On 07 Jun 2004 13:09:48 GMT, email@example.com (Charlie Self)
|True enough, but the really, really big problem is that our need here is for
|kind of work the Mexican laborers do, not the skilled worker. Without illegal
|help, our food costs would rise considerably.
That may be, but does it necessarily mean that the cost of living goes
up? I don't know, but our local, liberal as can be (redundant I
know), morning newspaper just ran a front-page story about a study of
the cost of illegal immigration to the state of Arizona.
If you believe that the $1.3B is a fair estimate, (I do) then illegal
immigration costs every man, woman and child (5.1 million) in Arizona
approximately $255 per year. This number does not include the
proportional share of cost to the federal government (border
And it certainly doesn't include the cost to the quality of life due
to crime. Tucson now has the dubious distinction of having the
highest crime rate in the country and it's not safe in our national
parks (http://www.desertinvasion.us/articles/articles_opnm.html ).
Thank you Mexico. Some might argue that this goes away if we simply
open the doors and let everyone in but I don't buy that for an
So, for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to say that it costs my
wife and me $1000/year to support illegal immigration. This is
non-discretionary spending; I can't do a thing about it.
Surely I must get some benefit, right? Aha, the price of lettuce is
lower because it was picked by illegals. And a plate of tacos at the
local Mexican eatery is a buck cheaper because the cook and dishwasher
But what if I choose to not go to that restaurant and buy those tacos.
As I said earlier, it's a free country, and I don't have to buy tacos.
But wait, I'm still subsidizing the people who *do* buy the tacos.
I'm paying for them whether I eat them or not!
Sorry, with all due respect, I'm not buying the "costs would go up and
we need these people to do work that Americans won't do" argument.
This is a subsidy pure and simple. There ain't no free lunch.
|We really do need a coherent immigration policy, but the biggest problem comes
|from bordre length, and the low paying economies in Latin America, leaving
|people willing to come to the US, work for less than minimum wage, and still
|manage to have enough money left to send a packet home for the family.
But we have a policy. The laws are on the books.
|We need these people, but they should be treated better, and paid better, both
|of which require some political guts, something in amazingly short supply.
|Bush's program is nothing more than pandering to the Latino (is that the PC
|word this month?)
They used to be just Mexican. Then they became Mexican-American and
then Chicano, Hispanic for a while and now Latino. As for Bush, he's
given me a lot of reasons to not vote for him again, all of which I
could ignore, but this one's pushed me over the edge.
|vote, not a policy, and not sensible. The system pays, which
|means that instead of employers picking up the nut for healthcare, the taxpayer
|pays. That needs to be stopped. Let the employers pay, even if it raises costs.
Ah, some agreement [g].
|Ah well. Not to be solved here, where we get evidence of wooden heads, but
|really little in the way of political acumen.
The solution is really quite simple. When illegals are found working
in a Walmart, Sammy Walton, Jr. gets a year in jail. When a farmer is
found with illegals in his fields, he gets a year in jail. When a
restaurant owner is found with illegals in the kitchen, he gets a year
in jail. "I didn't know" is not a defense.
A few dozen widely-publicized cases and the job market is gone and the
illegals go home.
Prices will rise to their true value and we will then get to decide
whether to pay them or not and whether we want to revise our
immigration policy or not.