The personnel ratio is equivalently lopsided, with only a few hundred staff for enforcement of workplace immigration violations and over twenty thousand border agents.

Conveniently enough, illegal immigrants that work will be found concentrated at the workplace, instead of diffused over a thousand-mile border and dispersed into cities.

The obvious conclusion is that attention paid to the border is not intended to solve the "problem" (quotes since it is not a problem to the employer) but make it seem as if we are trying. Irrelevant that it is not cost-effective, and even better if it is just plain a lot of money, for higher credibility.

The employers are the drug pushers.

Here here! Thank you for putting it so well. I have been so frustrated with that part of the Left that has been pounding on the table about the evils of illegal immigration and its effect on wages. The issue has been so clouded with rhetoric and extremism that the obvious (your examination of the actual federal budget) has escaped all scrutiny.

Immigration is a complicated political puzzle ripe for misrepresentation, xenophobia, exploitation, and disinformation. I’ve seen posts and discussions on far left sites that have gone everywhere from claiming migrant workers damaged manufacturing wages to H1-B visas being used to suppress labor costs in sweatshops. It’s maddening, and I believe the argument is just misplaced—and purposely so.

There are employment laws that protect workers and their wages. They’re just not enforced, so unscrupulous employers take advantage of employees with impunity. The executive branch asleep at the wheel and predatory employers has nothing to do with border fences and guest worker programs. It has to do with the lack of consequence for breaking employment law.

Thank you for bringing a reasonable, dollars and cents, perspective to light.

I think we should open our country to unskilled immigration when, and only when, there is so much upwards pressure on wages for the unskilled that it is clear that there is a worker shortage.

We have far too many throwaways as it is: poorly educated, people out of prison, etc. Employers would much rather hire docile non-english speakers who are illegal than people who have been trampled by American capitalism.

Until we get to the point of clear upwards pressure on wages, fierce employer sanctions.

Same thing for H1B.

Only a fool would believe the politicians on this amnesty for 12 million - last time it was amnesty for 3 million, and that was supposed to be the end of it. Fool me once, shame on me: won't get fooled again.

Nathan, Thanks for finally getting mad enough to say "shit". You are absolutely correct on this.

Nathan, why not address the fact that those very same low wage workers do not have the access to have their voices heard/represented in the media or in any way that empowers their realities?

Tell me what lobby they have, do they have a US Chamber of Commerce pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of a group that will further their rights? Why not address that the US Chamber of Commerce is pouring millions into the coffers of La Raza, LULAC and other immigrants rights groups to push the open borders initiatives?

When someone like myself, who has seen and experienced the very real problems by the refusal to enforce our borders, when we have the opportunity to even speak to what our experience has shown us, we are shouted down as well as being smeared as a troll or a right winger.

We all saw what hurricane Katrina exposed, yet there has been little to no followup. There hasn't been any discussion of the fact that that same type of dire poverty exists in all our states across the country. Why is it that the last time there was any significant effort to put a human face on American poverty was the late Robert Kennedy's travels through urban and rural areas of the US a bit over 41 years ago.

Sure, there have been many articles about the illegal aliens who were rounded up at the Michael Bianco factory in New Bedford, MA. Interviews and photos of weeping illegal aliens, discussions of families being seperated and their many travails. Just have to ask though, why have there been no articles written over the years about the extreme poverty and suffering of American families in the very same town, New Bedford, MA, who have had their jobs outsourced since the '80s? Why hasn't the Boston Globe sent their journalists and photographers down to meet with American citizens from the town, many of whom are naturalized Americans, who are discriminated against because they are entitled to an American wage standard and workplace protections? They are black, brown and white, have families, struggle to avoid the homelessness and privation that have driven many in their community to slip between the cracks. Do poor American families have some cushion against hunger, disease and illness? Are they less entitled to human rights? Why is there some perception that poor American mothers do not lie awake at night making themselves sick because they worry about how they are going to feed their children? Why the lack of compassion and concern for them?

The poverty rate among American citizens in New Bedford is higher than 25%, the unemployment rate there was 12.5% several months back, though that only reflects those that are still on the unemployment rolls.

After the factory owners and the illegal aliens were arrested and rounded up, the factory ended up being forced to hire American workers.. more than 300 of them. There never was any shortage of leather stitchers in New Bedford, just a shortage of compassion and willingness to pay American wages. Of course, the media, whether right wing or left wing owned didn't find that fact sexy enough to put any emphasis on.

Nathan, if your interest is in the plain truth, and fairness, why not research for yourself? Start by actually interviewing real American workers suffering through the serious unemployment and underemployment problem in the US. The one imposed upon them. Why not stop to consider that you don't help end or reduce poverty by supporting so called immigration reform that only seeks to exploit poverty for profit, and to create a permanent underclass where it is even less possible to raise ones self out of poverty?

You know, it's actually worse than that. Yes, it's true that there is no intention by the government (at any level) in actually requiring that businesses adhere to labor laws.

In addition, though, this demonizing of people that will continue to do these jobs outside of labor laws is intended to eliminate any sympathy for them as well. So that when the Mexican meatpacking worker loses his hand, there's no groundswell of anger at the meatpacking company.

There's no need for reform. Enforcing existing labor laws would be more than sufficient. And, because they do not enforce existing laws, passing new ones that they won't enforce is farcical.

So what about the impact of Gringo immigration on Mexico?  The numbers are non-existant - even the U.S. Census threw in the towel in trying to determine US citizens living abroad because it wouldn't be cost effective.  So the number is unknown - only the percentage of expats who register with the US Consulate are known, which is a small percentage.

But in established expat communities like San Miguel de Allende the number is around 15% of the city's 80,000 residents who now own more than half the homes in the city center, which is forcing natives out of town to the colonias around the city.   

Legality?  It turns out that expats break Mexican laws on a regular basis: working illegally in Mexico, tax fraud, importing prescription drugs without a license, selling real estate sin papales and avoiding Mexican taxes,  Voice Over Internet Phones (VOIP) which are technically illegal in Mexico. The list goes on, of course.  But it would be interesting to make comparative shopping lists of law violations between the two expat communities - US expats in Mexico, undocumented workerts in the US. 

Also of interest is the motive for immigration, which are the same for both groups.  Economics.  Mexican workers in the US want to make ends meet just like Social Security recipients want to find a way to make ends meet on their benefit packages.  BTW, one burning political issue of interest to expats is lobbying for changing the law to allow Medicare prescriptions to be shipped out of country.  

Expats, with rare exception, refuse to learn the language of thier new home.  Spanish, btw, is the national language of Mexico.  So we extend the same logic southward as we hold to here: an immigrant is obligated to learn the language of the host country.  

Expats do not socialize or integrate into Mexican culture.  They form island communities which are generally isolated from the daily pulse of Mexican life, and often are generous enough to send their maids and gardeners to school to learn English. 

Here's the kicker, IMO.  The overwhelming majority of American Expats in Mexico are registered Democrats. 

But let's go back to the original issue, illegal immigration into the US.  At some point in the discussion you have to consider the root economic causes of illegal immigration, thus the Mexican economy (or other economies per non-Mexican immigrants.)  What is the impact, for example, of the expat communities in Mexico.  Surely, some Mexicans made a killing selling real estate.  And a lot of domestic servant jobs are created.  But you have to ask - does a maid in Costa Mesa earn more than a maid in San Miguel?  I'd say "yes," and it is probably the single trajectory for upward mobility that a Mexican has.  

But the giant economic problem in Mexico is the fact of two economies acting simultaneously and affecting the life of the rank and file Mexican.  There's a domestic economy, which is very poor, and an international economy, which is very rich.  This disparity had gotten so severe that Mexican's can barely afford to purchase the food grown in Mexico, which has led to a huge social walfare system in Mexico.  A good chunk of the healthy international economy subsidizes this, and a gooder chunk is taken up by extravagance and capital flight.  Insofar of a government's charge of taking care it's citizens, Mexico is amiss - and ammiser now as Calderon stole the last Mexican election.  What happened recently?  The price of tortillas doubled because a new market opened up for maiz - biofuel plants in Iowa.

As long as Mexico continues this way, an oligharchy propped-up and subsidized by US foreign policy and Wall Street, we will have undocumented workers here.  In my view, all other arguments are null and void.   

Neoboho

Re: The numbers are non-existant - even the U.S. Census threw in the towel in trying to determine US citizens living abroad because it wouldn't be cost effective.

We should be able to get a good ballpark estimate from the IRS and SSA (many Americans living in Mexico are senior citizens taking advantage of Mexico's lower cost of living they are on Social Security and the SSA and IRS should know who they are. Most of the rest are working for American firms there.)

Re: Expats, with rare exception, refuse to learn the language of thier new home

You may wish to substantiate that with hard data. Anyone I've ever known who has lived abroad (most of them in Europe, granted) has either already been fluent in the language of their host county, or has made a solid effort to learn it. Life is simply much easier if you can communicate with the people among whom you are living. (Ditto, most immigrants in the US I've encountered, if they been here for a significant amount of time, have made a good try at learning English and can usually communicate in it at a basic level).

Re: The overwhelming majority of American Expats in Mexico are registered Democrats.

Um, you just told us above that there are no reliable stats on this population.

What is wrong with upward pressure on wages? That is what can lead to improved working conditions and methods to improve worker productivity.

Hoppy in Sacramento

What people are coming in illegally who want to blow us up? This is a red herring.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I believe that the guy who was going to bomb Times Square during the millineum celebration was attempting to come in from Canada when he was caught by border security.

What's more, security experts are increasingly concerned about Al Qaida activity in South America

And weren't a number of the 911 terrorists here on expired student visas?

Truth is we not only need to be concerned about our border security but should be talking to Mexico about their southern border.

Aside from all this, how can we have any idea whether any of those who come in illegally seek us harm when we don't know who's coming in because they are undocumented and our border are unsecured? It seems a little cavalier to dismiss the possibility as a red herring.

We labor idealogues are not staking out a position for global worker solidarity. We are staking out a position for American unionization rights. If all workers could form or join unions without interference from management and laws, most of the illegal immigration problem would vanish. Unions would negotiate a living wage for the "jobs Americans won't do" and the demand for cheap illegal labor would have to dry up. We would pay a bit more for some goods, but if this is a serious problem, we shouldn't object to that.

Hoppy in Sacramento

We should be able to get a good ballpark estimate from the IRS and SSA (many Americans living in Mexico are senior citizens taking advantage of Mexico's lower cost of living they are on Social Security and the SSA and IRS should know who they are. Most of the rest are working for American firms there.)

Not so.  One of the (american owned) service industries that has developed in the expat communities are mail companies.  For twenty bucks a month you get an address in the States, and your mail is delivered to a po box in your adopted community.  The IRS and SSA likely doesn't have a Mexican address for you.  But please, you find the figures.  I've been curious about it for several years.

You may wish to substantiate that with hard data. Anyone I've ever known who has lived abroad (most of them in Europe, granted) has either already been fluent in the language of their host county, or has made a solid effort to learn it. Life is simply much easier if you can communicate with the people among whom you are living.

Well, it's common knowledge - and a source of much complaint by Mexicans - but expats in Mexico don't need to speak Spanish because they have little or no interaction with the local population.  Probably no "hard data" that I can think of.  Just peruse google a bit for plenty of "soft data."  

Um, you just told us above that there are no reliable stats on this population.

Yes, I just read that here, pertaining to San Miguel (probably the most-studied expat community): 

U.S. citizens in San Miguel live their lives speaking English, socializing with Americans, and mixing little with Mexicans outside of the relationships they form with their domestic help. Many also continue to focus political energy toward the United States. Democrats in the town report outnumbering Republicans ten to one, and the officers of Republicans Abroad suggested that the ratio is even more unfavorable.

Neoboho

Nathan Newman Says:

cracking down on sweatshops and illegal wage payers would probably be a far more effective deterrent to employers recruiting undocumented immigrants.

But, would it provide 9 billion dollars in pork-barrel spending in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California?  Some of these states were politically important enough to get U. S. Prosecutors fired for "performance issues".  2.3 billion dollars for more enforcement officials isn't going to have much of an effect on the economy of New York.  It is going to put money in the local economies of states important to the G.O. P.  370 miles of fencing going to boost the local economies of the places where it is being built. 

Maybe Rhode Island should panic about immigration from Massachusetts and apply for a fence to be built here.  The state could use some jobs. 

aMike

Yes, but remember in history when Mexico was so permissive of US citizens immigrating to its good earth.  Let's see, that cost Mexico Tejas, Nuevo Mexico, Nevada, California and Arizona.  If it hadn't been for Lázaro Cárdenas, Baja California would have been filched also.  

It just seems to me that there is a historical backlash due to the expats.  I'm very skeptical that Mexico is benefiting on any sustainable scale, simply because the impact of expats on the economy has to be inflationary. I mean, you still have to pay 250K for a home in a walled community in, say, Sonora.  How many Mexicans could afford that?  How many Mexicans would not feel resentment?   

Neoboho

Actually, there are some very good jobs in Mexico which attract foreign applications.  What we're talking about here is the chasm between high and low earners in the country.  Mexico is a wealthy country with a huge number of its population being desperately poor.

The average daily wage earned by Mexicans falls between USD4.50 and USD18.00 per day (depending what stats you're looking at.)  So naturally at the local mercado there are two price systems, one for Gringos and one for Mexicans.  Yet, when there are a lot of Gringos paying more for goods, the price for Mexicans will rise also.  Inflation sets in, and without price controls goods become more and more unaffordable for Mexicans.  That increases the pressure to find work in the US at higher wages.  So the short term economic benefit is offset by long term inflation.  

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not holding the expat community responsible for the condition of the Mexican economy.  It's just one more factor that will ultimately exacerbate the immigration problems at the border.  Walls, National Guard deployment, even amnesty programs are not going to prevail and lessen the situation.  And ironically, if Mexico solved its economic problems expats wouldn't be able to afford living upper-middleclass lifestyles there.  The whole situation requires that Mexican's remain desperately poor. 

Neoboho

The people living there buy groceries, etc. locally, hire handymen or carpenters or electricians, etc. locally, get their hair cut locally, and do most of their other spending locally. That is how bringing in people with money to spend helps those who can't afford what those people have.

Do Mexican people resent the presence of American retirees? I have no idea.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Border enforcement has three main constituencies:

1) the vast majority are strong citizenship, law+order, moderate voters. Most are working class and they're also inherently economic nationalists and support labor protections. This is where the vast majority of the voting power comes from.

2) racists and xenophobes, who are a small minority of voters, but have their power multiplied by rt-wing thinks tanks and such funded by the corporate lobby.

3) the corporate lobby doesn't like border control or xenophobes generally, UNLESS, legal indentured servants are on the deal, then they'll bankroll the movement and multiply the voting power of the right-wing.

The important point is that #2 + #3, the wingnuts and corporates, don't have votes. Only zeal and cash. They're highly opportunistic and need to piggyback on larger movements.

If the left had taken the lead and partnered with the #1 law+order moderates for border control which is where the bulk of the political movement and votes are, they could have also partnered with them for labor/citizenship rights also in their interest. The middle combined with the Hispanic voting community and other left, pro-immigration voters would far, far outnumber the #2 xenophobes group. Corporates would have to take what they could get once the movement was underway.

This could have been a winner.

Instead, we now see corporate lobbyists and rt wingers like Bush, partnering with #1 and #2, and the net outcome is a more xenophobic anti-immigration policy which is also anti-citizen and anti-labor.

Ideologues on the left opposed to border control really blew it.

By comparison, Bill Richardson, read the tea leaves and supported early law+order border enforcement with with increased economic nationalism for citizenship/labor rights and paths to sensible legal immigration.

He saw where this was going and unfortunately it was ideologues on the far left who sidelined themselves and Democrats generally. Whoever the next President is, maybe Richardson can be involved with immigration policy.

Hope it's not too late for Dems to salvage this and for left voters to get with reality.

Networks of IT workers are efficiency gains allowing them too pool resources and as they grow in size may help standardize wages and services. They do not however have actual collective bargaining power, as each IT network functions like a corporation which must compete to underbid the next, and each individual also may negotiate separately. They are not unions, which by nature consolidate all workers in an industry to negotiate collectively and standardize.

The IT industry is very young. There are basically no second generation IT workers i.e. people whose parents were also IT workers, and thereby benefit from the knowledge of a lifetime career. Since the IT industry has gone from booming "we're all going to be multi millionaires" times to overseas outsourcing times very rapidly, there hasn't been any opportunity to form unions let alone standardize working conditions.

It seems unlikely we can continue growing the economy and IT industry at a pace to keep present IT workers employed while also moving so much of the workforce overseas. So this issue is waiting to become a major political force alongside blue collar workers who will also be unemployed if the white collar workforce has troubles.

<>I would think the Calderon crowd likes the expats for the most part.  And the Obregon crowd is resentful.  Remember, the US Republicans Floridized the recent Mexican elections, so the numbers are skewed.

But you've got to consider the long range effect of that influx of money.  Think of Russia.  Right after Afghanistan oil money began to flow into Russia at such a high rate that it threatened the stability of the Russian economy.  Putin had to arrest a couple of energy moguls to put a check on the cash flow.  A year later Putin is at the podium urging Russians to have more kids and building a bigger Army. 

Neoboho

Here's the core reason why I think most (not all, but most) of those saying they oppose immigration because of its effects of lower-income native workers are not really serious or, worse, just covering straight-up nativism with a faux charitable concern.

IMO most, not all, or even any who are just covering straight-up nativism with a faux charitable concern is absolutely irrelevant to the central issue involved, and a bit of a red herring, whether intended or not, to that set of issues.

Corvid

"There's nothing compassionate in those who oppose abortion. That's why they don't support universal healthcare and maternity leave and child welfare."
.
And this is what Hauerwas, in his gentle way (in this case) was partly getting at, I think. As for JPF311's suggestion that support for universal health care, etc., would be a more practical way than having individual backers of illegal immigrants offer housing right now, I disagree. Universal health care and all the trimmings are pie-in-the-sky stuff, never likely to materialize or, at best, might show up piecemeal over decades. Offering housing right now--as the need is right now--is more practical.
.
But don't get me wrong. I oppose any measure that would grant legal status--even with penalties--to those who have broken the law to come here. The economics of the question are, for me, secondary. I simply think that those Americans at the lower end of the scale who have seen their wages fall and their life opportunities narrowed, largely due to the easy availability of illegal labor, should be heard. Again, I refer everyone to "Fast Food Nation" and "What's the Matter With Kansas."
.
These poorer Americans have every right to expect that laws--in this case immigration laws and employment laws--that directly benefit them will be effectively enforced, and that those who break these laws (employers and illegal immigrants) will be punished appropriately. And I this should hold even if--heaven forbid--the economy suffers.
.
Beyond that, I think we need a very broad, open-ended and public discussion of what kind of immigration policy we want. One thing we should seriously consider is the now broadly acknowledged fact that societies that are more diverse tend not to support public services, even essential ones. There was a good article on this by Eduardo Porter in the Business section of the Sunday New York Times about two weeks ago. Here's a quote: "Racial divisions and ethnic divisions reduce incentives for people to be generous to others through social welfare," said Alberto Alesina, a professor of economics at Harvard. "This is very unfortunate. But as social scientists, we can't close our eyes to something we don't like."
.
Robert Putnam, the Harvard sociologist, has noted a very similar phenomenon: The more diversity in a community and the longer a community has been diverse, the less public trust there is, especially between but even WITHIN ethnic/racial groups in the community. Government tends toward dysfunction, and civic organizations tend to fall apart. The only things you get more of in diverse communities are angry public protests and people staying home at night to watch TV.
.
So just how diverse do we want to be? When it comes to illegal immigration, some polls (certainly not all) show a majority of Americans willing to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been here for a while. So it seems the added diversity wouldn't bother them.
.
But I suspect that support is somewhat weak and concentrated among middle and upper-class Americans. What about the still-large numbers of Americans who oppose such measures? I suspect that opposition is rather strong, embittered and concentrated among the working classes who are very much more on the front lines, bearing the costs of illegal immigration for many years now that curiously have escaped the notice of those supposed to be guarding our borders and enforcing our employment laws. So these Americans are understandably skeptical and less willing to forgive and forget. Racism and bigotry may well be part of the mix. But this doesn't cancel the legitimate grievances.
.
And we do less than nothing to address the ugly side of this by asserting a cheap compassion at the expense of Americans who do pay a direct price while the rest of us and the grand old American economy reap the rewards.
.
Even so, I'd have a lot more respect for those supporting amnesty if they actually took a few illegal immigrants into their homes.

Corvid

Oh, I'm entirely in favor of universal health care. We should have had it long ago. In fact, I'd go so far as to disallow any kind of private health insurance if we go universal or single-payer, to ensure that people with real influence (ie, very deep pockets) have exactly the same health care that even the poorest Americans get. It's the best way to guarantee a first-rate service.
.
Still, I'll believe it when I see it. Look at the evidence to date. It has been 15 years since Bill Clinton campaigned on this issue and more Americans than ever are uninsured. Moreover, other than John Edwards, I don't see many presidential candidates offering up detailed plans.
.
And it's a real shame, as the lack of universal care really reins in our freedom as citizens to function in a 21st Century economy. But, again, to get back to illegal immigration, if we offer amnesty or earned citizenship to millions of low-wage Latin American workers, we should also consider whether this brings us closer to or further removes us from the type of society we want to be. The evidence indicates (see my previous post) that as societies become more diverse, they become less trustful and less likely to support social goods and services.

In the context of other depressed areas, I might also ask:

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

In the 30s, I think there were larger families or social groups. There's always the saying that "friends help you move, but good friends help you move bodies."

These days, with fuel costs, needs for truckers, laborers, etc., a house move can hit five figures just for the move itself. It never fails that some things aren't worth moving and need to be replaced at the other end.

I would suggest that people in the thirties tended either to be tolerant to moves in climate, or stayed in the same climate. Someone moving from Phoenix to Minneapolis is going to have to get winter clothes.

A payback plan makes sense. Perhaps it could start as a guaranteed employer loan. The guarantees could be limited, so that the employer can't suddenly RIF people and leave them stuck with moving expenses. In like manner, employees can't just move off for another job. In such a model might be greater social stability and community building.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]