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.
I would gladly pay $4 for a head of lettuce.....and, I didn't say that I agreed with this writer; only posted the tagline explaining what his position (point of view) is, so that readers would know before reading it.
Thanks for your comments, Kingu!
Char :)
Why would they?
Main Entry: prag·mat·ic
2: relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters: practical as opposed to idealistic Pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with... social morality -- K. B. Clark
Um, No.
Anti-business and anti-labor.
I saw that same sentence and busted out laughing. "Someone else?" Is that the best he can come up with? I think we can about guess which group of "someone elses" came up with such a study...the fact that he doesn't say EXACTLY who did it says volumes. What a wonderful example of the claptrap that he probably wrote in college to get his "degree" (which is noted at the bottom of the article).
I wonder if he knows he's using the same arguments used by the Confederacy for continuing slavery? Cotton could only be produced economically with slave labor at the time, however, after the end of the war and slavery, the cotton gin was invented.
They are here illegally, get rid of them.
BTW we got rid of 1/4 of the population after 1789, for staying loyal to the king, you really don't thing we can move out 1/10 of the population.
One FR thread this week had stats that only 3% of illegal aliens actually work in agriculture
But 27% of US constuction workers are now illegal aliens
Similiar %ages in other occupations
This also drives down the wages of honest American workers - In 2004 inflation adjusted wages are less than 5 & 10 years ago
So this writer is trying to blow smoke up where the sun don*t shine while you are not expecting it
-- Now just consider not paying your federal, state, and city incomre taxes like illegal aliens do - as government ignores illegal aliens breaking the law - yet nail you in a heartbeat
Yet I hear the IRS loves to nail illegal aliens and crooked employers - you get a 10% bounty for every dollar the employer &/or illegal alien ripped off the IRS
Seems like any crooked employer of several illegal aliens could provide you with a good chunk of legal bounty cash courtesy of the IRS
Several RICO lawsuits filed by legal American employees and competitors of crooked emplyers of illegal aliens are now in the court system - and motions to dismiss filed by the companies attorneys have been been turned down buy the courts - the financial judgements against these corrupt greedy companies will be huge
IRS & RICO
It works for me!
Yes, last time I checked machines don't need food, medicine, or shelter.
If you need a job by the way, I have a few openings spinning wool by hand.
"But 27% of US constuction workers are now illegal aliens."
===========================
I have absolutely no reason to doubt that number. Any with a linke to that please ping me.
"Based in the greater Seattle area, TOPICS Entertainment is the foremost publisher of educational, reference and language learning software in the United States."
If this article is an example of education and reference, beware of TOPICS Entertainment!
Mr.James is "a member of numerous conservation groups and the American Civil Liberties Union."
Gee, I wonder how his "education and reference" software describes the Minutemen Project?
I quite agree. I was not impressed with the easy dismissal of Prop 187. In fact a judge vacated the proposition that was passed by over two thirds of the voters. It was considerably later that the gov dropped the legal appeal and let the matter go away. (The people should never have elected him if they wanted the lawsuit to continue.)
What occurred as a result was that California's hispanics got better organized joined the democrat side, and with the proposition as proof that the gringos were against them they changed the landscape of the state to what it is today. A very blue state. With elections close everywhere the GOP cannot afford to piss of a voting bloc like this proposition did. So this is the reason the GOP is going light on illegal immigration. (Even though lots of hispanics who are here legally realize that the illegals give everyone a bad name).
As for the crop picking - low labor cost being a real benefit to the state. I believe the figures are not there. The state loses much more than the benefits it gets when failing schools and higher crime rates and police costs are included. Of course many schools would have to be closed if the hispanic students were suddenly not there. And this is why the teachers union is in favor of this influx even if it makes it difficult to run classrooms sometimes.
This is where it gets good, they think we don't know the truth. Wait until they see not only do we know it but millions of us are and have been watching for years.
He and his elite group should come down to earth.
Yes, in this "intellectual's" mind a talk show must be 'far right wing' if it advocates our border laws be enforced, illegal immigrants prohibited, and government services restricted to tax paying CITIZENS. They must be right wing whack-jobs if they demand that Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution and other pertinant articles be enforced.
Picking vegetables DOES NOT save the state money. It may save business money, but that is not the state. Government services are tapped for tens of billions of dollars. Millions of children of illegal immigrants attend U.S. schools for free. Tens of millions of illegal immigrants obtain their healthcare at the emergency rooms of hospitals, for free.
Those hospitals must provide some of those services for free. The state grudgingly picks up a portion as well. What this forces is a situation where the health care facility must cut costs across the board in order to keep their doors open. U.S. citizens who have insurance or pay cash, therefore receive less service so that the freeloaders can be subsidized.
The dirty little hidden secrets are that we not only pick up the freebies for citizens of foreign nations, but our healthcare services are deminished in the process.
I have nothing but contempt for this propagandizing fool. He is simply one more useful idiot on El Presidente Foxes' El Camino Royal that is being paved right over you, me, our families and our nation.
The later, more than likely. The former less than likely.
There is no rational argument for illegal anything. You can advocate changing the law, but not leaving it alone and then breaking it. If your favorite expedient aim can be achieved by ignoring the law, notice you are not alone in this. Your neighbors can achieve the expedient end of having a nice SUV, by taking yours at gunpoint. They shouldn't, because it destroys social cooperation and makes all of us worse off, to live like that. And you shouldn't, because ignoring the law whenever you feel like it, destroys social cooperation and makes us all worse off.
The objection to illegal immigration is first of all that it is illegal. Yes there are people who also object to immigration of any kind. There are people who object to trade of any kind. There are people who don't know the first thing about economics who have ignorant opinions. But there is nothing ignorant about wanting the law followed, and no slander of people for wanting it can make it unreasonable. It is the height of reasonableness. Without law abiding behavior, we are all in a jungle and devil take the hindmost.
Existing law needs to be enforced, and scofflaws dealt with severely enough that they think well more than twice about ever doing the like again. That means citizens too, who connive at it. In addition, we need some serious, serious focus on assimilation of existing populations. That means only English. It means no handouts, come here because you want to be free and plan to be a citizen and to support your own. It means fully complying with the law, at and beyond the border. It also means employers who want workers with fewer rights and more precarious status they can threaten, can take their capital and move to Burma, but they can't have it here.
The business right and Republican leadership needs to get much more serious about this and yesterday. Sustainable free trade and ongoing legal immigration are dependent on a societal consensus, which has evaporated at the moment at the grass roots. It can only be restored by taking legitimate concerns very seriously, by restoring order, law, national allegiance, and democratic control to our immigration policies. Running against legality and patriotism is a stone cold loser, and in the long run bad policy.
Lets look at the bottom of his article why don't we:
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.
Hmmm. A CEO. Sure sounds impressive, but a lot depends on what you're the CEO of. Anyone can call themselves a CEO. They don't even need to start an actual business. They just need to pony up the cash to "incorporate". And with a company name like "Topics Entertainment", one wonders. He calls it a "Washington based software company", but one look at the web page clearly shows Topics Entertainment is a wannabe publisher with delusions of becoming something like the "For Dummies" books. I guess it kind of makes sense for a "software company" run by a CEO who "majored in International studies."
And "International Studies"? Puh-Freaking-Leeze. With apologies to the actual students of International Politics out there, but he might as well have majored in "Leftist-One-World-Bullsh*t." Studying "Underwater Basket Weaving" or "Lumber Appreciation" would have been more legitimate.
And finally, I don't see an actual degree. A lot of emphasis on "a focus on Latin America," but no actual degree. A "major" is not a degree. Sophomores have "majors". Graduates have degrees. You can tell the difference because actual degrees have abbreviations like B.A., or B.S., or M.S., or Ph.D. If he had actually earned the right to any of these initials signifying an actual degree, you'd think he'd have mentioned it.
Wow... someone's quoting the platitudes of Roman Provincial governors, 350'sAD laeti-policy vintage
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.