On Friday SbyNEWS ran a post about a new North Carolina law that will require all employers with 25 or more employees to use E-Verify to check the residency / citizenship status of all applicants. A pretty straight forward post, but the comments were surprising.
“Are illegal immigrants a burden to our economy?” quickly became the overriding theme of the comment thread. If you take out the snide comments to one another, the comments were pretty thoughtful. They just weren’t as well thought out as they could be. So … I figured that I would take a shot.
WE NEED A NATIONAL SOLUTION
As you will see below, we need a NATIONAL solution to this problem. Many claims that illegal immigrants are necessary for our economy use anecdotal evidence from states which have stepped up their own immigration enforcement efforts.
The image of produce rotting in Georgia fields is the latest anecdotal example supporting the claim that we need illegal immigrants. The catch all claim is '”there are certain jobs that we can’t get Americans to do”.
The bottom line is that we need a national solution to this problem. State-by-state solutions merely serve to make one state more competitive than another because the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws. States that crack down on illegal immigration find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in some industries (primarily agribusiness and construction) while other states take advantage of a lower prevailing wage rate.
WE CAN’T GET PEOPLE TO WORK
The single biggest argument AGAINST strong enforcement of immigration laws claims that we have jobs that citizens will not do. Hogwash! We have jobs that Americans won’t do for the prevailing wage.
Why should they? If the government pays you NOT to work, why should you take a job that is difficult AND pays less or only marginally more than you can collect on the dole. Growing up in a family of small business owners it never ceased to amaze me how people of seemingly poor education could quickly calculate how many hours they could work without losing X welfare benefit. If you ever examined the welfare system and the byzantine system of benefits, you would realize that it takes someone of above average intelligence to navigate. I always wondered what many of these people could accomplish if they put their sizable talents to entrepreneurship rather than scamming the system.
If Employer X paid $20 an hour to clean toilets or $30 an hour to pick produce AND if welfare benefits were cut back to only those actually unable to work and genuinely in need, there would be an ample labor pool.
However, this would only work if NATIONAL immigration laws were enforced. It’s pretty obvious that a farmer in Georgia can’t pay a significantly higher wage rate for pickers than his neighbors in Florida do. We also have to accept the fact that prices would rise. Therein lies the problem.
Are you willing to pay higher prices for food, rent, etc. in order to assure border security?
ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS A BURDEN?
This brings us back to the original question. Obviously the answer isn’t simple. Opponents of enforcing our laws argue that they pay taxes and don’t receive any government benefit. Any person who has been around a hospital emergency room or stood in line at Wal-Mart knows that illegal immigrants DO receive government benefit. Marylanders also know that their state tax dollars go to fund organizations like CASA de Maryland.
Yes, illegals do USUALLY pay taxes. They primarily pay the payroll tax (FICA and Medicare), but don’t pay income taxes.
Do the benefits illegal immigrants receive outweigh what they pay in? No one can know for sure. We won’t even take the extra space to discuss the negative economic implications of large segments of our society who cannot or refuse to learn English.
Ultimately, we have to conclude that illegal immigration is an economic bag of mixed results. It results in lower prices. It’s difficult to quantify the costs of illegal immigration. However, we know that a porous border is good for neither our national security or nor our national sovereignty.
I would argue that our country would be better off if we cut back on welfare benefits (necessary to fill jobs that many illegals do now), secured our borders, AND deported every illegal immigrant. If they have anchor babies, then the child could return when he or she reached majority. However, simply having a relative who is a citizen should allow family to live here legally.
Your thoughts?
G. A. Harrison is the Managing Editor of “Salisbury News”. “Delmarva Dealings” appears each Wednesday and Sunday at SbyNEWS.com.
28 comments:
There is already a form, the I-9 form, that businesses MUST fill out when someone is hired. This form also demands the person hired show a state ID and birth certificate or SSN, or if they are from out of the country one of the so called "green cards" (which is actually not what they are called). This is federal law. Under penalty of heavy fines businesses turn their backs on it. Just enforce the law.
That being said, I would love to know the actual percentage of illegal immigrants that pay any taxes. It makes logical sense that if you are here illegally and don't want to get found out then you're going to have to work under-the-table or steal someone else's ID/SSN. Of course this argument would go away if we went to a national sales tax instead of an income tax. A national sales tax would force illegals, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc... to pay their federal taxes based on their consumption. If the liberals want to balance the budget and keep the illegals here they should get behind the plan.
The prevailing notion is that these illegals are sneaking over the border. Not so, most illegals are here because they have overstayed their work visas.
The process to obtain these visas needs to be streamlined.
Anon 1215 -
Yes, employers must fill out an I-9. However, most illegals have false identification. That renders the I-9 impotent. E-Verify is supposed to helps fix that problem.
Sure, it won't catch them all but any little help ...
I certainly have no quarrel with the idea of a consumption tax. The only problem is that our greedy federal government would never agree to putting in a consumption tax AND eliminating the income tax.
GA makes a good point. Wages are such a joke these days it encourages people not to work. I am in the restaurant industry and I think it would shock people to learn how little cooks and chefs are paid in even some upscale restaurants. Culinary school grads cook $25 entrees all night while they make $9/hr.
How about we take all the people sitting in jail and put them to work. If you don't work you don't eat. You can also require the people on welfare to work if they expect to keep their benefits. There is a lot we could do to get people out there working or doing something rather than just collecting money that they didn't work for.
Well I know this is a little off topic,but is it??
America played Mexico in the Gold Cup. The game ws played in California. Anyone watching this game had the overwhelming feeling the Americans were the visiting team. There was a sea of red and green. There was over 90,000 fans in Pasadena California for the soccer match. It was obvious that 75% of the fans were cheering for Mexico.
America was leading the contest and the stadium was quiet. As Mexico took the lead it was just a little disturbing to be an American. Our home team was the visitor in our own country.
I think it is awesome that Mexico turned out for the game. I think it is appalling that at least two thirds of the spectators were here illegally. That Americans picked up the tab for the majority of the young hispanics in the crowd. The entire post game was done in spanish. Yes in America the post game spoken in Spanish. Would a Latino country do the post game in Spanish if America won. I do not think so.
What have we become. Does the word illegal only apply to true Americans. Those that enter our country as a crimnal out weigh those that pay taxes and serve this country.
Let me make this clear I have no issue with anyone from any where that enter this country legally. That abide by our laws. That insure the vehicle they are driving and obtain a U.S. license. That are not here under an alias.
The bootom line is our president does not care. As he travels accross Africa with his family this week American athletes became second class Americans in of all places the Rose Bowl.
The stories of these border jumpers paying thousands of dollars to get here illegally only angers me more. Why not spend that money to enter the U.S. according to the laws that govern entering the United States of America. This speaks volumes as to the mind set of these people. It is a slap in the face of every hard working American. The bottom line again is that it is illegal.
When over one hundred thousand illegals can march on Capitol Hill as they did just a few years back it is obvious the goverment has lost control of this issue. Instead of fixing the problem they sent a message loud and clear it is o.k. to violate U.S. law if you are not an American. I am truly disgusted by this when Americans are being killed in a foreign land over politics.
No wonder the Boarder Patrol has one of the highest suicide rates among its employees. I can not imagine the stress in that you are hired to fight the wave of illegals flowing into this country and yet the goverment has tied your hands and bassically ridicules you for doing your job.
Mr. President you sir disgust me.
In California tonight when the sun sets roll up the American flag you have become North West Mexico.
The Wicomican
I don't frequent business's with questionable hiring practices.
in a word - YES.....
the illegals don't erk me as much as able bodied americans getting bogus disability benefits and thinking they have the right to an opinion on any matter
Two very important points were left out. Foreign workers send most of their money back home. It is not returned to the local community as happens with an American worker. Further, Municipalities take advantage of the fact that they avoid paying unemployment taxes that fund unemployment insurance for Americans. The Town of Ocean City hires a slew of foreigners over Americans for this reason alone.
I suggest 2 things. Implement a fund transfer tax that discourages the wiring of money out of our Country. Also, eliminate the ability for an employer to avoid paying unemployment tax by using a foreign worker. I think you would be surprised how quickly the problem of Americans not wanting to do the work go away.
"We have jobs that Americans won’t do for the prevailing wage.
Why should they? If the government pays you NOT to work, why should you take a job that is difficult AND pays less or only marginally more than you can collect on the dole. "
> Pay them a LIVING wage and you will see Americans lining up for these jobs. I guess you would abolish unemployment benefits and have people working in blueberry fields for $8:25, G.A.? Raise the minimum wage to cope with the high prices of goods. Republicans sit here calling people lazy when they wouldn't do these jobs for such a low wage. Would you G.A.? No, Republicans want to ABOLISH your minimum wage and your union so they can work you around the clock for peanuts!! Its just the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, folks. Wake up!
Illegals an economic burden?
There is no easy answer.
Adding to the first comment, a foreign worker can either show a permanent residency card (green card) OR some type of work visa. Keep in mind just because someone has a valid SS# doesn't mean they are legal to work. EVERYONE working in the US is required to have a SS#, so if someone is here on a temp work visa they have to apply and receivd a SS# for a job.
So back to the original question. There's the arguement that illegals are a burden on our health care system, schools, etc and I'm sure that's true, though I do know of cases where a hospital will come after individuals for emergency room visits and it is usually paid in full after a series of payments.
Then the other side is illegals are paying sales tax on items purchased and alot of times into SS and Medicare which they will never collect.
The bottom line is the problem is so complex there are no easy answers.
Ya know 3:35 if you can't make it on $8.25 then go out and get a second job! It's real simple. No where does it say life is supposed to be easy and a work week consists of 40 hours!
Somewhere along the line Americans got it in there heads an attitude of entitlement.
Entitlements were meant for people who were once self sufficient but due to loss of their job or illness, etc can not work anymore. They aren't for people who are nothing more than Baby Machines who can't even take care of themselves much less a child.
"No, Republicans want to ABOLISH your minimum wage and your union so they can work you around the clock for peanuts!! Its just the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, folks. Wake up!"
No, YOU need to wake up. Foreign workers get paid the same "minimum" wage. The difference is that the employer SAVES money by not paying unemployment taxes which make them "cheaper". Our elected officials (Mikulski) keeps pushing for more foreign work visas while the companies that broker the foreign labor make millions in fees paid by these workers.
Are you a Government employee by any chance?
President Obama: Good luck to you. We're going to miss you in 2012!
At the Walmatrt pharmact the other day three of the four peoiple in line in front of me were speaking Spanish with each other, and all three got bags of prescriptions for 50c!
Then at the grocery end of the store every one of the four women in front of me used a SNAP card that said "Delaware" at the top--all had full carts, with all kinds of junk food, sodas, chips, candy--the Spanish-speaking girl directly in font of me, obviously pregnant, used a "WIC" voucher for part of her order, and a SNAP card for the rest--she had three toddlers in tow plus the one in her belly.
I think we've reached the tipping point, where there are more freebie moochers than we working class citizens paying for theirs while struggling to keep our own heads above water....
Certainly your question is a joke, right?
If Americans are not smart enough to figure out how they are and have been taken to the cleaners by the massive legal AND illegal invasion, they don't deserve what's left of their country.
Nobody in this country should have to work a second job after working all day just to make ends meet. That is why unions pushed for a minimum wage and WEEKENDS. . .so people could support their families and have time to spend with them. . .to raise them up right. I feel that we are a better country for that. The rich sit there and want more and more from the working stiff while they take a tax break. No, that is not right. Pay your fair share, rich folks. The republicans will lose this race because the working man and woman sees through their lies. . .union busting, tax breaks for the rich, coupons for health care, no social security. . .good luck selling that one. Stop lying republiCANTS . . .you are out to line the pockets of the rich. . .pure and simple.
Anon 1535 -
That's a typical liberal solution. The minimum wage does nothing but keep entry level people from being employed. As I stated, our borders should be secured and the market should set the wage rate.
That wage rate for "picking blueberries" might be $20 an hour. I don't know. I do know that our food would cost more. However, our food costs would not be subsidized by illegal immigrant labor.
I wish you had bothered taking an economics class or two in college. All of those sociology classes were wasted.
**********************
Anon 1741 -
It is a complex question. However, are you arguing that having to educate illegals, pay for welfare benefits, etc. is somehow made up by the FICA and sales taxes they do pay?
**********************
Anon 1828 -
Exactly! This is something we all have experienced.
*********************
Anon 1958 -
Are you arguing against LEGAL immigration? I'm not. However, I do believe that our immigration policies need to be seriously overhauled.
Anchor babies should not be allowed to stay in this country WITH their parents, family members, etc. LEGAL immigrants should have a sponsor and demonstrate a marketable skill that we need. No welfare benefits of any kind for non-citizens, etc.
************************
Anon 2141 -
How's that "Hope and Change" thing workin' for ya? How about that "Class Warfare" thing too?
If we didn't have a minimum wage we would all be making 4.50 an hour while the fat cats reaped the rewards. Simple fact. If they can get away with paying you less they will. Unions helped to set a living wage so that people who work hard and were not born rich can have a good quality of life. Rich people hate that. Class warfare. . .against the most vulnerable. . .by the rich. Republicans can't talk about economics. They invented trickle down economics. . .try teaching that in college. . .professor how does that work again? The rich get tax cuts and then prosperity shall rain down from above. . .uh. . .how's that working out for ya, g.a.?
Al
I don't think I can recall one time that I have disagreed with what you have posted until today. I WILL NOT miss Obama when he is gone lol
I would like to correct a myth. Illegals are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and adding to this even immigrants here legally are severly restricted in the benefits they receive.
Now what they are entitled to is Medicaid for the "anchor babies."
One of the reasons the question about the economic impact is complex is that the cost of illegal immigration varies widely and no concensus exists.
GA brings up a good point. Are we willing to pay $10 per quart of blueberries for example? If we are to pay people $20 an hour to pick produce, is that then going to cause more American families to apply for some sort of government assistance? And would that cost be far greater than the economic burden caused by illegals?
Anon 2219 -
Where did you come up with this nonsense? Wal-Mart and just about every employer you can think of pays higher than minimum wage to start. Why? The market dictates it.
Unions were a great idea when they negotiated for higher wages for their employees. Then they had to push for every featherbedding work rule under the planet. Productivity dropped through the floor and those union jobs left for right to work states or foreign shores.
As far as tax cuts are concerned, we'll have to save that for another day. Maybe that's an idea for next Sunday's column. However, while I am sure that you will disagree with me, you will be shocked to find out that I don't support the post-Reagan, prevailing GOP "wisdom" of "tax cuts solve everything" and "borrow and spend".
You would also be surprised to learn that Keynes didn't endorse what most folks call Keynesian economics and Arthur Laffer doesn't endorse what most people now call "supply-side economics".
**********************
Anon 2255 -
I always thought that immigrants weren't eligible for welfare benefits either. They may still may not be for some. As I said in the post, stand in line at Wal-Mart. They are definitely getting food stamps.
Your last paragraph is right on. However, note that I said "economic costs" and not simply "financial costs". If it were only financial cost we were talking about, there would be a much stronger argument for a porous border.
Economic costs include social costs. I firmly believe that having English become a second language in many parts of our country is not a good thing. I believe that a porous border leads to an increase in crime, particularly drug trafficking. I believe the prevailing liberal notion that calls for not demanding that immigrants learn English leads to a permanent underclass. I believe that a porous southern border has led to the end of the "melting pot" and growth of an increasingly Balkanized population. The list goes on.
This is why I would rather pay higher food prices AND live in a nation with secure borders.
BTW - before anyone out there attempts to claim that I am racist or "anti-Latino", you should know that I have family that is Mexican and of Mexican decent. While they may not be as proud of me, I am proud to be part of their family.
the illegals don't erk me as much as able bodied americans
First, it's IRK.
Second, you prefer illegals over americans? You are such a loser.
Pay them a LIVING wage and you will see Americans lining up for these jobs
What jobs? Do the 11 million unemployed people know of these jobs? lol What world do you and your ilk come from?
if you can't make it on $8.25 then go out and get a second job! It's real simple. No where does it say life is supposed to be easy and a work week consists of 40 hours!
au contraire my ill informed friend.
The FortyHourWeekHistory in American history comes from the labor movement in the early 20th century. Workers in the new factories, sweat shops, and other industry related fields of the late 19th / early 20th centuries worked up to as many as 60 hours a week under poor conditions and with little in the way of wages. As the workers gained strength in unions, they started demanding a reversal of this poor state of affairs. Eventually, the union members in their various fields of labor won out against their employers through a variety of tactics (organizing, striking, etc.) and managed to get the FortyHourWeek. This was put into action Federally in 1938 with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which created an implicit maximum 40 hour work week by requiring time and a half for any hours in excess of 40 or 8 hours in one day, established a minimum wage, and forbade labor by children under the age of 16.
Sadly, I believe one of the reasons immigrants, legal or illegal, are hired is that they are hard workers, show up every single day, and don't complain. Unemployment, welfare, etc. isn't working the way it should for many Americans...many get more from the government than from a potential paycheck, so they continue not to work. Our own laziness and sense of entitlement has caused many jobs to go to immigrants. The answer is clearly not an easy one, but many Americans' work ethic must change. Free college for immigrants? NO! There's nothing wrong with having 2 jobs if it's necessary. Life isn't always easy or fair, but we must stop giving a free ride to those that abuse the system (and there are MANY), and folks need to work at whatever jobs they can find. Employers should be made to hire Americans over immigrants. Sorry, but that's how I feel. I have no problem with our tax dollars helping those that can't earn enough, but I DO have a problem working so able-bodied slouches can sit on the porch all day.
1:10, I am well aware of the labor movement. My grandmother was very active in the United Garment Workers Union in Baltimore during the 1930's and 1940's.
She worked sewing coat samples and had the whole month of June off. She spent that month down here on the Eastern Shore picking strawberries and peas.
Starting sometime around the
1980's she started to say the union movement has ruined the American work ethic and it's intent was lost.
She also didn't believe in someone retiring as soon as they were eligible. She could see that some were going to collect a pension longer than they actually worked. Same with Social Security. She used to say when SS was implemented the life expectancy was 70 yrs old and now alot of her generation was living well into their 80's and 90's and there was no way that SS was going to be able to sustain itself.
Unemployment, welfare, etc. isn't working the way it should for many Americans...many get more from the government than from a potential paycheck, so they continue not to work
Unemployment is lower than what the person made while working.
Private employers pay a tax to finance the unemployment benefits paid to their former employees. For most employers, this tax rate goes up or down depending upon how much their former workers collect. Some organizations (usually non-profit or government agencies) reimburse the state, dollar for dollar, for any unemployment benefits paid by the state, in lieu of paying the tax.
Q: If reimbursable financing has the disadvantage of not being able to protest all claim charges, why shouldn't governmental or non profit employers elect to pay the tax instead?
A: Reimbursing employers must reimburse the state dollar-for-dollar for the benefits paid to their former workers. Tax-paying employers, on the other hand, may pay a "social" penalty which exceeds the state's actual costs. In other words, the employers at higher tax rates subsidize those at lower tax rates.
Unemployment may be a form of welfare but in most cases it is paid by the employer and not taxpayer monies.
"Life isn't always easy or fair, but we must stop giving a free ride to those that abuse the system (and there are MANY), and folks need to work at whatever jobs they can find".
A person who will take any job that pays less than what he is receiving from unemployment is rare indeed.
It just does not make economic sense. Can you imagine 11 million unemployed people not being able to collect unemployment benefits?
When people get hungry they will do whatever they need to do in order to eat. If you think crime is bad now, it would go through the roof because most would do whatever it took to get something to eat.
Post a Comment