“Look, slaves pick our cotton. Slaves work for free. Look, I’m not happy about slavery. But do you want to pay an extra dollar for your fabulous cotton T-shirt? I know I don’t. I know the American people are not going to pay an extra dollar for their cotton T-shirts in order to free the slaves. That’s economics. It’s not fair, but you can’t fight economic demand,” so said the economics professor.
Say, I gots an idea! Howzabout instead of putting illegal aliens on a path to citizenship, let’s create a permanent underclass of immigrant workers! After all, they’re only here to do the jobs we don’t want to do, right? We’ll create a class of people that can work below minimum wage just so we can get our strawberries cheap! That sounds fair and just to me! And if anyone says it’s not fair, well, you can’t fight economic demand. No matter what you do, they’ll come anyway. And we know that no American would ever take those jobs (forget the large percentage of workers that aren’t illegal). So, why not just make them a permanent underclass so we can get cheap houses and strawberries! Yay America!
This crazy fun time was partly inspired by this MSNBC article: Economics of immigration could defy laws. Honestly, if the businesses had their way, they’d be perfectly happy with a permanent underclass paid below minimum wage.
The problem after 1986 wasn’t exactly purely economics. The laws weren’t enforced, and they aren’t now being enforced. All the economic factors in the world wouldn’t let illegal immigrants through if we built a fence, instituted a draft, and patrolled our borders with soldiers. That’s a bit extreme, but it’s true. I wonder if we had enforced our laws in the first place, would we have as big a problem with illegal immigration?
The economic status quo is also malleable. We’re paying prices for gasoline that we would’ve found outrageous not too long ago. We also have to wonder about the true cost of things. Sure, I’m paying less for a fruit. Yet, my tax money might go to your child’s free lunch at school because you’re getting paid peanuts. Hm…
At least the article did have the gall to admit: “While illegal immigrants play a crucial role in the economy, their importance is sometimes overstated. Foreign workers account for less than 5 percent of the nation’s labor force. They are concentrated by industry and geography in ways that would cushion the larger economy should they removed from it. While their labor affects the prices consumers pay for some goods, it is but one component.”
Yet, the thesis of the article seems to be the all-powerful strength of economics in driving illegal immigration. Doesn’t that concession undermine the point that we can’t fight the “tremendous economic demand for illegal immigrants”?
Moreover, the article explains where the demand is coming from: “The reality, though, is that given the motivations of the businesses and workers at its center, regulating the flow of workers at the periphery of the economy will be very difficult, whether or not immigration is legal, experts say.” Although the article starts with the lovely tale of the employer who hires immigrants because he thinks his customers won’t pay extra, the real motivation to hire illegals comes from the motivation of businessmen to not have to pay as much for wages. We must realize that if it were up to businesses to decide everything, we probably wouldn’t have a minimum wage in the first place. I’m sure there are some people who agree with that we shouldn’t, but I bet the majority of Americans agree that there should be a minimum wage. So, why haven’t businesses gotten rid of the minimum wage by having their lobbyists scream about economic factors?
The moral of the story? Don’t accept the inevitability of economic factors. If we choose to clamp down on illegal immigration, it can be done, economic factors be damned. If we punish businesses for hiring illegals, then let’s see what happens to that omnipotent economic demand.
this guy in my neighborhood stands on the corner selling strawberries . . . i don’t buy them though because i know they’ll just go bad :-(
Tongue-in-cheek response: So, Shawn, you’re actually NOT a free-market conservative? ;p
It seems to me that ‘clamping down on immigration’ using the methods you outline (wall, draft, etc.) includes tinkering with economics in a way that suggests a slippery slope downwards to a planned economy. And we all know what happens then.
I know I’m being glib here, but the fundamental question remains for you: in this case (immigration, demographics), you would not favor the mechanics or mechanism of a free market, contra the necessity to suppress illegal immigration.
In the grand scheme of things, money was made to serve man, not the other way around. Government is made to serve the people, not the economy. If the free market could solve everything, we wouldn’t need government in the first place. For certain issues, the government should step in. For me, security tends to trump economic factors, and I don’t think this constitutes a repudiation of capitalism, does it?
By the way, I just did a search… and I was surprised to find that I haven’t used the phrase “free market” in any of my weblog entries.
I agree Agnie – the economic factors be damned. There’s some things we have to stand up for that business won’t do on its own, because, let’s face it: about 99% of the time, business is only looking at the bottom line to make its moral decisions.
I kind’ve wonder though: what would it be like in a country where fruit-pickers actually got paid minimum wage? Where they were treated with decency? Would it bankrupt the farms if we required such things? More importantly, where do we get our Florida orange juice from when the industry collapses?! (j/k)
I wouldn’t be surprised if requiring that farm workers get decent wages leads to more farm subsidies, which is a very tightly related other can of worms. Anyway, I think the principle still stands – we need to treat such workers as humans. Somehow we justify not doing that by the fact that they aren’t citizens. And we don’t want to treat them like citizens, because, well, they’re flooding the country and using up a lot of social-net programs’ resources. And, well, that pisses off a lot of people who *are* citizens.
The ultimate solution lies somewhere around two points, I think: clamping down on immigration (as you said), as well as enforcing that minimum wage. I’m pessimistic that this will ever happen though, since both of these would require more man-power (person-power?) than the government can allocate to such causes.