s illegal immigration a problem? Maybe, maybe not, but one this is for sure...if the government actually wanted to prevent illegal immigration they could. Yes, it would be expensive, and yes it would cause taxes, but it could be done - take my word for it. This being said, I don't think anyone in government really wants to stop illegal immigration, every word that is said on the issue from a politician, is worth nothing, it is just a way of pleasing the party/their constituents.
I think it needs to be understood that the economy, specifically the Arizona economy, is now highly dependent on cheap labor, which means illegal immigrants. Past presidents new this was the case, why do you think the government has been less harsh on businesses that hire illegals? Cause Starting with Reagan, continuing through Clinton, and now currently, we understood that they are needed.
One "problem" that may arise from the illegal situation, is that the hiring of illegal immigrants screw over the Unions. If a union goes on strike, what does it matter, if their work can just be replaced for cheaper labor? This is what some people say. I disagree, I believe that if a program, such as a guest worker program, were to be implemented, who is to say that hispanic workers would not Unionize? If there were to be an illegal immigrants union, wouldn't that support labor unions? Wouldn't that keep wages, at the least, where they are currently?
I just need to know... is illegal immigration really bad for America?
now, who said what about doing what about illegal immigration?
By Bvanflet - Posted on May 6th, 2006
Tagged: News and politics
California is also very dependent on cheap immigrant labor - ANY state bordering Mexico is. The majority of construction sites are 95% hired immigrant workers and on the day of La Marcha and May Day, the building sites were ghost towns. Our country was founded on immigrant labor, whether it be from the Chinese, the Irish, or the Mexicanos. Our economy would be literally and figuratively screwed if we kicked all of the illegal immigrants out - both because we take taxes from their income and because we need "dirty jobs" done to progress as a nation. The white majority will go on welfare, WIC, result to robbery, or panhandle before they will pick grapes to support their family. I think that motivation counts for something. Not to say we should open our doors to everyone, but we should stop stereotyping the illegals as malicious job stealers hear to bite a chunk out of our economy while we ourselves sit on our couches watching American Idol complaining about how "hard it is to get a job these days."
Hey I think it helps america. Lazy people say "they took our jobs" Yeah right. They are also rebuilding new Orleans, so that saves some money
A defining characteristic of First World economies is labor scarcity. A defining characteristic of Third World economies is abundant cheap labor. These are by no means the only characteristics that define the differences between the two types of economies. Things like the "rule of law" and respect for private property are also critically important.
The reason labor supply makes a defining difference is that labor scarcity forces capital investment as a substitute for labor. There is an old saying: "scarcity is the mother of invention". A capital intensive economy is more productive on a per capita basis and increased productivity is the key to higher standards of living. Employers have fewer workers but they value them more and compensate them better. Workers get better pay, more benefits and more leisure. Employers have to compete with each other to hire and retain workers.
Economies that are cursed with overly abundant labor place very low value on workers. They use brute human force production methods rather than investing capital. The result is low per capita output and correspondingly low standards of living. Workers are poorly paid and treated in an exploitive way. Even human life is often valued very cheaply. Employers don't value their workers and treat them as easily replaceable, disposable chattel.
The market is very dynamic and versatile and is capable of identifying and adjusting to scarcity and abundance. There has been an abundance of cheap labor in California and Arizona and the market has adjusted to take advantage of it. If this source of cheap labor were removed there would be some painful economic disruptions and dislocation but the market would quickly adapt. Rising wages and investment in labor saving capital assets would be the result. There would be less people but they would have a higher standard of living.
Do we want a first world or third world economic model? You can't have open borders with the third world and not move towards equilibrium with their economic circumstances. They will adjust upwards while we adjust downwards. Personally, the opportunity for me to enjoy cheap lettuce is not enough to convince me that the poorest Americans should be forced to adjust downwards towards the circumstances of their third world counter-parts.
I think illegal immigration is ethically bad... not for the people who hop the fence or whatever but the fact that our government will throw people out just because of which side of the border they were born on. Many countries with much more liberal immigration policies than ours (Britain for example) have thriving economies... and might I add that ours is currently slumping? I say let them all in... our sinking ship could use some more rowers.