worker program' and my stupid peons will fall for it again."
This is Mexico's Economic Developement Policy: send them here to they can mail their American wages back home. This way, the powers that be don't have to reform their corrupt ways.
Indeed, Hinojosa, a fast-talking, pony-tailed graduate of University of Chicago's PhD program, is cashing in on the boom in illegal immigration himself. His startup, No Borders Inc., pedals debit-like cards on which immigrants can store cash, send money home to Mexico, make phone calls, and join medical discount plans.
Hardly an objective piece. An interview with a Clintonista with a built in conflict of interest? That's pathetic.
I'm not reading the rest of the article - but have one question. Why would the illegal segment disappear just because we offered incentives for some to come foreword and present themselves for identification and authorization? It would still be far cheaper for some employers to pay 20% below legal worker wages. What is missing from this is trading legalization en masse for the imposition of real border controls. Unless that happens any legalization program will be muted in its beneficial impact by the continued presence of illegals.
That would change if they were made legal.
Also, it is important to note that while making them legal would increase the TOTAL output, the output per CURRENT citizen worker would decline. That's just basic microeconomics. If you increase the amount of labor going into the production mix, the "marginal" product of labor declines. At equilibrium, the wage is equal to the marginal product of labor, so decent hard working citizens would get paid less, since they will now be competing more directly with people who are until now illegal.
worker program' and my stupid peons will fall for it again."
It was once thought that the voices of the New World Order came from Euroweenies on another continent. Think again!
Consider the following: The wages paid to the illegals + the amount of goods and services amounted to some $800 billion. Since by definition, the illegals wouldn't be hired if their wages were MORE than the value of what they produced, this sets an upper bound on their income of (say) $399 billion. By definition, the lower bound is ZERO. Second, the article states that their wages are "20% less" than what they would be on the open market. Now, given that number, we can come up with a range for either their pay (given the number of illegals assumed or admitted to be working here), or their number (given an assumed or admitted average pay). If there were 1 million illegal immigrants working in the US, the upper bound above would give them an average salary of $399,000 per year. Perhaps that's a bit too high. If there were 20 million illegal immigrants working in the US, their average salary would be just shy of $20,000 / yr. (Given that immigrants get paid less than legal workers, and that illegals tend to cluster in lower-skill, lower-paid work--"the work Americans won't do") this is at least reasonable.) Please recall a prior Business Week article, beating the drum for illegals as they used to for slave labor in China and wholesale outsourcing to India, presented one illegal couple who was making $120,000 per year and financed a Volkswagen Touareg. So far, so good. Why doesn't the article focus on the rising crime (Phoenix has among the highest auto-insurance rates in the country and the highest rate of identity theft in the US) or the medical costs (check with California hospitals)? In fact, the rising tide of illegal immigrations is a way for unscrupulous businesses to transfer many of the costs to the US taxpayer, from higher insurance and medical costs to higher taxes for unemployment). No cheers, unfortunately.
By Samuel P. Huntington
Synopsis:
In his seminal work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington argued provocatively and presciently that with the end of the cold war, "civilizations" were replacing ideologies as the new fault lines in international politics.
His astute analysis has proven correct. Now Professor Huntington turns his attention from international affairs to our domestic cultural rifts as he examines the impact other civilizations and their values are having on our own country.
America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigrants that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture.More recently, however, national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants, bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the "denationalization" of American elites.
September 11 brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American identity. But already there are signs that this revival is fading, even though in the post-September 11 world, Americans face unprecedented challenges to our security.
Who Are We? shows the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans. Nothing less than our national identity is at stake.
Once again Samuel Huntington has written an important book that is certain to provoke a lively debate and to shape our national conversation about who we are.
The theory behind Reagan's amnesty program was that existing illegals would be amnestied, but further illegal immigration would be stopped by controlling the borders and by enforcing regulations against employers who hired illegals.
As far as I can tell, there was no political will on anybody's part to do the followup stuff.
It's still not a bad idea. Amnesty existing illegals and stop new ones. The only problem is that A would be implemented but not B.
The US is entirely capable of assimilating existing immigrants. It cannot assimilate a continuous flow at the existing rates.
Grant, for the sake of argument, an economic
"boom" results from the invasion. This "boom" is not worth the disintegration of our cultural, social and political institutions.
Fuzzy math?
The problem is that the underlying premise is too absurd to accomplish the intended parody. The only thing legalizing so-called undocumented immigrants would accomplish is more illegal immigration.
Seal the borders!
There you have it the one and only reason business interests support the illegal invasion. The extra profit is a peculiar interest that pro-business Republicans serve.
Every other reason is whitewash and window dressing. If the extra exploitation profit wasn't there no one would want the invasion except for vote importing Democrats.
Worked pretty good for justifying shutting down factories stateside -- *enmasse* -- & off-shoring *all* the work to China, eh? ;^)
And the same shtick will undoubtedly be used for ramming CAFTA down our throats too, I suppose. :o)
Can't recall exactly who to quote, nevertheless it's never been any truer than now, nonetheless.
Paraphrased: "A capitalist will sell the executioner the rope used to hang him with."
Amazing.
...America will never learn.
Any economic displacements illegals cause in America are considered minor compared to the risk of having another Chavez on our southern border. The Administration is hoping that over time the economic disruptions will be minimized, that Mexicans who find success here will return home and export that success, and that Mexico will eventually come up to our level rather than dragging us down to theirs. It's a gamble, but one the Administration apparently feels they have to take...and can't openly talk about.