Historically--i.e., from 1845-1965--the labor pool along the border included Mexican nationals living in Mexico.
as for deeming the current state of affairs as the normal that should be recognized instead of remedied is fallacious.
It's abnormal in the sense that we refuse to recognize long-standing custom. Again, the lesson of the Volstead Act is worth studying. It was an example of trying to perform top-down social engineering at gunpoint. Same with the ending of the guest worker program in 1965.
It is "normal" that people have their homes burglarized. We do not "solve" the problem by giving thieves good title to what they steal.
You want a more accurate model of what happened?
Suppose I got a law passed that forbade you from holding your job, and forbade people from hiring you for any job.
Now, you have two choices: (a) starve, or (b) break the law.
Which one would you go for?
And why you seem to have a problem with punishing people who break the law, I don't.
I don't have a problem with that. Again, you are engaging in slanderous argument. I shall return the favor.
The problem with your argument is that a majority of your fellow citizens, when pressed into jury duty, have refused to punish those who violate this law.
Of course, some "conservatives" seem to think that anything that businesses do is good simply by virtue of the fact that they are businesses.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
I am a conservative. This includes conserving such things as longstanding local customs--such as gun ownership and allowing employers to hire whoever they wish.
IMHO, conservatism does not countenance deciding which laws are "good" and should be obeyed.
Ah, I see your problem.
You're not a conservative; you are a statist. Your sole purpose for being is to serve the State, which is your deity.
as to whether government is the master over citizens, this is just silly. Of course the citizens are master. And the master has, through its duly elected representatives, has made hiring illegal aliens a criminal offense.
And, once again, you try to have both sides of an argument, as it suits you.
You assert that, on the one hand, that politicians will do unpopular things. Now, you assert that the fact that politicians did something is proof of its popularity.
The government is duty bound to enforce those laws until they are changed.
As to whether the real market wage has been determined before I was born, 1. You do not know how old I am. I could be 14 or I could be 94.
Your language and demeanor speak to the first option far more than the second.
But before you become a famous PJ model, could you answer my question of whether you are familiar with concepts of cross-cutting cleavages or interest group politics?
Funny, you show no sign of understanding it yourself: the very policies you champion, and demand that the government spend every last cent of national treasure to enforce, were a product of cross-cutting cleavages and interest group politics.
Finally, the anchor baby problem. Here's the scenario you do not seem to understand: Guest worker Pablo comes in sans his family. While in America, he has relations with Julia.
Your scenario, reduced to its simplest component: "Oh, Lordy, Julia might take up with a BROWN person and pollute the Aryan race!"
One slander deserves another, a$$wipe. Aren't you late for a cross-burning or something?