(Page 6 of 18)
David Holman replies: br> Messrs. McKinney and Woodward contribute excellent alternate causes to the decline of Glacier's glaciers. /p>Mr. Peach will take solace in the fact that most of the American media have also been duped into uncritically accepting global warming theory without much in the way of evidence. Speaking for myself, I am in favor of conserving a reasonable burden of proof for those who advocate incredible economic disruption because they think something may be happening. Mr. Peach fails to meet this burden: carbon dioxide emissions are currently high, weather patterns are changing (when aren't they?), and many people are dying (ditto). Those dots don't automatically connect for me.
p> INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT br> Re: Jed Babbin's Rebuilding the Welfare State (Illegally) : /p>Another excellent article by Mr. Babbin. I have nothing to add to what he had to say, but I would like to expand it in one direction, social economics of the guest worker program.
The basic reasoning behind a guest worker program is two fold. First, people come here, and are already here, to make money. Second, that there is a category of jobs that American workers either won't do or that employers can't afford to pay them to do. To fill these jobs, employers look to immigrant labor as a source of unskilled bodies to perform these jobs for minimal compensation. It sounds good, on the surface, but it is rotten, both economically and socially.
Most Americans do not fill certain unskilled labor positions because they cannot afford to. To sustain a marginal lifestyle in this country, a household income has to be at least $18,000 (poverty level for a family of four). In actual fact, most families making that much are still dependant upon some type of social welfare assistance. Undocumented aliens who come for employment will work for much lower wages. Wages which are, as a practical matter, significantly below the minimum hourly wage in this country. This is feasible, for the worker, because he does not intend to live in the U.S., where the cost of living is so much higher than in his native country. He intends to make his fortune and return to home and family. This system leads to abuses. The worker is often in a state of economic slavery. The employer has a tremendous amount of power and control over the worker because of the worker's illegal status. In most cases, an illegal immigrant has no recourse to institutions in this country that would force an employer to live up to his obligations. It also exposes the worker to the predations of unscrupulous labor agents who demand significant "fees" for procuring jobs for illegal workers. And the illegal immigrant has no future, in this country, as his status can lead to arrest and deportation at any time.
The potential societal and economic ramifications of legalizing guest workers are significant. First, legitimization of the status of guest workers would force a rise in labor costs for employers as minimum wage statutes and other labor laws would have to be adhered to. This would offer no benefit to employers who depend upon cheap labor. Second, the social services available to guest workers would be, essentially, the same as to illegal immigrants or citizens. So there would be no savings to the taxpaying citizens of this country. And third, there would be created a sizable, legitimate underclass in this country. One that would have no legitimate political recourse (unless one considers the very real possibility of voter fraud). There are others, such as dependent immigration, failure to observe limited stays, the lack of a firm commitment to the host country (us) and, finally, the matter of monitoring of individual guest workers and enforcement of laws dealing with the status of the worker. The bureaucracy necessary to manage this program would be so staggering as to not only negate any economic advantage to the citizens of the United States, but would divert significantly more tax revenue from other programs than the guest worker program would bring in.
Taken in its totality, it appears that the only one that would benefit from this program would be the foreign worker and possibly certain politicians. And it is unlikely that it would significantly curtail illegal economic immigration. The employers currently employing illegal immigrants would continue to do so to maintain their economic advantage and there would always be more applicants than visas. No matter how it is set up, this country could not afford to enforce guest worker visas. No matter what standards are passed, illegal immigration will not abate. In short, any guest worker program is doomed to failure without strict border interdiction. With strict border control, it is no longer needed. Workers can apply for entry as they do now. Visa numbers can be adjusted as seems advisable for various national groups. And, a small increase in immigration staffing can handle the monitoring chores. A more important benefit would be a strong possibility that legal immigrants would seek citizenship. And someone with a stake in this country is of greater benefit than someone who is just passing through.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.