Posted on 06/17/2005 9:26:27 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Sometimes you hear a discussion or debate in which the participants seem to be getting nowhere, don't understand the subject and can't see the obvious. A prime example of this is the illegal-immigration controversy, and the folks making lots of noise are on conservative talk radio.
The conversations on the subject usually revolve around two main themes: The president has sold out his conservative base, and he is ignoring national security by allowing illegal aliens to swarm over the border. Tune in to any of the far-right talk shows, and you can hear variations on these two themes just about any day of the week.
About the only thing they're ever right about on this contentious subject is that if the U.S. government wanted to do something about illegal immigration, it could.
The truth, of course, is that the government doesn't want to do anything about it — and for good reason.
Our somewhat lax and paradoxical border policy is driven by something very basic: money and economics.
A decade ago, there was a big fuss in California when some concerned citizens decided that the illegal immigrants in their state were a big strain on the budget, and were draining billions of dollars from education and health care. The logic went that if the illegal aliens were stopped from sending their kids to school, and using free medicine, the state would save lots of money that it could then spend on its legal citizens.
An interesting thing happened next. Someone else did a follow-up study, and found that what the state saved in economic costs from the use of migrant labor in agriculture was over three times what it cost in health care and education to those same workers. In other words, illegal aliens were not costing the state a thing, but were instead saving the state tens of billions of dollars a year — and, at the same time, were keeping California's agricultural industry competitive with the rest of the world. The big fuss quietly went away and nothing much changed in California.
The right way to look at illegal immigration is with a pragmatic eye. Simple questions need to be asked: Are Americans willing to pay $4 instead of $1 for a head of lettuce? Do we really want to shore up the borders and then watch inflation grow rapidly? The big owners of agribusiness know the answer to these questions, as do the politicians they support.
So we're stuck with this silly issue that won't go away, and with people who talk tough, but really wouldn't want the situation to change if they realized what the true costs to our economy and society would be.
I think I'd even go one step further and speculate that not only do people in high places understand this issue very well, they've probably got it worked out so that the illegal immigration that is happening is happening in just the right amounts.
Consider how our Southern border is currently monitored: The Border Patrol stays close to the big cities and population centers, then thins out in rural areas and the desert. A coincidence? Doubtful. This policy effectively weeds out the weak and makes the trip tough enough that it discourages families and small children (bad for the U.S. economy), and makes the difficult passage overland a journey that mostly young males would be willing to risk (good for the U.S. economy).
In essence, you have a system that encourages the most desirable illegal immigrants, and discourages the rest. Americans then get the best of both worlds: cheap labor to do the backbreaking work that most in this society wouldn't want to do, and a competitive price for fresh fruits, vegetables and many other things dependent on manual labor.
As a bonus, if the "illegals" cause trouble, they can be deported without enjoying any of the rights a U.S. citizen would enjoy. It's really a pretty simple (if somewhat cynical) deal. And this president knows it, as do all the big ranchers, fruit farmers, grocers and restaurant owners who support him.
What's more, it would appear obvious, looking at recent history, that several presidents before George W. Bush figured out the same thing. To care about national security is to often make compromises. In this case, the angry voice of conservatives in his own party is the price this president pays for continuing a policy that, while difficult to actually articulate, really makes quite good sense.
Greg James of Seattle is the CEO of Topics Entertainment, a Washington-based software company. He majored in international studies at the University of Washington, with a focus on Latin America.
What a simple-minded, superficial little blog for anarchy. ( Americans breaking the law to help law breakers.)
Funny, he talks about bad argumentation and uses the weakest argument out there. The lettuce crap.
1. Vast majority of illegals don't work in agriculture.
2. Cost of labor is not the only core cost in agriculture. Maybe costs would go up, but that much.
3. Americans can also pick crops and have in the past.
4. Legal immigrants could also work in agriculture. Or perhaps a guest worker program only for ag might not be a bad idea.
5. Higher labor costs would encourage more mechanization in ag.
Char :)
===========================
The right way to look at illegal immigration is with a pragmatic eye. Simple questions need to be asked: Are Americans willing to pay $4 instead of $1 for a head of lettuce?Do we really want to shore up the borders and then watch inflation grow rapidly? The big owners of agribusiness know the answer to these questions, as do the politicians they support.
Agriculture is just an example.
The Agrbusiness has devised Olive pickers, Tomatoe Pickers, Carrot Pickers, I believe they will have very little problems devising anytype of "Picker". If it's an American holding a job then the job can be exported, if it's an illegal alien holding the job, then it must be saved because we Americans who's jobs have been exported do not want to pay $4 for a head of lettuce, picked by an American "Picker" that has a doctorates degree!!
What a load of Socialist Crap!! Seal the borders, get our high school kids off the streets and into the fields so they know what it means to have a job and to work for their money to raise a family.
So in other words, taxpayers get to pony up the big dollars to provide aid, comfort, and support to criminals just so Kalifornistan agri-corporations can keep their costs down and their profits up.
I can see how that can be good for the agri-corporations. I can almost see how that might be good for the "state" (whatever that means). But I still fail to see how it benefits the taxpayers who end up footing the bill.
Trotting out old debunked arguments is the best they can do?
You don't keep your Nation secure when you don't know who's sneaking across the borders.
the illegals send their money south of the border and take US government dollars. Ever been to any US public facility like even something simle as the dmv --that's not completely crowded with foreigners. The hospitals and prisons are crowded with foreigners on the US taxpayer dime.
what finacial drain of the illegals is just shifted from agribusiness to the US taxpayer.
Yup. And until they do something about the borders, they can stuff the "patriot" act where the sun don't shine. Of course, that's exactly what the ruling class intends, but we're the stuffee rather than the stuffer.
Of course, "the state" didn't save anything. Some growers saved a bundle because wages were depressed for agricultural jobs. The Americans and legal immigrants who would have held those jobs lost out, as well as the taxpayers who have to pay for all the social services, as well as the victims of crime from the illegals. The taxpayers also lose out from the welfare, EIC, and Social Security fraud perpetuated by these illegals. Citizens lose out from housing shortages or increasing costs to rent or buy a home.
And there are many indirect or noneconomic costs, including living in a facsimile of Mexico.
What use to take 14 people is now handle by one man In about 12 hours.
There has been no economic incentive, with cheap labor, to build machine to pick the melons, the strawberries or the garlic.
With no illegals, you bet your sweet butt there would be a technology increase comparable to the rest of modern agriculture.
" With no illegals, you bet your sweet butt there would be a technology increase comparable to the rest of modern agriculture."
=======================
What will we do with all that excess 'labor?'
*yawn* The migrant workers program is alive and well; our fields are only suffering because folks are applying for migrant work, get here, and instead work in construction, industry, cleaning our homes, mowing our lawns, caring for our kids.
They're stealing the jobs our children would normally do, and as an end result we're getting a second generation that don't understand hard work and getting ahead.
Even if the study was correct and it'd run $4 per head of lettuce, it is a cheap price to pay.
The truth, of course, is that the government doesn't want to do anything about it — and for good reason.
Our somewhat lax and paradoxical border policy is driven by something very basic: money and economics.
Another know-it-all who does not listen well. We talk all the time about economics and sending criminals like him to jail for using ILLEGAL alien labor. Taxpayer subsidized ILLEGAL labor, that is.
The big fuss [i.e., Prop 187, I guess] quietly went away and nothing much changed in California.
The know-it-all is wrong again. Strike two. The recall of the man who killed Prop 187 with his "mediation," Gov. Davis, lost his job due largely to his betrayal of the sixty percent of the voters who voted for Prop 187 in 1994.
Are Americans willing to pay $4 instead of $1 for a head of lettuce?
The man is an idiot*. Strike three and kicked off the team.
Or.. is he being facetious?
* Ag experts say the cost would increase by about five to ten percent. One is Agricultural economist Philip Martin of UC Davis, I believe is his school.
A void is always filled and without a need for illegals maybe they will go to mexico cause a revolt and actually get its economy moving. Even if they are from ireland or are al queera.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.