Thread: The Cost of Illegal Immigration

This article is long...but very revealing. Refutes many double-speak politicians....

www.federalobserver.com

Part 8: ’Food Costs will increase without cheap illegal labor’
Don't be fooled by peddlers of ‘Immigration Reform’ Scams
By S. J. Miller



{CLICK HERE for Series Overview}

A simple multiple-choice question will reveal whether you're already aware of this scam.


With the production cost savings in "cheap labor," do you believe that manufacturers of goods and services:

a. pass the savings along to their customers OR
b. direct the increased profits to increased stock dividends, officer salaries and benefits.

If you answered "a," read on - you're so naive that you're a target for the "immigration reform" scam peddlers.

MORE EMOTIONAL PROPAGANDA
Once again, propaganda like this tries to convince us that we're the problem rather than the lawbreakers (both illegal aliens and employers). You eat the food harvested by illegal labor, they remind you, so you're responsible for the illegal aliens that farmers hire to pick the food that goes on your table. It's truly appalling how many Americans have habitually accepted guilt for something they have no control over.

Like most immigration rhetoric, this propaganda tactic isn't new: It's called "collective guilt," and was very effectively used by German Nazis after World War II to stifle calls for prosecution and punishment of high Nazi officials for their war crimes. By conning the German population into accepting guilt for the Holocaust, many German Nazis were able to blend back into society and live the rest of their days unaccountable for their crimes. Sounds very familiar doesn't it? Illegals want to blend with the rest of the population, continuing to work and live in the country without being accountable for illegal entry into the US.

Of course we eat produce; we have no control over the farmer's labor force. If these advocates expect me to risk contracting scurvy or pellagra for something I have nothing to do with, they're out to lunch.

This accusation came from a reader e-mail; he actually expected me to buy this drivel! When the opposition provides material that destroys their argument, it's too good to pass up. I reminded the reader that the Nazis lost World War II and suggested he get his pro-illegal immigration propaganda from winners rather than losers.

DOES ILLEGAL LABOR REALLY REDUCE FOOD PRICES?
"They keep the price of strawberries and other produce cheap." The image is that we'll be paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce without illegal aliens to harvest, and after gasping in shock, we'll back off and concede how mean-spirited we are to complain about the illegal aliens who "put food on our table." Shame on us for complaining!

This phony baloney was exposed nearly 10 years ago at Iowa State University. (1) Recognizing that "higher prices" are due to the need to import produce when it's "out-of-season," they found small price increases varying by season and length of time (1-2 years short term; 5-7 years mid-term).


Notice that the maximum is 6%! The 9 years since 1986 have given us opportunity to "test" whether we can live with the "astronomical" increases, because most grocery stores now routinely stock imported produced during the off-season. How many of us have even noticed the few pennies difference in price?

So it's now up to us to decide whether the "saving" is worth the problems we have from illegal aliens. Does an Arizonan consume enough "cheap labor produce" to offset the $700 per household cost of illegal aliens in that state? (2)

Does an Californian consume enough "cheap labor produce" to offset the $1,183 per household cost of illegal aliens in that state? (3)

And these costs only include the state's share of education, medical care and imprisonment. They don't include the household's share of federal costs for education and welfare benefits, or the higher insurance premiums from higher crime rates and uninsured-motorist hit-and-run accidents! Nor does it include the decreased "quality of life" and reduced service levels.

We all know the answer. Cost-per-household may vary from state to state, but the result is the same: If you're not one of the "elites" who benefit from "cheap illegal" labor (unskilled workers, nannies and gardeners), of course it's not worth the increased cost!

Several other resource articles (4), (5) and (6) will tell more about the future of mechanized farming. My first thought was "Government policy-makers have to be aware of this, so why their insistence on continued high immigration numbers for the "jobs Americans won't do?"

RECENT HISTORY OF "CHEAP LABOR"
Although the "New World Order" movement began in earnest after World War II, the economic sectors waited until the early 1960s, when postwar births entered the labor force to replace World War II deaths. Since that time, the "global economy" (or "free trade movement") has produced a tricky and tenuous balancing act for the US government--both for members of Congress and the White House.

While the "rob Peter to pay Paul" behavior gave the appearance of a large organization where one inept agency acted in opposition to another equally inept one, it was actually intentional and carefully orchestrated. I recall in the early 1980s on CBS 60 Minutes that USAID (Agency for International Development) provided money to aid corporations wanting to relocate their manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor costs (where labor unions were prohibited). Of course, it was done under the guise of "international development" rather than "union-busting," and the country was Malaysia.

60 Minutes thought it was ridiculous that American taxpayers' money being used to put them out of jobs, but it's clear now that what appeared "the left hand disconnected from the right" was intended. Sending well-paying jobs overseas both enriched corporations and removed wealth from America's middle class workers.

Some industries received government assistance in surviving the new global economy eompetition while it seemed others were mercilessly thrown to the wolves. An example is the US "garment and textile" industry, who used illegal labor through the mid-1980s until both textile plants and garment factories were move first to Taiwan, then to Pakistan, India and now China. Those in New England went first while Southern factories were the last to move. In contrast, sporting equipment and hardware tools went abroad almost immediately.

Whether the selection was "luck of the draw," based on campaign contributions and political influence or a combination isn't all that clear. There was likely a "master plan" somewhere that considered not just economics but politics as well.

As the "offshore outsourcing" speed increases, wages for jobs that must remain in the US continue to drop, either by filling them with illegals or bringing in foreign workers to increase the labor supply (and eventually reducing the wage levels).

Although we continue to hear that illegal labor enables "cheap food costs," mechanized farming has moved into nearly every food crop produced in the US as "cheap illegal labor" was no longer enough to protect US agriculture from foreign competition. (4) (5) California's grape growers (one of the final holdouts against mechanization) finally converted for the 2004 harvest. In March and April of that year, agricultural lobbyists urged Congress to pass the AgJobs Amnesty to prevent "American crops rotting in the fields."

Clearly the Senator Craig/Congressman Cannon AgJobs Amnesty had little to do with actual need and/or shortage of agricultural labor, just as the increased use of "high-tech worker" visas has no basis in the old cry that "we can't find qualified Americans."

It's easy to see that the alleged "shortage of workers" has nothing to do with the real agenda for the Bush "guest worker plans" or the multitude of other amnesties.

"CORPORATE WELFARE"-LABOR COSTS PAID BY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
"Cheaper produce from illegal labor?" Americans already pay $6.00 per head of lettuce and $5.00 per bunch of carrots. You're just splitting payment between the grocery store and your city/county/state/federal tax bills.

Benefits of “cheap laborâ€

Great post, RR

Great article!!

In otherwords, we don't need illegal labor!

Well....I'll be darn.



(We knew that didn't we folks)

Wake up America!

Excerpts from The Labor Shortage Hoax
Alan Tonelson
Friday, January 27, 2006

http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/vi ... od_ID=2205

[quote]In the case of worker shortages, employers simply need to increases wages enough, and before too long, they will be able to attract whatever workers they need – either from the ranks of the voluntarily or involuntarily unemployed, or from competitors. Of course, the opposite is equally true. As long as workers are in over-supply, businesses can offer meager wages in full confidence that qualified workers and jobseekers will have no choice but to swallow them.

In other words, anyone believing in modern economics should recognize that manufacturers aren’t facing a chronic labor shortage. If they were, they wouldn’t be cutting wages. Instead, they face a shortage of workers willing to accept the paltry wages they have been offered. How paltry? The latest figures from the U.S. Department of Labor show that after peaking in1978 – yes, 28 years ago, inflation-adjusted wages for manufacturing workers have fallen back to levels they first hit in 1972.

It’s clear, then, that most labor shortage claims are simply meant to justify the multinationals’ continued resort to the low-wage strategy to greater short-term profits, either through offshoring jobs and production, or through flooding the U.S. labor market with immigrants. But give credit to the outsourcing lobby – it’s not only pressing on, but has added a new twist to their argument: The outsourcers are turning up skilled-labor shortages in China and India, too, according to numerous news reports like the January 4 Wall Street Journal item titled “India’s Talent Pool Drying Up.â€

I can’t help but wonder how the outsourcers will sell their products when every major world population is becoming steadily pauperized. Presumably, they’ll cross that bridge when they come to it.

I had mulled this over a time or two also. 'They' expect 'us' to keep the economy booming with our consumerism...duh...this is a decidedly impossible task.

RR