The Case for Legal Migration. Labor=Happy Market

The Case for Legal Migration:


Many cases have been made against legal migration as opposed to illegal immigration. Let’s examine the effects of legal migration as a labor commodity instead of illegal immigration as a financial burder. Remember, the US currently has 5,000 visas annually for ALL low wage workers. Meanwhile, 400,000 illegal immigrants are chasing jobs illegally. The right doesn’t want them because of traditional xenophobic rhetoric. One only has to look through the history books to see the exact anti-(put race here) movement. The left doesn’t want them because the unions and big government proponents need the labor hold out to work and force the wage levels up. Unions and Dems need the cheap labor to stay away and not ruin their efforts to raise wages for the labor movement.

What is illegal immigration and why. It is the fact that Mexico (or other American country) is a high pressure system where the laborers cannot find equal matches or roles in the market. So these laborers choose the path of the least resistance, as water will from a higher pressure system to the lower pressure system, the US, where the jobs absorb the flow of labor, and the workers are able to find a compatible match in the market. What is this flow of immigrants? How can the principles of the free market guide the discussion on this topic? Is it something to be changed, feared, or planned for? No, it is a natural part of the work cycle of a nation that adheres to the free market, for labor is just another commodity, the same as if goods came off a boat. If we try to create barriers to the flow of workers, then we have interfered with the free market. We have created barriers to free trade, this always leads to higher prices for the consumers at large.

Now Crooks and Liars, a presumed leftist publication, has an article which states that the economy cannot get the low wage jobs filled. There are jobs, but no one is taking them, because they are of such low quality. They go on to state that wages are too low to entice the workers to the jobs and that the logical solution is to raise wages in the middle of a recession to get the jobs filled. Maybe that is NOT the solution however. If the economy is such that employers cannot hire workers at a higher wage, then perhaps they could hire more workers at a lower wage. Is it possible that the higher wages paid out during the economic boon were mirages and easy to stomach in a booming economy? And that since we are now in the bust after the boom then wages are contracting back to a more manageable level? Using the link below, I will be able to demonstrate the general feeling of the left, as well as explain some of their reason in light of the lefts relationship with unions.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/employers-we-just-cant-fill-our-under

In this article, the key point is that higher wages should be maintained while employers are cutting back on their payrolls. Doesn’t this sound eerily like a union argument trying to negotiate from a position of power as the workers, the labor? Does the left think that artificially raising wages while braving an economic storm is the best course of action? But how bad can it be? They say people are dying because they can’t get jobs, then they turn around and justify not getting a job because it does not pay enough! This brings up two points:

1. Why won’t the people work if they’re in such dire straits?

2. Isn’t that an unofficial way of raising minimum wage?

Well, using the free market, why don’t we allow foreign labor (Mexicans, Central and Southern Americans, etc) to fill those low wage jobs, grow the economy, pay taxes, and enable employers to create lower cost goods for society as a whole? In the next post, I hope to refute some of the common arguments regarding illegals, crime, and welfare. Let me put it this way, if illegals could be legal, they would, and if they were here for a short period and only while in good standing with the host country, then we would understand that they might not be the number one candidate for crime or welfare.