As is so often the case with great debates of any given age, there are a few points in the immigration battle, which, if conceded by either faction, could go some way toward facilitating an armistice. From such a platform of mutual agreement, common sense could take over, dictating the terms of cessation and reconciliation and thus allowing the nation to just get on with it. In the immigration debate, these incredibly simple, only slightly tongue in cheek points (one for each side to confirm the observations of eagle-eyed readers) are as follow:
1. Illegal immigration is illegal - Illegal immigrants differ from legal immigrants in that they are in the country illegally. There are many good reasons to protect borders, the drug war is just one. Using only the eyes and the years for statistical analysis, one can determine that this problem is closer than ever to home. Therefore allowing unfettered access to American soil is a dangerous game. Drug wars and crime aside, until something changes, illegal breaches of borders are breaches of the law. Therefore those who cross illegally should be punished, just like any other scenario where laws are broken in a society where such things are generally frowned upon.
Why this isn't taken for granted - People's strong belief that the 'bring us your...huddled masses' language on the Statue of Liberty plaque supercedes federal statutory law.
2. Without illegals, the American economy would collapse - It is widely estimated that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 million illegal immigrants in the US (government estimates usually range from 11 to 13; some private estimates are as high as 20; it has been some time before this writer has seen any number below 10). Most of them work, often in agriculture, services jobs and construction. While it is true that the overall unemployment rate is very high right now, most of the citizens who are out of work would not do these jobs at the pay grades they are being done for. Put succinctly, most 45 year old white males do not want to be busboys for $5/hr at their favorite restaurants, nor do they want their steaks there to cost 30% more, which they would without cheap labor.
Why this isn't taken for granted - Various interpretations of the 'they took our jobs' argument; willful blindness.
So there it is, a guide to solving the immigration problem. Step 1, get everyone to acknowledge that the rule of law still means something; Step 2, get everyone to acknowledge that the government will never be able round up and ship out all of the illegals without a serious disruption to the economy; Step 3, based on these simple facts, have the policymakers decide a common sense solution. No obvious flaws there... ...On second thought maybe the title above should be 'Fixing the Immigration Problem in Three Steps or Many, Many More.'
I don't know that everyone can accept #2. I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but 45-year-old white men are not the only unemployed workers. Legal (immigrant and not), unskilled workers are also competing with illegal, unskilled workers.
ReplyDeleteA few articles from WSJ (no fan of regulation of labor markets they) make the point better than I can. First, an example of non-immigrant workers fighting for jobs sought by immigrants (legal and illegal) is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303310871748603.html
This quote: "This is the worst job I have ever applied for," sums up the level of desperation out there right now. I think you may be underestimating the number of 45-year-old white males willing to work in jobs now favored by illegals.
A second example and a slightly different point comes from GA. The article is republished on the Post-Gazette's website (WSJ's is behind a paywall): in Stillmore, GA, a federal immigration raid that eliminated 75% of the workforce at a plant didn't close the plant. Instead, the plant raised wages by more than a dollar an hour to attract legal workers.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07017/754517-28.stm#ixzz1KdlGsqkz
The result of eliminating illegal labor wasn't the elimination of a job, it was raising pay to a level where legal workers wanted the job. (It may also bear noting that most of the local unemployed in Stillmore were African-American, a demographic historically hit harder by rising unemployment). You made the point in your post, and I agree, that in full employment, we'd care more about cheap chicken.
But a one-time 13% labor cost increase, while inflationary, is probably better than extended unemployment of 10%, which we now face. For the unemployed, the choice is easy: pay that's worth 13% less, or nothing. Choice one is 87% better. (Of course, this exaggerates the inflationary impact, as many jobs will not see increased pay, and in fact high unemployment usually sees decreased pay. My point is that even the exaggerated choice is appealing to the unemployed.)
Illegal labor is vital during labor scarcity. But in times of a labor surplus, it artificially holds wages below a level that legal workers will accept and deflates the value of their work. Of the available means of fighting inflation, forcing people to accept a less-than-livable wage, legal or illegal, is the least attractive.