an immigration reform scenario

[almaty 19]

Small-time contractor Howard Bashford, needing a few men to pour and finish a concrete-slab foundation, drove slowly around the block near a building products store, somewhere in greater Los Angeles.

At a corner, he spotted a knot of men in rough clothing, chatting together amiably. He pulled his pickup truck to the curb beside them, and they approached the truck expectantly.

"You guys need work?" he asked through the open, passenger-side window. "I can use four concrete finishers."

"Si, senor," chorused the men.

"Well," said Bashford, "you decide which of you should come with me."

There followed some earnest discussion among the workers, then four detached themselves from the rest and again approached the truck.

"We're your men," said one of them.

"OK," said Bashford, "but look, I can only pay a dollar below minimum wage."

"That's all right," said one of the group. "We'll take what we can get."

"Great," said Bashford, "but first I must ask you: Are you all documented?"

"Oh, si, si," they answered.

"Then you decided to 'come out of the shadows' after the U.S. Senate's 2006 immigration reform bill?" the contractor asked.

Again came the answer, "Si! Si!"

The spokesman explained, "We were more than willing to scrape together the $2,000 fine specified in the new law, and to help the Internal Revenue Service calculate our back taxes, because we so wanted legal status.

"Of course, this was difficult for us to do, earning $5 or $6 an hour for hard labor – and occasionally getting stiffed by employers (present company excepted, of course) – but what's a few thousand hard-earned dollars compared to the right to become legal and to get on the road to American citizenship?"

"And this is true even though you had to go to the 'back of the line' for citizenship?" Bashford asked.

"Naturally," the spokesman said. "Why just last week, I was telling mi madre back home in Mexico – I mean, my former home in Mexico – I was so determined to become an American citizen, I didn't mind that it would take me 11 years."

"Say, that's fine!" exclaimed Bashford. "I'm glad you still call your mama. Shows strong dedication to family."

"I didn't call her. I was there," said the worker. "I'm building a new house down there."

"Swell," said Bashford. "Mexico is a great place to vacation, and I'm sure your commitment to pledge allegiance to the United States – eventually – is solid.

"By the way, can you show me your new, INS-issued, biometric identity card?"

"Uh, I left mine home today," said the spokesman.

"So did I," said the second worker.

"Me too," said the third.

"Yo tambien," responded the fourth.

"Oh, that's OK," said the contractor. "I'll trust you this time. Climb into the back."

As the workers jumped into the bed of the pickup, Bashford muttered to himself, "Our Congress sure knows how to draw people out of the shadows."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A serious note regarding the topic above: In his uplifting biography of Ulysses S. Grant, Jean Edward Smith quotes the great general, who, having served in America's 1847 war with Mexico, wrote of that nation: "She has more poor and starving subjects who are willing and able to work than any country in the world. The rich keep down the poor with a hardness of heart that is incredible."

Naturally, given such injustice, Mexico experienced revolution upon coup upon revolution. It would be undergoing such throes even now, but for the salutary development of the lands ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Successive Mexican governments have been exploiting the American welcome mat for generations, as it was easier to export its poverty-stricken masses than it was to reform. Vicente Fox (called a reformer by some) – like all his predecessors – recognizes what elimination of the U.S. border safety valve would mean for his country: A return to revolution.

President Bush, America's farm-state senators, and representatives of labor exploiters ranging from the fictitious Mr. Bashford to major industrialists, recognize that restricting the flow of illegals would mean higher labor costs. And deep down, the limousine-riding bleeding hearts who demand open borders recognize it would mean higher costs to them – for farm produce, for housing, for nannies and gardners.

So the Senate gets the message and passes 400-odd pages of legislation they call immigration reform, which will be about as effective in solving the border problem as a damp roll of cheap paper towels.

For both nations, it's a deal with the devil, and the United States is getting the short end while Mexico postpones its day of reckoning. Even now, Vicente Fox is having a Coke and a smile

[rclouse 0]

Yeah, it's a tough pickle. On the one hand, we're exploiting illegal immigrants because "Americans won't do those jobs". On the other, if we made those jobs attractive enough for Americans (hell, I'd pick crops if it paid six figures w/ full benefits), we put ourselves at a disadvantage against imports. I'm pretty sure Chilean produce employs crop pickers at a similar wage as ones here in the US, for example.

It'd be nice to hear an expert come up with a viable solution that is fair, I have no idea myself.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

That's the problem:

"OK," said Bashford, "but look, I can only pay a dollar below minimum wage."

Legal workers cannot work for less than minimum wage because it happens to be illegal, meaning they'll be earning the money under the table. Therefore, no taxes to Uncle Sam, no Social security paid into the system. So what's the difference?

[almaty 19]

nothing at all

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, it's a tough pickle. On the one hand, we're exploiting illegal immigrants because "Americans won't do those jobs". On the other, if we made those jobs attractive enough for Americans (hell, I'd pick crops if it paid six figures w/ full benefits), we put ourselves at a disadvantage against imports. I'm pretty sure Chilean produce employs crop pickers at a similar wage as ones here in the US, for example.

That, of course, assumes that the "low wages are necessary for and beneficial to us all" argument has some sort of validity to it. It also assumes that there is no other cost to the low prices of illegal labor. Both assumptions, in my humble opinion, are #######. How do we pay the 75% or so share of agricultural workers that are and work legally in this country of ours if all we can afford as a nation are illegals? Or the janitors, or dishwashers, or ...

Most employees in any of the job categories that are top picks for illegals, are actually in the country legally and are employed within the law. It ain't half as tough a pickle as those grotesquely profiting from illegal labor would have us believe.