establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers
Such things were never intended to be governed by market forces and are given as the responsibility of Congress, as you might know if you bothered to learn something about the country whose money you have struggled so mightily to accept.
I’m imagining that many of those who cross the border illegally would not line up and cross legally – a substantial number of them would not be able to afford to, especially if they had to employ a translator for their documents and their interviews.
And why is this a problem?
If you think the legal process should be open to more people, great, but you’d need to reform the process to make it affordable to the unskilled without sacrificing the current level of security and public health control.
I and a great many other people have yet to be convinced that making it affordable to the unskilled is either desirable or necessary. I do agree that it is desirable that governmental functions be made as efficient, simple and affordable as possible; but that’s for the benefit of the taxpayer and the American citizens using it.
This is a tiny bit snarky, especially the “lovely.” Please try to de-snark a bit in the future.
This is a great deal more than a tiny bit snarky. Please de-escalate.
Sorry. It was late. Snarky is not usually my style, and I apologize.
I stand behind the core message, however. The functions he is talking about have never been intended to be under the control of market forces, and “small government” does not mean “non-existent government”. The comment reveals an ignorance of basic American law, culture and governmental structure that someone who is going to be here on a relatively long-term basis (especially someone who will be employed here) should correct. Reading the U.S. Constitution is a good way to start that process.
“The functions he is talking about”
Feminist blog.
Male default.
Pretty sure you’re wrong, anyway.
Male default.
English language default. Should the default be inaccurate in this case, I’ll be glad to use the correct form of address when I’m so informed. On reflection it would have been reasonably appropriate to have said “Thene said” rather than “he said”, I’ll grant. I’ll try to keep that in mind in the future.
I’m curious as to why you’re pretty sure I’m wrong. All I can say is that I didn’t hear anything that jumped out and said “female speaker” to me; I’d like to know what you heard that said “female speaker” to you. The word “lovely” didn’t say it to me; in the context of the comment, that’s snark that I’ve heard from both men and women.
Seems it really comes down to the same old thing:
“Dear USA:
I want to get in to the USA, so let me in, or I’ll come in anyway, like it or not. Heck, even if you agree to consider letting me in legally, if the process of application is not simple/easy/cheap/quick enough to satisfy me, I’ll just skip the application if I so choose, or, um, put “at least three outright lies” in, and good luck catching me.
Negotiations between us are welcome, in theory. However, you need to understand who holds the cards here, and it’s not you. Any negotiations that result in asking me not to come in will be ignored. If you’re not superpolite about it, you may occasionally get accused of racist and/or uber-conservative behavior.
My problem is now your problem. So that dispute? You know: I want to get in, and you want me to stay home? That is SO not the dispute anymore. Now it’s all on you, with two new choices: let me in legally, or fail to stop me. The “I stay home” choice is off the table. Don’t like it? Nyah! Sucks to be you.
Listen, USA, just make it easier on yourself, already. Throw in the towel. Admit that you can’t easily stop me–so if you and I can agree to pretend that you have no right to stop my entry, and/or that I do have a right to come in on my own, whether or not you like it, we’ll be happier.”
ronf,
1) “English language default.” Um, yeah, statistically speaking. But isn’t that a problem we feminists are trying to solve, because it sucks? Make it easier on us, please.
Incidentally, having followed thene’s links to here:
http://athenemiranda.deadjournal.com/
I’m guessing that “athenemiranda” is a woman. Though i have to confess that I get this sort of thing wrong all the time; I thought Amp was a woman for ages and I still can’t keep track of all the other people without reeeeeally obvious names.
Just to get the faff out of the way;
1. Female.
2. Has worked in the USA before now. Currently back home, but going back to the US in a month or so.
3. Has studied US government and politics. This does not require you to memorise every word of the Constitution in order to get an A.
(I’m curious as to what speech cues could identify a blog commenter as either male or female. I personally think it wise to not make calls either way unless someone has directly referenced their gender, not least because I’m continually mistaken for a man on CiF, and I’ve made enough bad guesses in the past myself. That you specifically said “All I can say is that I didn’t hear anything that jumped out and said “female speaker” to me” gives me the impression that you’re taking a male-until-proven-otherwise approach, which I personally find impolite.
Whether or not anyone has ever intended for migration to be decided by the market, pretending that it is not in reality decided by the market is verging on Canutelike. As Scott (in comment #4) said, there’s no shortage of demand for illegal labour; the situation you face is that unchecked demand, a barely-checked supply, and no serious barriers between the two. In that light, my decision to return to the USA legally rather than illegally is a class choice.
I guess it’s not a problem from your point of view but from that of the OP, Duke1676 from Migra Matters, it clearly is. (I added a double line-break to emphasise that the bulk of that post wasn’t addressed at you, but I guess the code does not like that). I feel like you’re disagreeing with their view but pointing that disagreement at the experience I’ve brought to the table – an experience I regarded as being politically neutral.
(Incidentally, the UK have changed their unskilled migrant rules today. It sounds like that aspect of the new rules will have little effect on the economy here, though obviously it has a large effect on individual potential migrants. What really seems weird to me is how easy it is to migrate if you’re wealthy, as if wealthy people are somehow magically more beneficial to our culture than lower-earning people in equally skilled jobs; migration, once again, proves to be about class and income rather than about any higher cultural ideal).
Sailorman: as I just said, it’s a class choice. If I, personally, could not have come legally I would not have come at all. Fortunately I both qualified for the process and could afford it. (The lies were not matters of great import – if you can’t guess what at least one of them was, I’m figuring you don’t know much about US visa forms). For many potential migrants, illegality is simply not a deterrent – it doesn’t change their earning power much (or at least, not as much as staying home would), it doesn’t stop them finding work, it isn’t significantly punished, and – I’m surmising this simply because there’s so very many of them – they don’t regard it as a moral or social stigma.
As the US economy is making great economic use of migration but is not willing to keep US laws in the process, and US politicians are not willing to lower any of the hurdles to entry, you are faced with a huge inconsistency that no one is willing to end. If you can find a way for the USA to stop the problem, I’d appreciate it if you’d tell us what that way is, because as is you seem to be merely pointing the finger, at legal migrants as well as illegal ones (and not at all at the businesses that employ them or the politicians who are content with the status quo).
Wealthy people are more able (and more likely) to be able to invest wealth, which helps the economy. They’re more able and likely to spend money, which also helps the economy. To some degree, a wealthy person seems more likely to have a positive effect on the country, i.e. give more than they take out. Poor people are more likely to require assistance from the government.
Is that really debatable? We’ve talked about poverty here before and how it is, at best, difficult to escape. Whether or not you think that poverty is able to be overcome by Hard Work And The American Way (TM), it seems pretty obvious that it’s a heck of a lot easier to succeed if you’ve got cash.
And that’s not only true in the U.S. That’s why wealth counts for a lot. In fact, some countries (last i checked) simply allow you to flat-out buy citizen status, if you’ve got the dough.
But perhaps you’ve moved the goalposts. I’m a bit confused by “magically more beneficial to our culture” rather than (what I thought we were talking about) “…beneficial to our country.” When did we switch to cultural analysis?
Personally? One lie here or there doesn’t make much of a difference. And I have no desire to get into it with you. But sheesh–you mentioned, sua sponte, that you made “obvious” lies on your visa app. And that does make me roll my eyes a bit.
Yes, I agree.
It’s not hard to go chicken and egg here:
-If people would stop migrating illegally, then we’d have better incentive to set up a way to have them migrate legally, and/or modify our economy to use them less
-If we would set up a way to have people migrate legally, and/or modify our economy so there was no work for illegal immigrants, then fewer would migrate illegally.
Hard to say which caused which.
This is sort of what I posted on. If you look at the logical problem “illegal immigrants come in, and we wish they wouldn’t,” there are TWO ways to stop it: make them legal, or stop them coming. While it is practically difficult, from a moral and legal standpoint option two belongs on the table.
?? I’m having a discussion. I do think that it’s a pity that illegal immigration is so accepted that you can happily post about lying on a visa on a public blog, and then get annoyed at me for commenting on it. But I’m only responding to what you wrote, not targeting you in any other way.
If someone violates a law, and the cops don’t enforce it, I’m annoyed at the criminal and the cops… but I’m more annoyed at the criminal. Because they were the ones who violated the law.
The employer is as much a criminal as the illegal employee; the only difference is that you can deport one of them and thus have some assurance that they won’t do it again for at least the next few months. (I do believe more enforcement of labour laws is vital, because the use of illegal labour is frequently accompanied by other exploitations and illegalities on the part of both employers and workers. I could just wish that those labour laws were consistent with the real world).
I agree that option 2 belongs on the table, but its practical consequences (ie. the deporting 12 million workers part) are so severe that I feel it looks a bit out of place on that table if it doesn’t come with a plan attached.
I think I misread your extreme snark as blaming, rather than simply being descriptive of a bad situation. I apologise. I think you misread me too, btw – the word I used was ‘outright’ not ‘obvious’. And I mentioned it not ‘happily’ but to demonstrate that it’s not straightforward, that it is an uncomfortable process, and that – to a certain extent – legality is bunk, a hoop you jump through that proves little about moral character but a lot about social class.
There’s this increasingly widespread opinion that the UK (specifically, London)’s population of extremely rich migrants is having a detrimental effect on everything from housing to the exchequer to the Premier League. That + the idea that what voters think matters = confusion. Most voters seem far happier with their (high-skilled but low-paid) Filipino nurses than with the oligarch who just bought out their local football team. Because inequality can be as problematic as poverty in and of itself is, there are downsides to making it very easy for the super-rich to live in your country, especially if most of their income sources and investment options remain overseas. Wealthy people are likely to invest, but there’s no way to predict whether they’ll invest in their new home or not. (I’d gathered that an increasing number of wealthy US residents were investing in Asian markets these days).
I feel the bit about poor people requiring government assistance is a red herring in these two cases, as the US and the UK governments are far less generous, particularly to immigrants, than most other nations. If people only migrated to get at the juicy welfare, they’d all be headed to Sweden.
(I said ‘culture’ simply because the article mentioned so many cultural points – English language, ‘British values’, and the fact that the views of voters had been taken into account. ‘Country’ would have been almost too vague for the kind of concerns being aired there.)
You’re right, thene: I misread “obvious.” Sorry, I certainly didn’t intend to misquote you.
If Sweden were easier to migrate to illegally, and if they happened to be fairly easily accessible for residents of comparatively poor countries, and if immigrants thought they could get away with it, I bet that Sweden would have a hell of a lot more illegal immigrants. Heck, *I* would probably rather be in Sweden myself. But functionally speaking, who’s going to illegally immigrate to Sweden? the Danes? ;) It’s not that accessible…
http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_MAPS/0_map_europe_political_2001_enlarged.jpg
To use the even-better example of Iceland: it may be that half the people in the world would like to get to iceland, but seeing as it’s nearly impossible to do, that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
RonF:
It is inappropriate and rude to use a male default when speaking to anyone, let alone on a feminist blog.
She doesn’t need to do anything to mark herself as female. Female is not an aberrant state that needs marking.
Please don’t do the male default thing on this blog again.
In case none of this gets through to you, let’s try it this way — using everything you’ve presumably learned from reading this and other blogs, consider why “Everyone is a man until proven otherwise” is a really stupid and problematic thing to assume.
Heard on NPR this morning (too lazy to find a link) that Illegal immigrants from across the southern border were a net gain for the US economy.
They contribute more than they consume.
They do not lower wages in general.
Many of them earn market wages well above the minimum wage.
Many are also on the books and paying taxes and social secuirty. The later is a total gain to the public coffers since there’s no mechanism for them to ever collect form that system.
It backs up what I’ve read before on the subject. (again too lazy to find like)
This was all macro since there are more people in the US that consume low skill labor than who sell it. A high school graduate who wants to make a career in a meat packing plant, just like her parents, (to pick one example) is probably not going to have the same standard of living that they did. This will in part be due to the competition from illegal immigrants who will do the same work for less money. If she wants to become an accountant she might have a higher standard of living thanks to the lower cost of labor.
The study also appeared to ignore the variation in where those services are consumed. Averaging over the national economy ignores the fact that border towns might provide far more in services then is collected in local profits.
In my opinion: People that want to come here to work really hard and have a better life are good for the overall economy. Maybe not for specific segments of it.
Also, anyone in the US that depends on selling their low skilled or unskilled labor for their living is in for a much harder life.
Mandolin, that’s why I said “I’ll try to keep that in mind in the future.” I didn’t mean it as snark, I actually meant it. I understand that the male default in the English language is due to some cultural presumptions that are no longer applicable, but long-held habits that were drilled into me a half-century ago die hard and sometimes they leak out. I have no problem with being called on it.
joe, check with sources other than NPR and you can hear a different story. I’m not going to get into it here, but I suggest that you diversify your sources before making a judgement one way or another.
“Mandolin, that’s why I said “I’ll try to keep that in mind in the future.” I didn’t mean it as snark, I actually meant it.”
Oh, sorry. :-)
Ron, I’ve looked a bit into the peer-reviewed literature on the economic costs to the US of immigration. As far as I can tell, most of it finds either that immigrants are a net economic plus for the US, or that the costs are negative but small.
I’m not aware of any legitimate peer-reviewed study which has found that undocumented migrants create large economic negatives for the US. If one exists, it’s an outlier, not the norm. (I’m talking about peer reviewed studies; I’m sure that Heritage or some outfit like that has done some data-drudge studies, but those studies are obviously biased.)
My feeling is that immigration is either a benefit or, at worst, a minor problem for the US economy. On the other hand, it’s a significant positive economic benefit for migrants who gain access to better-paying jobs than they could find in their own country, and for the families they send money back to. So on the whole, immigration is extremely beneficial, and we should make more of it legal.
English language default.
“Every ballerina must pay for his own toe shoes.”
I want to get in to the USA, so let me in, or I’ll come in anyway, like it or not.
Dear Migrants:
Of course we want you here. Good grief, if we didn’t have you to kick around, we’d have an entire workforce of people who might actually want their legal rights enforced and expect things like fair wages and safe working conditions. We can’t hold the threat of deportation over their heads! But we can’t hold it over yours if we let you in legally, either. So how about we come up with a system where we play hard to get? We’ll have to deport some of you, of course; otherwise you’ll get uppity. But other than that, please do come here, as there are plenty of jobs we’d like to underpay you for. It’s not like those strawberries are going to pick themselves.
Ampersand, the studies I have read are flawed and go to great lengths to get the result they are looking for. You might not like the Heritage Foundation, but Robert Rector does good work and he has shredded the last few studies that came to that conclusion. Usually they completely neglect or gloss over local economic effects. We are importing poverty on a massive scale.
How much does it cost per year for one child in the public school? $5K – 10K? (I think in D.C. its well over $10K per year) Do you think your average low skilled illegal immigrant (making $6 – $9/hr) with children here pays enough property taxes to cover even one child, much less two or more? Add to that emergency room hospital costs, local housing prices, and wage deflation of competing US citizens and their local economic impact can be very negative. They simply don’t pay enough to cover their own costs.
Mythago: It’s cool. Upon re-reading I can see where you could have gotten that impression.
So how about we come up with a system where we play hard to get? We’ll have to deport some of you, of course; otherwise you’ll get uppity. But other than that, please do come here, as there are plenty of jobs we’d like to underpay you for. It’s not like those strawberries are going to pick themselves.
Oh hell yes. I don’t know how much of it was overt, but what now exists is a system that depends on criminal action by multiple parties. At least the illegal aliens and their employers, and possibly those legislators and/or law enforcement officials who failed to enforce the laws. And if “Jorge” Bush (as he’s known on some of the right-wing blogs) was overtly complicit in neglecting the law, he should be held accountable in whatever fashion is appropriate.
I rather suspect, though, that you and I differ on how to fix the system.
Mythago: It’s cool. Upon re-reading I can see where you could have gotten that impression.
I know, it’s just always funny to hear the argument that ‘he’ is the neutral term in English. (I’m old enough to have been taught that in school too.)
We might differ on how to solve the problem of uncontrolled, unsupervised immigration. But it should give you pause that our economy–particularly our agricultural sector–depends on it.
We might differ on how to solve the problem of uncontrolled, unsupervised immigration. But it should give you pause that our economy–particularly our agricultural sector–depends on it.
Well, I’ve read some of the stuff that Amp’s talking about and some of the stuff that LarryFromExile is talking about, and I tend to be more persuaded by what Larry’s talking about. Now, you may ascribe this to my bias but I was trained as a scientist and I try to be honest with myself in that regard. I think that the economy would change if jobs for illegal aliens were dried up, but it wouldn’t collapse and that the change would have some benefits.
I will say that I don’t consider the matter resolved without question. Immigration debates in the Senate and House have mostly been flame wars and electoral posturing. They have als0 been influenced by something quite rare in American politics; the electorate’s memory. For once it stuck in people’s minds that the enforcement of the last set of immigration bills was very uneven and not at all in accordance with the promises made by some of the same legislators that were making promises about this new set. Trust in the Congress is already at historic lows, 1/2 of that of President Bush’s, and his trust level is lousy itself. Couple that with the fact that a large part of Bush’s base broke with Bush on the issue and the whole thing was a non-starter. I haven’t seen both the President and Congressional leaders put so much energy into something that fell flat on it’s face since the Clintons’ healthcare plan initiative.
So – that means that it has not been made clear that what you say is true to enough of the American public to get enough of them to support immigration law changes. In order to get any changes passed, you’ll have to change that understanding. I think you’re going to have a problem with that. It appears to me that the left is right – there is in fact a conspiracy to import cheap and readily-exportable labor. I don’t think the conspiracy itself is widespread, but the effects are. I think that there’s also some truth to the idea on the right that there are those on the left who want to change immigration law and the status of the present illegal aliens to gain a perceived political advantage. Not all, not even a majority, but a sizable fraction. On this issue, a sizable fraction is important.
I’ve said it before, but – crank up enforcement of the current laws. Especialy emphasize fines and jail time for those who hire illegal aliens. People won’t have to be deported; they’ll leave. Keep an eye on the economy. If it turns out that we really need the labor, then change the law to fit. We’ve got laws now that can be adjusted to permit more people in various categories to immigrate. Convince people that there is an advantage to changing the limits and it’ll happen. But endorsing citizenship for law breakers turns out to be a very hard sell in America.
The problem isn’t whether we need the labor. It’s that we have an artificially cheap supply of labor, and relying on illegal immigrants keeps it cheap. When you hear an agribusiness lobbyist complain “Americans won’t do these jobs,” they’re really saying “Americans won’t do these jobs for the wages we offer, under the working conditions we set up.”
But I don’t think there’s quite as much Will of the People on this as you believe. It’s one thing to rant about them darn illegals, and it’s another thing to see how much your grocery bill, or your restaurant tab, or the cost of your house goes up because the labor costs now reflect the cost of enforcing wage, hour and workplace safety laws.
And I also think that people will not be quite so happy when their neighbor Joe gets busted for hiring a few hanging-out-at-Home-Depot guys to help him get a tree out of his yard, or when that nice lady who runs the after-school daycare goes to jail because some of the women she hired didn’t have papers.
When I was growing up, in my area high school kids got jobs. It was just what you DID. They paid reasonably well, actually. You worked, you got experience, you made enough money to buy some cool stuff. Same with college kids, who of course got more money and had more experience.
As things stand now, in my area those jobs have largely been filled by illegal immigrants. not that I can really fault the store owners: i’m sure that I’d rather hire an attentive 28 year old than a 16 year old, any day of the week, and given two waitrons I’d prefer to get the one who wouldn’t leave a week before Labor Day.
But the reality is that illegal immigrants are not idiots. They may well take a grueling job picking grapes for five bucks an hour. But they are damn well ALSO competing for the higher paying jobs if they can get them.
Joe uses those hanging out at home depot guys to move trees, not because they’ll provide $6/hour worth of market rate work for $4/hour, but because they’ll provide $18/hour worth of market rate work for $10. The “Joe Equivalent” who runs a small construction business uses them, too, because he bills them out at $25.
And so unsurprisingly to everyone else but dumb old Joe… when Joe’s nephew goes looking for a job moving trees, he has a damn hard time finding anyone who will pay him $18/hour any more. Why should they? Joe wouldn’t.
But when Joe’s nephew complains about the illegal immigrants, someone is probably going to claim that they only compete for those “unskilled” jobs, which we need more of. That’s an illusion. because we don’t need more “unskilled” labor, we need more low paid labor. They’re not just competing for grape picking. If they were, a lot of people would be a hell of a lot less pissed.
I think we can manage to tighten enforcement without going overboard. If Neighbor Joe inadvertently hires undocumented immigrants to uproot his tree, a small fine is likely appropriate. Now, the *third* time the nice lady who runs the after-school daycare is caught hiring undocumented immigrants, more severe action is probably warranted.
There has certainly been precedent for people being willing to pay more to get goods produced in a responsible fashion. Around here, much of the middle and upper class is willing to pay $6.50 a gallon for organic milk. Or, outside the upper classes, try to find a Japanese car anywhere in the state of Michigan in the mid ’80’s. I don’t see why people wouldn’t be willing to pay extra to hire American workers, if the consequences of their actions were brought to their attention in the same way as has been done in the organic food and “Made in USA” campaigns.
They’re not just competing for grape picking. If they were, a lot of people would be a hell of a lot less pissed.
Except that for every Joe’s nephew pissed he can’t get a job, there’s a Joe thrilled that he can pay below-market wages and skimp on paying taxes and worker’s comp. So if the illegal-immigrant workforce went away, a lot of people will be hella pissed. Including Joe’s nephew, who doesn’t get his $18/hr job because people can’t afford to have their trees cleared away at those prices.
Bjartmarr, there was a lot more going on with “no Japanese cars” in Michigan in the 1980s than wealthy people willing to pay a buy-American premium.
That said, Neighbor Joe is not “inadvertently” hiring illegal immigrants. Do you think that Joe really, truly thought all those guys hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot had green cards? Did Joe carefully fill out his I-9 forms? C’mon.
Mythago, it wasn’t just the wealthy, it was pretty much everybody who was buying American. That’s why I said, “outside the upper classes”. And a large part of the motivation to do that was to provide themselves and their neighbors with jobs. Even those who didn’t care about providing their neighbors with jobs, still bought American in order to not stigmatize themselves. Sure, there was some other stuff going on, but none of it would have happened without the realization that money spent inside their own community would find its way back into their own pockets.
Feel free to remove the word “inadvertently” from my post; it really doesn’t make much difference to my overall point.
Back in 1979 I bought a Toyota Corolla, which then was about the size of what is now a Toyota Tercel. It had much better handling and gas mileage than any of the American cars I could afford. As you both have realized buying Japanese was not a popular thing among blue-collar Chicagoans back then. The climax was when I went to Christmas at one of my wife’s relatives’ house for Christmas Eve. Back then I was part of the young generation. All the uncles and aunts and parents and grandparents gave us all kinds of shit for buying a Toyota Corolla (which was the size of a Tercel back then), and loudly extolled the virtues of buying American; Chevys, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, etc.
At the end of the evening, people went out to start their cars and go home. The first few people came back in. Turns out it had dropped to about -5 degrees (-20 C) outside. Their cars wouldn’t start. After a while I put my coat on. “What are you going out for? That thing won’t start!” Off I went. My wife told me that there was a lot of comments going on, but that when they saw my headlights go on (you don’t do that unless you get your car started because you need the extra power they would otherwise drain to turn the engine over) it got dead silent.
Then I came in and offered to jump everyone’s car. “Oh, no, a little car like that won’t be able to jump my big Buick Century/Oldsmobile/Chevy Impala.” I made sure I leaned into their driver’s window after each one got their car started and said “What do you think of my little POS Japanese car now?” And that was the last time anyone ever said anything to me about buying a Japanese car.
That said, Neighbor Joe is not “inadvertently” hiring illegal immigrants. Do you think that Joe really, truly thought all those guys hanging out in the Home Depot parking lot had green cards? Did Joe carefully fill out his I-9 forms? C’mon.
Fine. Then too damn bad for Neighbor Joe.
But I don’t think there’s quite as much Will of the People on this as you believe. It’s one thing to rant about them darn illegals, and it’s another thing to see how much your grocery bill, or your restaurant tab, or the cost of your house goes up because the labor costs now reflect the cost of enforcing wage, hour and workplace safety laws.
Well, all I can say is that I would definitely like to see it. I’ll bet the impact will be a lot less than advocates of granting citizenship to illegal aliens would have us believe. This is the tactic – I think it’s a scare tactic – that those advocates use a lot. “If we throw them out, it’ll cost $5 for a head of lettuce.” I don’t think so. I don’t think that the difference between the costs of legal labor and illegal labor is that great in a lot of these jobs.
But regardless, enforce existing law. If that means the cost of labor goes up, then our economy and our buying patterns will change to accomodate it. Let’s see what will actually happen. Let’s get some real data and let the changes drive the change to the laws.
See, you don’t even need new laws. There are laws that permit granting visas for workers who are needed in various areas. Bill Gates tries to get the limit on skilled IT workers raised every year. Limits can be changed without passing a whole new law. My guess is that if a new law is actually needed, changing limits on existing laws will serve until the merits of new laws can be fairly debated. But people just aren’t buying scare tactics and demands from people who have no legal right to be here in the first place. Right now most people don’t trust what has passed for public debate and won’t support change based on it or on promised from people who have already broken the promises they made.
Back in 1979 I bought a Toyota Corolla, which then was about the size of what is now a Toyota Tercel.
Did you know that Tercels haven’t been made for nearly a decade? The last model year was 1999. IIRC, the Tercel was replaced by the Echo which was then replaced by the new Scion (that name cracks me up) brand. It’s a shame, the Tercel was a good cheap tin can of a car.
Hah! No, I didn’t. I just bought a Toyota Camry, used, with 38,000 miles on it. For a Toyota, that’s just broken in.
Detroit keeps talking about how good their warranties are. What I want is a car that never needs to be repaired under warranty – Toyota is good for that.
This is the tactic – I think it’s a scare tactic – that those advocates use a lot. “If we throw them out, it’ll cost $5 for a head of lettuce.” I don’t think so. I don’t think that the difference between the costs of legal labor and illegal labor is that great in a lot of these jobs.
If it weren’t, then why would employers risk breaking the law by hiring illegal labor? It’s not a “scare tactic” to point out that if there were no benefit to hiring illegal labor, employers wouldn’t do it. Why do you think agribusiness complains that immigration enforcement hurts their business? Do you seriously claim it’s because they are dupes of La Raza?
If so, then I expect that you will never, ever argue that stringent labor laws and regulatory enforcement harms businesses.
Mythago – does that mean agribusiness is campaigning to change the law to widen immigration opportunities, or are they campaigning to maintain the status quo – ie, keep the current laws but don’t enforce them? (pardon my ignorance, I lack knowledge of how the ground lies there. All I know is that I’m irrationally held to be superior to some other migrants.)
Mythago, there’s a big difference between “$5 for a head of lettuce” and “no benefit to hiring illegal labor”. Perhaps it costs, say, 10 cents more per head to grow and pick lettuce with legal labor over illegal. This will not result in a $5 head of lettuce, but it is certainly a significant difference to employers who may harvest hundreds of thousands of heads.
The “scare tactic” is when people falsely try to convince others that hiring legal labor would result not just in food that is more expensive, but in food that is DRASTICALLY more expensive.
They don’t want an immigration crackdown, and they have been pushing for a temporary ‘guest worker’ program as an alternative to enforcing the current laws.
Mythago – would a guest worker program not increase their overheads, if they suddenly had to treat their old illegal workers as new legal workers? (And likely pay them more even if they were already over the minimum wage, as I firmly believe that guest workers would be far more scarce than illegal workers because of all the barriers to legal immigration).
…or is ‘guest workers’ just a screen to block enforcement? ‘Why no, these are guest workers. These are not the horribly exploited illegal immigrants you are looking for…’
Mythago, there’s a big difference between “$5 for a head of lettuce” and “no benefit to hiring illegal labor”.
Correct. The former is something RonF invented to paint immigrant activists as “using scare tactics”.
If prices do not rise significantly, that means that there is no real benefit to hiring illegal labor. Lettuce costs the consumer 50 cents more per head, but all the growers have the cost, so that’s what you pay–and they don’t have to worry about ICE anymore. So are growers just really, really stupid that they can’t do the math?
Whatever the cost is, it’s significant enough that businesses very invested in keeping a labor force that does not have the same cost (in wages, benefits and workplace rights) as citizens or permanent residents. Ten cents per head cost may translate into much larger lost profits by the time it gets to Safeway. And remember we’re not just talking about lettuce farms; think of the difference to a contractor of having a legal, market-wage workforce with workers comp protection, vs. one that is happy to take below-market wages and not complain about getting hurt on the job. That adds up to a hell of a lot more than ten cents.
Thene – a guest-worker program is more expensive than illegal labor, but it’s cheaper than having workers who aren’t dependent on their employer for the right to remain in this country.
I’ve heard similar from other sources before, so I really doubt that RonF invented it.
Actually, I think his error was in attributing the argument to those who want to grant citizenship. In my experience, the argument comes from those who are interested in keeping the status quo.
No, that’s not it. First of all, the growers pocket the difference between the cost of production and the sale price. If the cost of production goes up, then either it will come directly out of their pockets, or they’ll pass the cost on to the consumer. If they do the latter, then people will buy less of their lettuce (preferring to instead by cheaper Mexican NAFTA lettuce, or to do without) and the growers will take the shot in the pocketbook anyways.
Oh, absolutely. I totally agree with you there. Except about the “hell of a lot more than ten cents” part — given the volume of produce that one person can plant/harvest/whatever, ten cents a unit can add up to a LOT of money; plenty to pay someone (or four someones) a living wage.
Perhaps it’s different for construction and such; I don’t really know. But I’d like to see some evidence before I let the pro-status-quo folks get away with their, “An all-legal workforce would RUIN the economy!!!” arguments, as the examples I’ve seen so far don’t seem to support that conclusion.
I’ve heard similar from other sources before, so I really doubt that RonF invented it.
I’m happy to be proven wrong by referral to those sources. Absent that, the closest I’ve heard is “if people were paying $5 for a head of lettuce they’d be changing heir tune about Those Damn Immigrants real quick.” That’s not a scare tactic; that’s an observation about how cheap many people’s principles are.
It’s true, then, that businesses that employ illegal labor are making a smart business decision: whatever the cost of violating the law, it’s a net gain over obeying the law and hiring legal labor. I think the conservative answer for this is to abolish workplace protections for legal workers; e.g. if there’s no OSHA, you don’t have to worry that the citizens you hire will file an OSHA complaint, so there’s no benefit to hiring illegal workers who are afraid to complain.
Mythago:
I think the conservative answer for this is to abolish workplace protections for legal workers;
I’d be interested to see if your opinion on this matter is based on specific discussions from conservatives on immigration issues rather than your (apparent?) opinion of what conservatives think about workplace regulation in general. From browsing on Free Republic and other such places it’s my observation that the conservative position on this is to increase the cost of employing illegal aliens by ramping up enforcement of the existing laws that penalize their employers.
Bjmartmarr:
But I’d like to see some evidence before I let the pro-status-quo folks get away with their, “An all-legal workforce would RUIN the economy!!!” arguments, as the examples I’ve seen so far don’t seem to support that conclusion.
I agree. And understand that pro-status-quo != conservative. Pro-status-quo seems to be supported only by a limited number of politicians and business interests.
Thene, we already have a number of guest workers in the U.S. If this source is reliable, they include:
H1A Registered nurses for temporary employment
H1B Persons in specialty occupations that require a college or advanced degree; artists, entertainers, athletes and fashion models of distinguished merit and ability (may include persons assisting in their performances)
H2A Temporary or seasonal agricultural workers
H2B Persons filling temporary jobs that cannot be filled by US citizens or residents
I’m a little familiar with the H1B visa program in that people are admitted into the U.S. on them to work in my profession. People like Bill Gates every year (when the new limit is set) jump up and proclaim that they can’t fill the jobs they have without in increase in the limits on these, and people representing the domestic worker base claim that there are plenty of people to fill them, Bill just doesn’t want to pay enough. Complaints of employers taking advantage of H1B holders are rampant – and these are people with personal resources and salaries that are very much greater than your average agricultural worker (and carpenter and drywall installer and painter – by no means are all illegal aliens picking vegetables).
They probably do get exploited. But I’ll bet that the level of exploitment drops, as they are at least here legally and can walk into a police station without having fear of being automatically deported.
Actually, I think his error was in attributing the argument to those who want to grant citizenship. In my experience, the argument comes from those who are interested in keeping the status quo.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As far as I’m concerned, both positions are bad.
Ever heard of the “tragedy of the commons?” Or of the issue of sole action among a larger group? Or the risks of stepping out of the herd?
It’s a benefit to the country to hire legal workers (or, for that matter, to pay legal workers a living wage, etc.) But you’re way too smart to imply that smart people would, or should, be the first one in line. If I’m the only one in the grocery who charges 50 cents more, I’m not selling any lettuce at all.
Large agribusiness has many traits, many of which are negative, but “stipidly ignoring the obvious” isn’t always one of them.
Of course, if we actually deported all the illegal immigrants, or made it difficult and expensive to employ them, or provided a way to have them come in legally (of which the second option is the cheapest) then everyone’s on equal footing. ALL us lettuce will then be expensive.
(hey, maybe we’ll stop growing it in the middle of the desert. not necessarily a bad thing, us agriculture is often environmentally horrendous. But that’s a subissue.) People who want cheaper lettuce can always buy it from mexico, or control the purchase of such lettuce through trade agreements.
All I know is that I’m irrationally held to be superior to some other migrants.)
Thene, what do you mean by “irrationally superior”? My limited understanding of visa laws indicates to me that there is an at least outwardly rational basis for granting you a visa over other would-be migrants, and that is that the work that you do is adjudged more valuable to the U.S. than those of others, based both on the value attached to what you do and the supply of American citizens who can do it.
But you’re way too smart to imply that smart people would, or should, be the first one in line. If I’m the only one in the grocery who charges 50 cents more, I’m not selling any lettuce at all.
People sure will 50 cents more for lettuce if you market it in such a way that they think they should–look at the success of organic produce. Or if I do want to be the first in line, I lobby hard for immigration crackdowns so that all my competitors get raided.
But again, this isn’t really about the tragedy of the commons: it’s about employing illegal labor being a more profitable choice than employing legal labor. It’s one thing to quibble about how much cost gets passed along, but if it weren’t a SIGNIFICANT cost, nobody would do it.
RonF, it’s quite true that your average H1B visa holder is in a much better position to report abuse than your average farmhand. But it’s also true that the H1B program is abused. Conservative business leaders suddenly think the free market doesn’t or shouldn’t apply to their own hiring practices.
I’d be interested to see if your opinion on this matter is based on specific discussions from conservatives on immigration issues rather than your (apparent?) opinion of what conservatives think about workplace regulation in general.
To be clear, I’m talking about two separate things: the view on immigration, and the view on workplace regulations. And yes, my views on what conservatives think of workplace regulations is from dealing with actual conservatives.
RonF, I think you’re right about the positive bias in many respects – like the way legal immigrants are selected for good health and a clean criminal record – but the fact that I have access to those qualities that make it easy for me to be a legal migrant is irrational. Qualities like:
being from a social democratic country where I could get all the immunisations required for immigration free, and could also get the regular medical attention required for good health for free;
being from a country that issues documents in English so I didn’t have to pay for document translation (even if I happened to not speak English myself, this would have been a very beneficial thing – and I’m sure a lot of people are in the opposite situation, speaking perfect English but having documents that require translation);
being fortunate in that my minor youthful indiscretions have not led to me having a criminal record (a direct result of my white privilege, no two ways about that);
my metropolitan privilege, in that I live very close to a US embassy and can arrange visits to the embassy, couriers to the embassy, and visits to the embassy’s appointed doctor with ease;
being from a country where the cost of each visa fee is a sum of money that I could earn in a week from even a low-end job. (the entire process, medical fees included, is totting up a heck of a bill, but at least it’s possible from here).
I refuse to regard it as a coincidence that the picture of a good legal migrant winds up being white, urban, and from a wealthy nation, while the people who face the highest barriers to migration happen to be brown, from poor countries, and rural, which is exactly what the supposedly typical bad illegal migrant is like – even in that they supposedly work in rural industries like agriculture or lumber (as you said, in reality many are in other trades). It is not just chance that what is asked of a legal migrant selects, above all else, for privilege.
Note that the Bill Gateses of this world are so keen on having more legal migrants to work for them (perhaps for less money than a US citizen would ask for, but still legally), while those who run agribusinesses would rather you kept the illegal migration you’ve got; economic demand for both kinds of migrant is high, but it’s the employers of the generally less privileged group that want them to remain outside the law. If they were regarded as equal people rights-wise – which is what the very notion of human rights demands – that would not be the case.
From http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=135039&Disp=1
From http://www.suntimes.com/news/puente/667269,CST-EDT-puente26.article
For the record, the first quote is from farmers who want a law giving them access to low-cost immigrant labor — basically, they want the status quo, but they want it to be legal. The second is from somebody who wants “solutions”, but isn’t real clear on what solutions she wants. Neither of them, I’m pretty sure, is RonF. ;)
Thene:
… but the fact that I have access to those qualities that make it easy for me to be a legal migrant is irrational.
Irrational on whose part, though? It’s not irrational for the U.S. to select for people with those qualities. It’s very rational for the U.S. to select out of the large number of people who would like to immigrate to the U.S. those people most likely to be a contributor to rather than a burden on American society.
I refuse to regard it as a coincidence that the picture of a good legal migrant winds up being white, urban, and from a wealthy nation, while the people who face the highest barriers to migration happen to be brown, from poor countries, and rural, which is exactly what the supposedly typical bad illegal migrant is like – even in that they supposedly work in rural industries like agriculture or lumber (as you said, in reality many are in other trades).
If not, then where is the non-coincidental actor? Is it racism on the part of the U.S.? Or is it that tolitarian governments that do a poor job of providing opportunities to the subjects for education, health care, etc. occur much more frequently in those areas of the world that are not populated by Caucasians?
It is not just chance that what is asked of a legal migrant selects, above all else, for privilege.
Is it privilege to be born in a country that gives you a better chance to be productive in American society? Perhaps. But who established that privilege? And what concern is that of the United States?
What is the object of American immigration policies? It’s to benefit the United States by admitting that subset of all applicants who provide the skills and desires most needed by American society. How many poor uneducated people from rural areas are needed for that?
The object of American immigration policies is not to address inequities in the societies and countries they come from and to benefit the immigrants.
Mythago writes:
To be clear, I’m talking about two separate things: the view on immigration, and the view on workplace regulations. And yes, my views on what conservatives think of workplace regulations is from dealing with actual conservatives.
Fine – then find me some conservatives who actually hold the attitude that America should remove the incentive to hire illegal aliens by getting rid of OSHA regulations. Because there are some quite lively debates throughout the conservative blogosphere about immigration and what to do about it, and I’ve never seen this suggested by anyone. Otherwise, it seems you are attributing this based on what you think about towards conservative politics and social attitudes (and painting them as rather heartless and mendacious to boot) rather than basing it on any actual statements.
RonF – I feel like you’re skipping over one of my points, maybe because I phrased it badly; there is a huge demand for those poor, brown, rural-based immigrants. Huge. There are 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA, and I gather a large proportion of them are in full employment in otherwise-legal industries. The skills these people have are in demand, and yet, for some mysterious reason the law does not wish to acknowledge that demand. They are productive. They are, collectively, great economic contributors. They are not unwanted little leeches that make America poorer – other than in that the amount of money they send home to their families outstrips the US’s foreign aid budget. (actually, mybad, that figure includes legal migrants too. It is, however, only inclusive of migrants from poor countries, the countries that receive international aid.)
Yes, the US has no obligation to provide equal immigration opportunities. It is however highly irrational that a huge proportion of the immigrants employed – demanded by! – by the US economy are undocumented, and that this group marries up perfectly with conventional prejudices about What Bad People Are Like. They’re clearly useful people, desired and in demand, so why are they pushed away from the legal process?
I’d also add that the US does seem to go out of their way to make the process as expensive as possible – eg. by forcing migrants to pay for an HIV test when they’re free in this country. That’s the sort of entirely silly hoop that’s set up for you to jump through, which has no benefit to the USA at all, but provides another small barrier for the migrant.
No, I’m not avoiding the point. I just thought it had been adequately discussed upthread. The demand is not just for low skilled labor. It’s for low skilled labor that corporations can exploit with low pay and high turnover if they complain about the exploitation. The ability of corporations to enter into this kind of relationship with their labor should not be tolerated.
Why are they pushed away? You seem to be hinting at racism (if not, what do you mean by ?). But I’d guess it’s because in order to pass laws to permit more unskilled people to enter the U.S. work force you’d have to convince the electorate that there are insufficient numbers of citizens that fit that description that could take those jobs and become employed/re-employed and thereby get off public support. I’d also guess that the reason why so many of these illegal aliens are poor and uneducated is because in their own countries their prospects for employment and the amount of exploitation they have to endure when they are employed are even worse there than they are here. As you say, wealthier people are more able to afford the immigration process than poorer people are. The proposition is that in fact the U.S. generates sufficient numbers of poor and unskilled people to meet the need for such, but because they are citizens they are harder to exploit.
HIV tests? Sure, they’re free in this country. It’s apparently judged in our best interests to give all citizens access to such tests for free if they are not otherwise able to pay for them. But why should this benefit be paid for by the American taxpayers for non-citizens who may not even end up residing in this country? Why SHOULD we pay for them?
It’s alleged that deporting all of this labor will result in product and service costs that will be a problem for American society. I don’t think that’s true. I agree with the viewpoint that the demand is mostly fed by corporate desires for high profits, and that competition will prevent prices from rising all that high. End the ability to exploit this kind of labor and we’ll see just how big the demand for labor you can’t exploit is, and what the effects on the economy really are.
Ron, I’m in a hurry but will come back to this later, but you misread me on the HIV point: HIV tests are free here but instead of getting a free test, I was required to pay for a US embassy approved test from one particular private clinic here in London. Fortunately, I live only seven miles from this clinic; it’s a 500-mile trip for a migrant from Aberdeen. For an HIV test and other medical checks. Which are available free on the NHS. But the free tests all UK citizens are entitled to aren’t acceptable – you have to pay $400 to the embassy doctor instead.
And no, I don’t think this is about racism per se, I think it’s more to do with classism. Bill Gates wants his legal migrants; other industries want illegal migrants. The difference isn’t skills – many visas don’t account for that at all. The difference is class.
(Btw, yes I am avoiding discussing the specific visa path I’ve taken this time around. I’d rather cross the border first and rant on the internet about it later.)
I refuse to regard it as a coincidence that the picture of a good legal migrant winds up being white, urban, and from a wealthy nation, while the people who face the highest barriers to migration happen to be brown, from poor countries, and rural,
No. To phrase it as you have would mean that there are lower requirements for some people and higher requirements for others. The requirements are the same for all. To be accurate, you would have to say that it is harder for people who have fewer resources to meet the immigration standards than for people who are wealthier (if that’s true – I have no personal experience as you apparently do). Your phrasing paints the picture that the requirements vary based on the income or race or urban vs. rural background of the applicant. If I am correctly informed, they do not.
Well, I have no idea why the U.S. requires a test from a specific doctor. Is it a certification the doctor or lab has, a specific test they provide? Or is it simply lazy bureaucracy that hasn’t bothered to update their procedures because it’s no skin off their ass if you have to run 500 miles around the countryside or not? Or because someone’s getting paid off? If it’s only one of the latter two, then by all means the procedure should be changed.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Or, perhaps in this case, laziness. Especially when dealing with the/a government.
Against the backdrop of a crowded produce market, Ohio farmers appealed Friday for an immigration law allowing them access to low-cost immigrant labor. The alternative, they said, would be $5 apples and $10 for cauliflower.
So, again, this is not coming from pro-immigration activists, as RonF initially suggested; it’s from the farmers benefitting from below-market-cost labor.
Fine – then find me some conservatives who actually hold the attitude that America should remove the incentive to hire illegal aliens by getting rid of OSHA regulations.
Um. Are you saying that conservatives don’t want to get rid of workplace regulations? If you read my post in #49 carefully, RonF, what I said was not “this is what conservatives argue,” but what I thought their logical position should be: combine their hatred of any limits on business with their desire to eliminate the use of illegal labor. Get rid of cost-raising things like OSHA and the EEOC, and the cost gap lessens.
Are you saying that conservatives don’t want to get rid of workplace regulations?
I would certainly say that some conservatives want to get rid of some workplace regulations. But I doubt that it’s any more possible to accurately characterize a viewpoint on the topic that would be held by all conservatives any more than it would be possible to accurately characterize a viewpoint on abortion or gay rights that would apply to all liberals. It’s also pretty doubtful that you can say that “people who hold position ‘x’ on immigration hold position ‘y’ on workplace regulation”. How many times have I been told that I shouldn’t view homosexuals or blacks as politically or socially homogeneous? The same thing applies to conservatives.
My objection to your original post was that you seemed to link the attitudes of what I’ll say is some conservatives’ attitudes towards workplace regulation to their attitudes on employment of illegal aliens. You may think that this is a logical position for conservative employers to take, but I haven’t seen it demonstrated that any actual conservatives think so.
Conservative business leaders suddenly think the free market doesn’t or shouldn’t apply to their own hiring practices.
One guy who year after year wants to raise immigration limits on the visa programs is Bill Gates. He’s definitely a business leader, but hardly conservative. Business leader =/= conservative. I’d say that “I want the rules changed for my personal benefit” is by no means limited to people who are politically or socially conservative – it’s pretty much part of the human condition.