What happens when you exploit people

[MeMyselfAndI]

http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/193567/

In Primorye region, the border guards detained a group of Chinese citizens who tried to escape from Russian territory back to their homeland. It turned out that these people had fled from their employer.

Report by NTV correspondent Igor Sorokin.

Only yesterday they were peaceful farmers, but today they are people who have committed premeditated crimes. Breaking up into several groups, nine Chinese citizens were trying to illegally cross the state border of Russia.

Alexei Ryabokon, head official of the Border Guard outpost at the settlement Korfovka: "The violators ran very quickly, therefore, were prepared, had prepared a long time, to cross the frontier. We had to act quickly too, to catch up with them."

The Chinese were finally detained only 500 meters from the control trace of the border. To the surprise of border guards, among the offenders were women. The defectors are not poachers or smugglers. They came not, as usual, from the Chinese side, but, by contrast, sought to return home.

The story of the foiled escape of Chinese out of Russia began with a Primorian village located 40 kilometers from the state border. Here they had migrated, perfectly legally, for legitimate reasons, hoping to work and cultivate the land.

In total, the team was comprised of 22 people, to each, the owner has promised a season pay of 90 thousand rubles. However, none of them received the money for even the first two months, and there was work for sometimes eighteen to twenty hours a day, terrible living conditions, constant penalties and humiliation.

One Chinese citizen: "Luckily, we were not beaten, but look how I lost weight. My wife and I were given one small saucer of rice, for the two of us. They took away all our documents; and now we decided to go home."

The border violators called all the blame on their own countryman, the foreman by the name of Le. The Chinese man himself still does not understand why his workers had ran away. He said that he had trated them well, made them all appropriate living facilities, and meals in the diet were not only Chinese cuisine.

Foreman: "Potatoes, rice served every day, bread, too. Every day I eat bread. I eve know Russian language!"

Now, instead of the return home, the Chinese detainees are awaiting trial and imprisonment for up to five years. However, life behind bars, in contrast to the work in the fields, for the prisoners themselves does not seem to be a burden. The question of whether they are well fed in jail was followed by a joyful response that did not require translation.

There is video here too, on that site. It's all in Russian though. But, this is what happened, basically.

[dilettante]

I don't think I understand this. What's the point in Russia arresting Chinese families leaving Russia and going to China? Why wouldn't they be free to just go home?

[Michael]

Sounds like the typical 'forced immigrant labor slavery' problem - where poor immigrants being taken advantage of end up running afoul of the law seeking to escape from that.

Besides which, the crossing of international borders without proper paperwork is a crime in most countries (outside of the USA of course). Indeed, I can well imagine the Russia-China border would be one of the most scary/dangerous on the planet! :eek:

[The Drunk Guy]

Indeed, I can well imagine the Russia-China border would be one of the most scary/dangerous on the planet! :eek:
Maybe immigrants should play more Risk. ;)

[MeMyselfAndI]

I don't think I understand this. What's the point in Russia arresting Chinese families leaving Russia and going to China? Why wouldn't they be free to just go home?

It is a crime to illegally cross Russian borders. Does not matter from which side. Silly law, but still a law...

[Americano]

It is a crime to illegally cross Russian borders. Does not matter from which side. Silly law, but still a law...

There are many Americans who would prefer machine gunning individuals (and families) who illegally enter the US. Even though that cheap labor always has been and remains a major economic benefit for the US economy.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Well, I understand why they do this. There are drug runners, poacher gangs, human trafficers and such, that go back and forth on the Siberian-Kazakh border (did; there is no border anymore, with the new Customs Union... gotta wonder what it's like out there now. Oh, Putin, what did you do...). They wanted to stop that. But, it creates problem for law abiding people too. Nomads in Tyva Republic and Buryatia often travel across the border to Mongolia, where their relatives and friends live, and people from there come to visit them. They get trouble with this law too, for no reason... And fruit farmers, wine makers, and such from South Caucasus, coming to Moscow to sell their produce, it creates issues for them too. It is a dumb law.

[evanescence]

There are many Americans who would prefer machine gunning individuals (and families) who illegally enter the US. Even though that cheap labor always has been and remains a major economic benefit for the US economy.

Shooting them may not be the right choice, and yet when people cross the boarders of another country illegally, they shouldn't be too surprised when it happens.

[Americano]

Shooting them may not be the right choice, and yet when people cross the boarders of another country illegally, they shouldn't be too surprised when it happens.

People are fickle. Strange how it wasn't an issue for other than bigots until the US economy began its decline in the 1980s. Yet Americans still won't perform stoop labor when they can fall back on a social net that offers far more than even minimum wage.

[Donkey]

Shooting them may not be the right choice, and yet when people cross the boarders of another country illegally, they shouldn't be too surprised when it happens.
Law ought to conform with general logic.

[Michael]

Law ought to conform with general logic.

Why? Law is driven by morality and there's not much logic to that. :shrug:

[Donkey]

Why? Law is driven by morality and there's not much logic to that. :shrug:
I'm a pragmatist.

[Michael]

I'm a pragmatist.

Logic is not pragmatic. ;)

If you were a true pragmatist, you'd want the law to reflect human culture, not purely rational logic.

[Donkey]

Logic is not pragmatic. ;)

If you were a true pragmatist, you'd want the law to reflect human culture, not purely rational logic.
Being pragmatic is logical.

[Michael]

Being pragmatic is logical.
That may be true, but logic is still not pragmatic at all.

[evanescence]

People are fickle. Strange how it wasn't an issue for other than bigots until the US economy began its decline in the 1980s. Yet Americans still won't perform stoop labor when they can fall back on a social net that offers far more than even minimum wage.

So you believe that if the Mexicans weren't here to do these jobs, those jobs would remain unfilled?

You're right if they can get on welfare w/o working at all, though.

[Michael]

So you believe that if the Mexicans weren't here to do these jobs, those jobs would remain unfilled?
This is an interesting question. I confess I don't have an easy answer either (since I don't approach immigration issues with ideology).

On the one hand, if companies (such as meat-packers that are HUGE employers of illegal immigrants in the USA) can't get the labor they require to operate on the terms they are willing to pay, they are going to have to A) offer higher wages or better working conditions to attract labor, or B) close up shop and move to a 3rd world country where their management style isn't against the law. Or C) bitch and scream at the government and threaten to hold their breath if they don't get their illegal labor.

Personally, I find any argument predicated upon the NEED for illegal labor to be suspect by definition. These are companies that refuse to pay legal wages or maintain labor safety standards. That's why they NEED to hire illegals in the first place. Letting them hire illegals tends to end up as a tacit sanction of illegal wage and workplace safety regulations (which is what the Chamber of Commerce wants and what the present policy gives).

I don't see any easy way to resolve this public policy problem. Please note that this problem is not caused by illegal immigration - the problem is caused by lax government enforcement of illegal immigration - and lax government enforcement of workplace labor and safety regulations.

You're right if they can get on welfare w/o working at all, though.
I don't believe illegal immigrants are eligible to actually apply for or collect welfare in the USA (despite the fact that Limbaugh et al, spout this nonsense all the time).

[evanescence]

Law ought to conform with general logic.

Which is what, exactly? That this country is better off letting a million undocumented illegals cross our boarders every year?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

[evanescence]

This is an interesting question. I confess I don't have an easy answer either (since I don't approach immigration issues with ideology).

On the one hand, if companies (such as meat-packers that are HUGE employers of illegal immigrants in the USA) can't get the labor they require to operate on the terms they are willing to pay, they are going to have to A) offer higher wages or better working conditions to attract labor, or B) close up shop and move to a 3rd world country where their management style isn't against the law. Or C) bitch and scream at the government and threaten to hold their breath if they don't get their illegal labor.

Personally, I find any argument predicated upon the NEED for illegal labor to be suspect by definition. These are companies that refuse to pay legal wages or maintain labor safety standards. That's why they NEED to hire illegals in the first place. Letting them hire illegals tends to end up as a tacit sanction of illegal wage and workplace safety regulations (which is what the Chamber of Commerce wants and what the present policy gives).

I don't see any easy way to resolve this public policy problem. Please note that this problem is not caused by illegal immigration - the problem is caused by lax government enforcement of illegal immigration - and lax government enforcement of workplace labor and safety regulations.

If illegal immigration was stopped, these companies would likely raise prices to cover the increased wages paid to legal workers.


I don't believe illegal immigrants are eligible to actually apply for or collect welfare in the USA (despite the fact that Limbaugh et al, spout this nonsense all the time).

well, actually, I wasn;t referring to illegals. I was referring to the Americans who would supposedly refuse to do the jobs illegals are doing. But to answer your question, yes many illegals do get benefits. They obtain fake ids, and use other people's ss#s.

[Americano]

So you believe that if the Mexicans weren't here to do these jobs, those jobs would remain unfilled?

You're right if they can get on welfare w/o working at all, though.

From volunteering at a soup kitchen I'm somewhat familiar with public assistance. Basic disability (available for everything from chronic alcoholism to laziness) is ~$700/mo for a single person. Law firms specialize in obtaining it, paid for by guess who? Food stamps vary, but $200/mo for a single person seems to be the norm. Section 8 housing is.....free, and the cheapest one bedroom apartment here runs $500/mo. A year's waiting list. Medical care through Medicaid with no deductible. That doesn't touch aid to dependent mothers or welfare or the seemingly endless government grants for perpetual students. There are people who know how to work the system (they know it far better than those who administer it) that come up with everything from free cars to paid trips for 'orientation'.

With that social net, who's going to pick lettuce, assemble gizmos or work the slaughter houses for minimum wage?

[Michael]

From volunteering at a soup kitchen I'm somewhat familiar with public assistance. Basic disability (available for everything from chronic alcoholism to laziness) is ~$700/mo for a single person. Law firms specialize in obtaining it, paid for by guess who? Food stamps vary, but $200/mo for a single person seems to be the norm. Section 8 housing is.....free, and the cheapest one bedroom apartment here runs $500/mo. A year's waiting list. Medical care through Medicaid with no deductible. That doesn't touch aid to dependent mothers or welfare or the seemingly endless government grants for perpetual students. There are people who know how to work the system (they know it far better than those who administer it) that come up with everything from free cars to paid trips for 'orientation'.

With that social net, who's going to pick lettuce, assemble gizmos or work the slaughter houses for minimum wage?

There is one problem with this argument.

Canada (and other western European countries) all have legal labor picking lettuce, assembling gizmos and working in slaughter houses at minimum wages. And Canada (and western European countries) have more generous welfare policies than the US does.

And Canada (per capita) takes in more legal immigrants than the US takes in illegally (more than double).

Why are all these problems unique to the USA? That's the real question.

[Michael]

If illegal immigration was stopped, these companies would likely raise prices to cover the increased wages paid to legal workers.
Theoretically in other countries, yes. But that's not what the historical record shows in the USA. The historical record in the USA shows that option "C" is the one that you will see because it is the one that has delivered the present immigration policy that is so problematic for everyone except the employers of illegal labor (whom the present policy serves).

US immigration policy comes from somewhere. It isn't just made up out of thin air. It is driven by real interests of real companies pushing the Federal government to serve their interests.

[evanescence]

From volunteering at a soup kitchen I'm somewhat familiar with public assistance. Basic disability (available for everything from chronic alcoholism to laziness) is ~$700/mo for a single person. Law firms specialize in obtaining it, paid for by guess who? Food stamps vary, but $200/mo for a single person seems to be the norm. Section 8 housing is.....free, and the cheapest one bedroom apartment here runs $500/mo. A year's waiting list. Medical care through Medicaid with no deductible. That doesn't touch aid to dependent mothers or welfare or the seemingly endless government grants for perpetual students. There are people who know how to work the system (they know it far better than those who administer it) that come up with everything from free cars to paid trips for 'orientation'.

With that social net, who's going to pick lettuce, assemble gizmos or work the slaughter houses for minimum wage?

That pisses me off, because a few years ago when my husband's hours were literally cut in half, I went to apply for foodstamps because we couldn't pay our bills at the time. I had one child, but I made the mistake of being married. We still didn't qualify. But the room full of Spanish speaking Mexicans and white trash bitches with three kids from three different fathers did. The current system rewards failure and laziness plain and simple. If I were unmarried, lazy, and had no ambition, I would have qualified. But I needed a little boost..so sorry, out of luck.

I don't really think this system can be fixed.

I can see what you're saying, and I agree. There is no incentive to work. Even if there was incentive, the amount of money one can receive for not working and being a lazy piece of shit exceeds that of getting a job. Also, there is no possible way these companies could continue to pay the low wages they are paying if they were to hire Americans, not to mention the poor working conditions. (Although the working conditions exceeds anything one would find in Mexico).

[Americano]

That pisses me off, because a few years ago when my husband's hours were literally cut in half, I went to apply for foodstamps because we couldn't pay our bills at the time. I had one child, but I made the mistake of being married. We still didn't qualify. But the room full of Spanish speaking Mexicans and white trash bitches with three kids from three different fathers did. The current system rewards failure and laziness plain and simple. If I were unmarried, lazy, and had no ambition, I would have qualified. But I needed a little boost..so sorry, out of luck.

If you didn't qualify for food stamps, that means your income less basic expenses (rent/mortgage, property taxes, insurance) was considered adequate to feed your family. Car payments, credit card debt servicing and other personal indebtedness are not considered in their formulas.

An independent audit of several Oregon county public assistance procedures (welfare, food stamps, health care) resulted in 100% procedural compliance. One in five Oregonians receive food stamps.

Those Spanish speaking individuals and the English speaking recipients of food stamps qualify for public assistance because there are no jobs for their skill sets (or lack of same) to work at even if they wanted to work.

I don't really think this system can be fixed.

I can see what you're saying, and I agree. There is no incentive to work. Even if there was incentive, the amount of money one can receive for not working and being a lazy piece of shit exceeds that of getting a job. Also, there is no possible way these companies could continue to pay the low wages they are paying if they were to hire Americans, not to mention the poor working conditions. (Although the working conditions exceeds anything one would find in Mexico).

You can't label all recipients of public assistance lazy. A majority are trapped in social and economic circumstances far beyond their control. The unofficial unemployment rate in my county exceeds 20% and there are no jobs.

The fiasco of immigration enforcement at the employer level is responsible for the loss of many jobs here. Small farmers, ranchers, assembly plants and other low cost labor operations here simply closed their doors rather than risk prosecution because a jealous neighbor reported them. Paying wages that fit the US standard of living image would have positioned them as non-competitive in their markets. The economic ramifications of losing that lower tier of jobs quickly spreads upward, to the cheap motels, rural grocery stores, repair garages and other businesses that provide services for that socioeconomic demographic. From there it continues upward to investors in those affected business entities who dismiss household help, landscape maintenance, defer purchasing high ticket consumer goods, reduce visits to high-end restaurants and on and on and on.

In their position, victims of racial discrimination thinly disguised as nationalism and victims in the chain of events adversely affected by that facade, I'd work the system for every fucking cent I could get my hands on. I believe its called survival.

[Americano]

There is one problem with this argument.

Canada (and other western European countries) all have legal labor picking lettuce, assembling gizmos and working in slaughter houses at minimum wages. And Canada (and western European countries) have more generous welfare policies than the US does.

And Canada (per capita) takes in more legal immigrants than the US takes in illegally (more than double).

Why are all these problems unique to the USA? That's the real question.

Lack of a viable US guest worker program.

[Michael]

Lack of a viable US guest worker program.

Canada doesn't really have one of those things.

They seem to be unique to USA, the Middle East and Western Europe - all places where there is strong racial animosity against any/all non-white immigrants.

Guest worker programs are political policies created to satisfy the anti-immigration fanatics. The are not part of a normative immigration policy.

[Americano]

Canada doesn't really have one of those things.

They seem to be unique to USA, the Middle East and Western Europe - all places where there is strong racial animosity against any/all non-white immigrants.

That certainly describes the US, though it also has a history of discrimination against even Western European immigrants. Classic Xenophobia.

Guest worker programs are political policies created to satisfy the anti-immigration fanatics. The are not part of a normative immigration policy.

Check most public US political forums and you'll find them chock-full of anti-immigration fanatics. Undocumented Mexican workers are blamed for taking American jobs, all illegal drug problems, social structure decay and spitting in the streets, all without consideration of US market demands. Which is why I consider a viable guest worker program a necessity in the US.

[evanescence]

If you didn't qualify for food stamps, that means your income less basic expenses (rent/mortgage, property taxes, insurance) was considered adequate to feed your family. Car payments, credit card debt servicing and other personal indebtedness are not considered in their formulas.

An independent audit of several Oregon county public assistance procedures (welfare, food stamps, health care) resulted in 100% procedural compliance. One in five Oregonians receive food stamps.

Those Spanish speaking individuals and the English speaking recipients of food stamps qualify for public assistance because there are no jobs for their skill sets (or lack of same) to work at even if they wanted to work.



You can't label all recipients of public assistance lazy. A majority are trapped in social and economic circumstances far beyond their control. The unofficial unemployment rate in my county exceeds 20% and there are no jobs.

The fiasco of immigration enforcement at the employer level is responsible for the loss of many jobs here. Small farmers, ranchers, assembly plants and other low cost labor operations here simply closed their doors rather than risk prosecution because a jealous neighbor reported them. Paying wages that fit the US standard of living image would have positioned them as non-competitive in their markets. The economic ramifications of losing that lower tier of jobs quickly spreads upward, to the cheap motels, rural grocery stores, repair garages and other businesses that provide services for that socioeconomic demographic. From there it continues upward to investors in those affected business entities who dismiss household help, landscape maintenance, defer purchasing high ticket consumer goods, reduce visits to high-end restaurants and on and on and on.

In their position, victims of racial discrimination thinly disguised as nationalism and victims in the chain of events adversely affected by that facade, I'd work the system for every fucking cent I could get my hands on. I believe its called survival.

We do, actually. I "separated" from my husband. We're back together now, but I've done that. It was survival, but it's not something I enjoyed doing, and wont again unless I have to. We're doing better now.

[evanescence]

And also, I think only American citizens should get "entitlements". *waits for gnashing of teeth*

[Americano]

And also, I think only American citizens should get "entitlements". *waits for gnashing of teeth*

Other than perhaps emergency medical treatment (not an entitlement unless they 'borrowed' an ID associated with Medicaid) as far as I know that's the only people who do receive entitlements. The homeless at the soup kitchen often complained about having to produce a driver license or state ID (birth certificate required for either) to receive public assistance.

[Americano]

We do, actually. I "separated" from my husband. We're back together now, but I've done that. It was survival, but it's not something I enjoyed doing, and wont again unless I have to. We're doing better now.

Seems hypocritical to chastise those individuals who aren't doing better.

[Michael]

Seems hypocritical to chastise those individuals who aren't doing better.

It is indeed difficult for those of us who are born to be wealthy and comfortable to identify with the challenges of poverty. :shrug:

[evanescence]

Seems hypocritical to chastise those individuals who aren't doing better.

As long as those people are actual American citizens, I see no serious issue. Corporations receive welfare, as well.

[Greendruid]

Canada doesn't really have one of those things.

They seem to be unique to USA, the Middle East and Western Europe - all places where there is strong racial animosity against any/all non-white immigrants.

Guest worker programs are political policies created to satisfy the anti-immigration fanatics. The are not part of a normative immigration policy.

Sure we do! It isn't nearly as large as some would have you believe though. Working temporarily in Canada (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/index.asp)is actually a long, old tradition for many Jamaicans in Ontario primarily but other places as well. Mexicans have been a more recent group that has done this to support their families back home. I know that Eyeking Farms here in Cape Breton employs Jamaicans regularly. Can't miss them when they're riding their bikes on the highway with sweaters and toques on in July!

[Michael]

Sure we do! It isn't nearly as large as some would have you believe though. Working temporarily in Canada (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/index.asp)is actually a long, old tradition for many Jamaicans in Ontario primarily but other places as well. Mexicans have been a more recent group that has done this to support their families back home. I know that Eyeking Farms here in Cape Breton employs Jamaicans regularly. Can't miss them when they're riding their bikes on the highway with sweaters and toques on in July!

Mentioning "Jamaicans in Ontario" is a very bad example. From the stats I'm aware of, "Jamaicans" account for some 80-90% of all illegal immigrats in Canada (basically criminals using fraud to get past the immigration rules).

Anyway, I'll look into the program. I suspect it represents less than 1% of Canadian immigration numbers.

[Greendruid]

Mentioning "Jamaicans in Ontario" is a very bad example. From the stats I'm aware of, "Jamaicans" account for some 80-90% of all illegal immigrats in Canada (basically criminals using fraud to get past the immigration rules).

Anyway, I'll look into the program. I suspect it represents less than 1% of Canadian immigration numbers.

Well, I don't think you'll find anything on the representation of individual nations because of what that information could be used for. I used that example because it's familiar to me - most of the people using this programme are here for farm labour and a goodly number are from Jamaica. The linkage between this programme and illegal immigration from same is not necessarily related. In fact, in the recent CBC interview I recently heard the Jamaicans are also frequently farmers at home and have been in the programme for some 10 to 15 years in many cases. This isn't someone who is trying to immigrate illegally. I also met Polish and Croatian women in the 80s when I was a young farm hand.

[Michael]

I looked up the program you mentioned. It is indeed exactly as I suspected. It is micro-small and it is entirely a sop to the agricultural industry's desire for dirt cheap migrant labor.

[Americano]

I looked up the program you mentioned. It is indeed exactly as I suspected. It is micro-small and it is entirely a sop to the agricultural industry's desire for dirt cheap migrant labor.

At least Canada has a formal program. For decades in the US big ag subcontractors have sent fleets of buses and trucks to border towns to collect cheap labor illegal immigrants.

[evanescence]

I wonder how much food prices would increase if this cheap labor weren't available.

[Americano]

I wonder how much food prices would increase if this cheap labor weren't available.

Increased food prices would be a consumer irritation when compared to expanded imports and increased trade deficits. If labor costs increase to meet desired American standards of living, crops (and other products) produced in the US are relocated to countries with more favorable labor costs.

The US hasn't been self-sufficient in food production since I believe 2006. Unless everyone started eating the vast quantities of heavily subsidized grains exported for geopolitical purposes.

[evanescence]

Increased food prices would be a consumer irritation when compared to expanded imports and increased trade deficits. If labor costs increase to meet desired American standards of living, crops (and other products) produced in the US are relocated to countries with more favorable labor costs.

The US hasn't been self-sufficient in food production since I believe 2006. Unless everyone started eating the vast quantities of heavily subsidized grains exported for geopolitical purposes.

It seems as if a large percentage of produce and even meat products are already being imported.

[Michael]

I wonder how much food prices would increase if this cheap labor weren't available.

I doubt if you'd notice any difference. Cheap farm labor is only engaged for a small minority of crop types. The vast majority of industrial agriculture doesn't use much labor inputs at all.

And the massive scale of farm subsidies completely dwarfs the 'cost savings' from using illegally cheap labor by several orders of magnitude.

In other words, food is 'cheap' because of massive subsidies, not because of illegally cheap labor.

Indeed, the whole agricultural sector in the US only employs about 1% of the workforce to begin with.

[Michael]

It seems as if a large percentage of produce and even meat products are already being imported.

That's because the largest portion of US agricultural subsides target commodity crops for export.

The farmers follow the money and the biggest money is in subsidized commodity crops (corn, soy, oil-seeds, etc).

The category that is most dependent upon intensive labor (fruits and some vegetables) are the same category where the US imports the most.

Ergo, eliminating illegal labor in the agriculture sector isn't likely to have any noticable market effect at all.

Employing [illegal] cheap labor is all about maximizing profits, not lowering the cost of sale. There are some types of agriculture that would not be profitable in the USA without illegally cheap labor. According to normative market principles, the US shouldn't be investing in production of those types of products at all since they are cheaper to import than to produce domestically. Ergo, eliminating domestic production of these products would not affect the overall price point of these products.

[evanescence]

I would say it's both, actually.

[Michael]

I would say it's both, actually.

I can't see how the tiny micro-fraction of US agriculture that involves the need for cheap labor can possibly be compared with the billions of dollars involved in agricultural subsidies. One is tiny, the other is enormous. :shrug:

Besides, no other western nation is dependent upon illegal labor in their farm sector, yet food is no cheaper in the USA than in other western nations.

[evanescence]

I can't see how the tiny micro-fraction of US agriculture that involves the need for cheap labor can possibly be compared with the billions of dollars involved in agricultural subsidies. One is tiny, the other is enormous. :shrug:

Besides, no other western nation is dependent upon illegal labor in their farm sector, yet food is no cheaper in the USA than in other western nations.

I'd need to look up the specific data, but I thought cheap labor made up a bit more than a "micro fraction" of the cost.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_4_23/ai_n25001096/

Although your point about the billions in subsidies is not lost on me.

So if cheap labor is not needed, why do we need the illegals? The cost of their upkeep is rather high. As for the trade deficits, those will likely continue to grow anyhow since unemployment is high. I know you mentioned in the past that manufacturing jobs are growing in the US (unless I've mixed you up with someone else), but I still don't see that. What ever can be sent overseas will be at some point. Cutting costs is capitalism at its finest.

[Michael]

I'd need to look up the specific data, but I thought cheap labor made up a bit more than a "micro fraction" of the cost.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_4_23/ai_n25001096/

Although your point about the billions in subsidies is not lost on me.

So if cheap labor is not needed, why do we need the illegals? The cost of their upkeep is rather high. As for the trade deficits, those will likely continue to grow anyhow since unemployment is high. I know you mentioned in the past that manufacturing jobs are growing in the US (unless I've mixed you up with someone else), but I still don't see that. What ever can be sent overseas will be at some point. Cutting costs is capitalism at its finest.
Granted, the size of the illegal immigrant agricultural labor force in the US is indeed larger than 'micro' - though I'd expect it would be the meat-packing industry where it is largest rather than picking fruits/vegetables in fields. From what I understand, in southern California, the annual migrant labor for picking fruits/vegetables are mostly legal and of longstanding tradition.

I think the numbers of (illegal immigrant) workers in agricultural-factories is a much larger and far more significant political issue - and far more widely distributed around the USA.

As for the reasoning, it is all about the distribution of the costs. The 'costs' of the policy are mostly socio-cultural-political, and spread widely across society. The profits from the policy are highly concentrated in a few politically powerful families and corporations - that are of course very politically active with their 'donations' to the politicians up and down the ticket (on both sides of the aisle).