Basic Economics: Why Opposing Illegal Immigration Doesn't Mean You're "Anti-Immigrant"
Basic economics helps explain illegal immigration. The whole subject of illegal immigration's become hot again. I'll try not to add fuel to the fire. What I'm talking about is that percentage of illegals from Mexico involved in the drug trade and those not involved in the drug trade.
The drug trade exists because of the huge demand in the U.S. Smugglers work for so-called "drug lords" who run the drug business. The business supplies the drugs, the smugglers bring the drugs here. Because the demand is so strong, the drug business (which supplies the drugs) flourishes. The drug lords make money supplying a product to meet a demand. They make a lot of money supplying this product.
Other illegal immigrants from Mexico - probably the majority - come here simply to make money. Somehow they can't make money in Mexico, their home country. They come here and work for people who have a need for their services. The theory here is that 1) either there aren't enough Americans to fill the jobs they take or 2) they will work for less than Americans - or some combination of these two reasons. In any case, there's a demand for labor - at a certain price - that is met by this supply of cheaper labor - the Mexican illegals.
Some people say that those who oppose illegal immigration are "anti-immigrant." I don't think that's true. While the law of supply and demand helps us understand illegal immigration, it won't help us understand the difference between opposing illegal immigration and opposing all immigration (i.e., being "anti-immigration"). For that, let's turn to a recent incident.
On March 27th, the body of Robert Krentz was found on his property in Arizona. He was shot to death. He owned a ranch on the border with Mexico. The Arizona attorney general said that he was probably murdered by a "scout" for one of the Mexican drug lords, checking out possible smuggling routes.
The family issued a remarkable statement:
“ We hold no malice towards the Mexican people for this senseless act but do hold the political forces in this country and Mexico accountable for what has happened. Their disregard of our repeated pleas and warnings of impending violence towards our community fell on deaf ears shrouded in political correctness. As a result, we have paid the ultimate price for their negligence in credibly securing our borderlands.
“ In honor of everything Rob stood for,” the statement continued, “ we ask everyone to work peacefully towards bringing credible law and order to our border and provide Border Patrol and county law enforcement with sufficient financial resources and manpower to stop this invasion of our country. We urge the president of the United States to step forward and immediately order deployment of the active U. S. military to the Arizona/ New Mexico border.”
This murder of Mr. Krentz and the statement by his family got very little coverage in the media.
A few years back, I listened to a speech by a Senator who was running for President. He was obviously from a "WASP" background. He talked about how immigrants filled a need and how America was a land of immigrants. Then he lumped together those those who opposed illegal immigration with those he called "anti-immigration."
Growing up in the immigrant town of New York (and being the grandson of immigrants myself) most of my friends, acquaintances and business associates came from immigrant backgrounds. You can't grow up here and be "anti-immigrant."
Either this senator - and those like him - don't understand the difference between being against the problem of illegal immigration and being "anti-immigrant" or they don't want to understand. You have to wonder, though, how there could possibly be any confusion.
Frankly, what I'm left with is this:
There are grounds for an intelligent, positive and productive debate on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal. If that debate commences, we will find a reasonable and just solution to the current problem of uncontrolled, overwhelming illegal immigration.
But there are forces opposing a reasonable debate. It's not in their economic and political interest to encourage a reasonable debate.
Those forces are: the media, some business owners, politicians.
The media prefers to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. They find the stories more compelling when they mix up and stir up conflict between groups like, Hispanics, ranchers along the border, truly "anti-immigration" types (yes, they exist) and those looking to reform the current system.
Some business owners don't want to see a break in the flow of illegal immigrants. They find they can get them to work very cheaply, which results in greater profits for the owners. If the immigrants were legal, these business people would probably have to pay higher wages.
The politicians want the "Hispanic vote." The reason they focus on Hispanics vs. other immigrant groups is that a large percentage of immigrants these days are Hispanic, and Hispanics already comprise a large voting block in the U.S. Naturally, many of the people currently living here want their relatives to come here too.
Politicians know all this. They want to be seen as sympathetic to these Hispanic voters already here. Plus, if they can capture the current Hispanic vote, then adding more immigrants to the pot increases the voting block. Having a large voting block on your side means that you will increase your chances of winning elections now and in the future. This increases your political power on a more or less permanent basis.
By the way, these political shenanigans don't involve only the Democrats. The Senator whose speech I talked about above was a Republican.
The drug trade exists because of the huge demand in the U.S. Smugglers work for so-called "drug lords" who run the drug business. The business supplies the drugs, the smugglers bring the drugs here. Because the demand is so strong, the drug business (which supplies the drugs) flourishes. The drug lords make money supplying a product to meet a demand. They make a lot of money supplying this product.
Other illegal immigrants from Mexico - probably the majority - come here simply to make money. Somehow they can't make money in Mexico, their home country. They come here and work for people who have a need for their services. The theory here is that 1) either there aren't enough Americans to fill the jobs they take or 2) they will work for less than Americans - or some combination of these two reasons. In any case, there's a demand for labor - at a certain price - that is met by this supply of cheaper labor - the Mexican illegals.
Some people say that those who oppose illegal immigration are "anti-immigrant." I don't think that's true. While the law of supply and demand helps us understand illegal immigration, it won't help us understand the difference between opposing illegal immigration and opposing all immigration (i.e., being "anti-immigration"). For that, let's turn to a recent incident.
On March 27th, the body of Robert Krentz was found on his property in Arizona. He was shot to death. He owned a ranch on the border with Mexico. The Arizona attorney general said that he was probably murdered by a "scout" for one of the Mexican drug lords, checking out possible smuggling routes.
The family issued a remarkable statement:
“ We hold no malice towards the Mexican people for this senseless act but do hold the political forces in this country and Mexico accountable for what has happened. Their disregard of our repeated pleas and warnings of impending violence towards our community fell on deaf ears shrouded in political correctness. As a result, we have paid the ultimate price for their negligence in credibly securing our borderlands.
“ In honor of everything Rob stood for,” the statement continued, “ we ask everyone to work peacefully towards bringing credible law and order to our border and provide Border Patrol and county law enforcement with sufficient financial resources and manpower to stop this invasion of our country. We urge the president of the United States to step forward and immediately order deployment of the active U. S. military to the Arizona/ New Mexico border.”
This murder of Mr. Krentz and the statement by his family got very little coverage in the media.
A few years back, I listened to a speech by a Senator who was running for President. He was obviously from a "WASP" background. He talked about how immigrants filled a need and how America was a land of immigrants. Then he lumped together those those who opposed illegal immigration with those he called "anti-immigration."
Growing up in the immigrant town of New York (and being the grandson of immigrants myself) most of my friends, acquaintances and business associates came from immigrant backgrounds. You can't grow up here and be "anti-immigrant."
Either this senator - and those like him - don't understand the difference between being against the problem of illegal immigration and being "anti-immigrant" or they don't want to understand. You have to wonder, though, how there could possibly be any confusion.
Frankly, what I'm left with is this:
There are grounds for an intelligent, positive and productive debate on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal. If that debate commences, we will find a reasonable and just solution to the current problem of uncontrolled, overwhelming illegal immigration.
But there are forces opposing a reasonable debate. It's not in their economic and political interest to encourage a reasonable debate.
Those forces are: the media, some business owners, politicians.
The media prefers to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. They find the stories more compelling when they mix up and stir up conflict between groups like, Hispanics, ranchers along the border, truly "anti-immigration" types (yes, they exist) and those looking to reform the current system.
Some business owners don't want to see a break in the flow of illegal immigrants. They find they can get them to work very cheaply, which results in greater profits for the owners. If the immigrants were legal, these business people would probably have to pay higher wages.
The politicians want the "Hispanic vote." The reason they focus on Hispanics vs. other immigrant groups is that a large percentage of immigrants these days are Hispanic, and Hispanics already comprise a large voting block in the U.S. Naturally, many of the people currently living here want their relatives to come here too.
Politicians know all this. They want to be seen as sympathetic to these Hispanic voters already here. Plus, if they can capture the current Hispanic vote, then adding more immigrants to the pot increases the voting block. Having a large voting block on your side means that you will increase your chances of winning elections now and in the future. This increases your political power on a more or less permanent basis.
By the way, these political shenanigans don't involve only the Democrats. The Senator whose speech I talked about above was a Republican.
Comments