What's the Harm? (Part V)

It prevents economic development in the "developing world."

A lot of these fruit and vegetable farming operations that want a guest worker program knowingly hire illegal immigrants and have been doing so these past 20 years since the 1986 immigration act was passed.


Let's transfer these farms to the developing world where people are eager to do the work at wages the farmers will be willing to pay. The people need these jobs and will work hard.

(a) In August of 2006, the Lakeside Organic Gardens farm in Watsonville, California was featured in a news story as experiencing a severe labor shortage because the Bush administration was stepping up border enforcement: “The situation is so bad Peixoto has been forced to tear out nearly 30 acres of vegetables, and has about 100 acres compromised by weeds. He estimated his loss so far to be about $200,000 -- worse than anything he's seen in his 31 years of farming.” This farm is owned by the Peixoto family. I called the farm and was able to speak with a member of the family. He confirmed the news story and told me that he would hire anybody he could and he was not checking documents at that time. Barbassa, Juliana. “Organic farmers hurt by worker shortage,” Associated Press, 14 August 2006.

[It is pretty obvious that the Peixoto family has never been checking documents- that's why border enforcement caused them to have a severe labor shortage!!!!]

(b) González, Daniel. “Shortage of workers imperils Yuma crops Farmers point to lack of a guest-worker law.” The Arizona Republic, 21 November 2006. “The shortages are not just limited to the Yuma region. Vegetable growers in Colorado, pear growers in northern California, and apple growers in Washington, all have lacked workers.”

(c) In the fall of 2006, in Arizona, an onion farmer 150 miles from the border said he expects to plant 100 acres next year instead of 200 because he didn't think he'd be able to hire enough harvesters. (Lelyveld, Joseph. “The Border Dividing Arizona,” New York Times Magazine, 15 October 2006).

If you can't get American workers to pick your crops at the wages you are willing to pay, then you need to transfer your operations to a country where people are willing (actually VERY EAGER) to do the work at the wages you are willing to pay. That is a legitimate case of outsourcing, and it is how poor countries develop-- by having economic activity site itself in those countries in order to benefit from the low costs. Illegal immigration is actually preventing poor countries from developing!


Also, since the U.S. based farmers have been knowingly hiring illegal immigrants these past 20 years, why should they be rewarded with a guest worker program? They should actually be severely fined for their blatant illegal activity.

What's the Harm (Part IV)

Illegal immigration is not good for black Americans.
This is what Chuck Schumer said to the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Senate on March 8, 2007:

"In 1999, 65% of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless - in other
words not looking or unable to find work - and by 2004, the share had grown to 72%
jobless. 72% jobless! This compares to 29% of white and 19% of Hispanic dropouts.

In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school. Even when you consider high school graduates, half of black men in their 20’s were jobless in 2004.

To make matters worse, incarceration of young black men is at historic highs. A black
man with only a high school diploma has a 30 percent chance of having served time in prison by the time he turns thirty. Without a high school diploma, his likelihood of
having been incarcerated jumps to 60 percent. In fact, a black male in his late twenties without a high school diploma is more likely to be in jail than to be working.

These numbers take your breath away. These numbers should cause national alarm and demand a national solution."

A follow-on article in the Oakland Tribune (March 18, 2007) said, "Their employment histories are gruesome. Over the past few years, the percentage of black male high school graduates in their 20s who were jobless (including those who abandoned all efforts to find a job) has ranged from well over a third to roughly 50 percent. Those are the kinds of statistics you get during a depression."

Illegal immigration plays a strong role in the unemployment rate among black males.

I have heard it expressly stated, "I would rather hire an illegal immigrant than a black person."

A good percentage of white people feel that Hispanic illegal immigrants work harder. are more cooperative, and less likely to steal than black males. So they will hire the illegal immigrant.

And that pretty much accounts for all of illegal immigration. If all the unemployed black males were working, how much illegal immigration would there be? There is no labor shortage in the United States, contrary to what G.W. Bush claimed just today.

Are the 72% of black male high school dropouts UNEMPLOYABLE? Maybe not at the beginning of their work careers, but I think that having a job is how a person learns how to hold a job, is socialized into being able to hold a job. I think that idle hands are the devil's helpers-- a link between unemployment and crime. I think that illegal aliens- hard working, non-complaining, honest (except for the document fraud and identity theft et cetera) - are taking the jobs that Americans won't give to black Americans!


Let me give you a specific example. It's not a perfect example. Delivering pizza is not "a job Americans won't do." I live in a wealthy neighborhood in New York City. Friday night is pizza night in our household. The pizza place near our house- on a very exclusive street between 5th and Madison Avenues on 90th street- hires illegal immigrant delivery personnel. How do I know? Just common sense if you see these guys. These guys are making upwards of 20 deliveries a night- making probably an average of $3 tip per run. My parents insist on ordering from this pizza place because the food is so good, but I NEVER ALLOW THIS PLACE TO DELIVER TO OUR HOUSEHOLD. I always go down and pick up the food. If they would employ African-American delivery personnel, I would gladly relax, let the food be delivered, and give a fair tip. And since I have delivered pizza myself for 1.5 years, I always give a fair tip.

What's the Harm? (Part III)

I heard a report on NPR about a professional woman (investment banker) who has an illegal alien nanny taking care of her child. She says that the illegal labor pool allows her to have a career. Let's analyze that.

In New York, my friend pays his maid $90 per day. I suspect she is here illegally because he mentioned that she is applying for a Green card. But how does somebody unskilled come here without a Green Card to work as a maid? He is very unsophisticated about these things and I can't bring myself to confront him about this. It was his mother who hired the woman, and she recently died, and I don't see what I can do about it right now.

Let's return to the investment banker and her nanny. Without illegal immigration, this investment banker lady would have to pay the nanny more- say $150 per day. But let's say she couldn't afford that. So she would have to collaborate with 2 other professionals, they would each pay $50 per day. The woman would actually save money -- $50 instead of $90 per day! The employer would save money, the nanny would earn more money, their children would be better socialized because they wouldn't be alone all day (with a lawbreaker), and there would be more social interaction between the parents (who are members of what used to be known as a "community.") In sum, there would be fewer workers, but the workers would be better paid and society would gain all around.

What's the Harm? (Part II)

Economically, illegal aliens are Karl Marx's "reserve army of the unemployed."
Yes, Karl Marx, the person whose name is synonymous with communism. His critique of industrial capitalism was that it relies on huge numbers of unemployed people to keep wages low. If the workers go out on strike in demand for higher wages, the employers can just fire them and replace them with people from the reserve pool of unemployed individuals desperate for work.

New York is a place with a lot of illegal immigrants. Mayor Bloomberg estimated 500,000 at a U.S. Senate hearing on July 5, 2006.

The thing is, their is a drastic oversupply of low and unskilled labor in New York City.

"Several thousands of people - mostly young, black and Hispanic – had shown up to apply for fewer than 200 positions, only 65 of them full-time jobs." Interviewed while standing on line, Michel Ernest, 47, of Brooklyn, said, "I want any kind of job. I'll work in the kitchen if they have a kitchen." A bystander said, "This is what unemployment looks like in New York City. I wanted to cry."

(Anthony Ramirez, “A Job Prospect Lures, Then Frustrates, Thousands,” New York Times, 4 November 2006).

Illegal immigration how the employer class keeps wages low. Bush claims there would be a labor shortage without illegal immigration, but that is largely not true and one thing that would really happen is a mild redisribution of wealth away from the rich. There would be "inflation" at first due to "rising labor costs" but that would really be about employers complaining that they have to pay workers a living wage.
There would be all kinds of newspaper headlines, "Inflation Is Due to Rising Labor Costs!" All kinds of handwringing and blameslinging about "Rising Labor Costs." But "Rising Labor Costs" would actually be an indicator that WORKERS ARE WINNING BACK A BIGGER SHARE OF THE ECONOMIC PIE. The inflation will be a mirage-- once the rich start giving back some of their multimillion $$ bonuses, we'll see that it is not inflation, but a redistribution of wealth.

Warren Buffet recently said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” (Ben Stein, “In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning,” New York Times, 26 November 2006.) Illegal immigration has created an oversupply of labor so that wage rates remain low and workers must be docile or risk being replaced. Illegal immigration serves the same function as Marx’s reserve army of the unemployed. The indignities and the extreme difficulty of avoiding poverty that Barbara Ehrenreich described in Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (2002) would not be possible without the oversupply of labor. (See: Greenhouse, Steven and Leonhardt, David, “Real Wages Fail to Match Growth in Productivity,” New York Times, 8/28/2006.)

What is the Harm? (Part I)

Many people think that illegal immigration benefits the United States economically.
Let's examine this.

Paul Krugman, a political liberal, has written two columns on illegal immigration for the New York Times. In each column he specifically made the point that, “Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.”

(Paul Krugman, “North of the Border,” New York Times, 27 March 2006 and “The Road to Dubai,” New York Times, 31 March 2006.)

The employers benefit from exploiting illegal labor at wages below the market rate for legal labor, but consumers don’t even benefit because the price of the goods is no less expensive that it would be if made in China or Mexico, and everybody pays higher taxes to cover the cost of healthcare and other services for illegal workers, not to mention the cost of educating their children.

Illegal immigration benefits employers and burdens the rest of society.
Employers can pay lower wages to their illegal workers- sometimes below minimum wage- and then the welfare system picks up the tab for health care and other necessities that are beyond the means of illegal immigrants at the wages they can earn.

Certain goods and services in the United States may cost less because of illegal immigration, but we end up paying more in taxes and a degraded quality of life because people can no longer earn enough money to live their lives with dignity.

Excerpts From e-mail to Chuck Schumer

Vote NO on cloture.

On the floor of the Senate on 6/11/2007, you said, "So, yes, this no-confidence resolution is unusual, but it rises to the highest calling of the Senate, to seek rule of law over politics ... The bottom line is very simple. We have a sacred, noble obligation in this country to defend the rule of law."

If you are not a hypocrite even by the standards of politicians, you will vote no on cloture. Lewis Libby is not above the law, nor is Paris Hilton, and the 12 million illegal immigrants are neither above nor below the law. All people are bound by the law. That is one of the pillars of a republican form of government. If you, by your vote, are the cause of the erosion of that pillar, you are a contributor to the collapse of this republic.

I lived in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood from 7/1/2005 to 3/25/2007. I realized during that time that the people who are here illegally know that they are breaking the law, that they intentionally have broken the law, and that they are determined to break the law and get away with it.

If you are asking yourself, "How does he know they were here illegally," I answer that I have not lost my common sense, and that this attorney knows the definition of "probable cause." If you look at data from the Pew Hispanic Center combined with data from the DHS 2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, you will see that 70% of Hispanic immigrants who came here between the year 2000 and the present are here illegally. I looked at the recent Hispanic immigrants in my neighborhood, observed their obvious "I live in the shadows" behavior, and drew reasonable conclusions supported by statistics and observation.

The immigration act of 1986 was a reasonable and duly enacted law. There was widespread public debate; it was not the product of backroom deals with special interests.

The willful violation of a reasonable and duly enacted law cannot be permitted in a republic.

The laws passed by Congress and signed by the President must be upheld.

It is inconsistent with the republican form of government that people whose very presence in the territory of the republic is due to their willfull and continued violation multiple laws of that republic should be allowed any path to citizenship.

I ask you to live up to the words you uttered on the floor of the Senate on 6/11/2007 and vote NO on cloture.

My Letter to Mitch McConnell

The below was e-mailed to the Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate in late June, in an attempt (apparently successful) to help persuade him not to support the Senate bill.

After voting D or I in every election of my adult life (I am 38), I voted R in 2006 over the immigration issue and Howard Dean's statement that the national anthem could be sung in 2 languages, just as in Canada.

In your capacity of Minority Leader your represent your party and all Americans who understand that the Democrats' rush to pander to an irresponsible portion of the Hispanic community is a serious danger to the well being of the United States.

Republicans will not lose the Hispanic vote if they explain loudly, clearly, and repeatedly that the rule of law is the foundation of the republic and the economy. Paradoxically, if we allow illegal immigrants to get away with their intentional violation of multiple laws, it will grievously harm the very thing that they risked their lives to enter.

The Z visa will be regarded as close enough to amnesty so that it will encourage more illegal immigration. The U.N. estimates that the global population will be 9 billion in 2050- up 3 billion from 1998's figure. Unless the United States upholds it current immigration laws, which are reasonable and duly enacted, we will be overwhelmed by hundreds of millions more illegal immigrants by 2050.

The best solution may be to take enforcement actions with regard to the current 12-20 million illegal immigrants, increase somewhat legal immigration going forward, put in place an improved employment verification system, and over time, replace a good percentage of the current illegal aliens with legal immigrants.

I just moved out of a Hispanic neighborhood after living there from 7/2005 to 4/2007. Many persons illegally present in this country resided in that community. While observing and interacting with them, I realized that they know that they are breaking our laws, that they are intentionally breaking our laws, and that they are absolutely determined to succeed in breaking our laws.

That is no way to become a part of this republic. A path to citizenship must be absolutely out of the question. The remedy for illegally entering a country is deportation. Better yet, a large fine and deportation. Paying a fine may deter speeding, but the current Z visa solution, "pay and fine and you get to stay" creates an incentive to enter illegally and try to earn enough money to pay the fine.

[I should have mentioned that the Z visa actually would have acted as an immediate amnesty because it would have been essentially impossible to deport anybody. Virtually 100% of illegal immigrants would have been able to argue that they were about to apply for a Z visa and were eligible, so they should not be deported. That's why it really was an amnesty bill.]

Peter D. Salins, professor of political science at the State University of New York, has written an excellent Op-Ed piece for the New York Times. (July 3rd 2007)

He writes that,

"Social Security administrators assert, erroneously, that they are not permitted to aid immigration law enforcement or to share data with the Department of Homeland Security. The real reason for their reticence is their fear that more aggressive electronic enforcement might invite political outrage. In 2002, the Social Security Administration chose merely to inform employers of Social Security number discrepancies by sending 950,000 “mismatch” letters. That action so angered businesses and immigration advocates that a year later the modest bureaucratic effort was largely ended."

"Companies or individuals employing illegal workers “off the books” are breaking the law, as are those that submit false or stolen Social Security numbers. Admittedly, tracking down workers with no documents is a daunting task, but that would also be true under the proposed system in the stalled immigration reform bill. But the vast majority of American workers — legal and illegal — are actually working “on the books.” Their status does come to the attention of the Social Security Administration."

It's an excellent article which makes the point that effective workplace enforcement is possible with existing tools.

More on workplace enforcement

The "comprehensive" immigration reform bill was defeated for the time being.
This does not mean it is time for people who opposed the bill and to rest.
It is time to use the momentum to secure faithful enforcement of the 1986 Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The proponents of "comprehensive" reform claim that without the electronic verification system that was specified in that bill, effective workplace enforcement is impossible.

However, I received a piece of literature from FAIR, a group against illegal immigration.
Part of it says that, "A secure, verifiable work authorization system was called for in the 1986 law."
If accurate, that indicates that the INS and now ICE were always and are now free to devise an effective workplace enforcement system.

The FAIR mailing continues, "If credit cards companies, banks, and other private enterprises can run millions of verifications daily, there is no reason why we cannot have a system in place that verifies the eligibility of a much smaller number of people hired on any given day."

That statement, coupled with my blog post below, seem persuasive to me that there is no excuse for the failure of the U.S. government to devise a system of effective workplace enforcement. It is some combination of political pressure from employers who want to employ low-cost illegal labor and incompetence.