I think this thread illustrates well the pitfalls of making policy without a philosophy: both the far Left and Right in the U.S. don’t argue coherently against job competition. Righties are usually impelled by racism and concerns about socialism, Lefties are … a bit more muddled in their criticism.
Diogenes the Cynic points out to justwannano that **j’**s job has not been affected by Electrical Engineers swimming the Rio Grande. In this DoC is probably right, but it misses the point.
DotC seems to take the position that undocumented immigrants work only as agricultural harvesters, and that any U.S. citizen who is competing with them is such a loser that he deserves his plight. I suspect that D would assume that the “punishment” for such a loser who refused to educate himself into a better job would not be starvation, but support by the welfare state. With such punishment, it is no surprise that our hypothetical loser neither sucks it up and accepts the going wage for lettuce harvesting, nor cracks the books.
I would guess this is factually wrong and that immigrants move from harvesting to take jobs in landscaping, plumbing, construction, clerks, transportation, and on and on. jinwicked mentions this.
Instead, justwannano is upset by competition from foreign workers/the lack of tariffs and quotas. At bottom, complaints against unlicensed, undocumented Mexican plumbers and hardworking, low wage Korean electronics assemblers are about the same thing: competition. Some trades, like agriculture or plumbing, can’t be done somewhere else, due to the nature of the job. Manufacturing can.
I think it a strange argument to say “Don’t complain about non-U.S. citizen workers because 1. if you are mad about them taking agriculture jobs, you are a loser, and 2. if in any other job, report your employer for an illegal practice.” Why are agricultural jobs the only one that deserve such treatment.? What happens if D or someone decides that housecleaning or unstopping sinks are “crappy” jobs? Presumably any U.S. worker in that field loses the right to expel unwanted competitors.
As we climb up the economic ladder, the hypocrisy of Lefties calling “racism” becomes evident. Some people will argue that there are enough riches in the U.S. to give the benefits of the welfare state to the whole world. This is essentially the position of those that want to allow immigrants to unionize. In this view, higher than equilibrium, union wages can be given by fiat to everyone without causing unemployment. This position is rare. More typically, a left-Dem. realizes the welfare state would break if subjected to this, and then such a person has to come up with characteristics to distinguish between U.S. and non-U.S. workers. To avoid racism these distinctions can’t be on race, creed, national origin, etc. Thus you have to distinguish on silly things like the geographic location of birth, or what political entity controlled some distant ancestor of a prospective worker.
In a sensible world, the decision who to hire for a certain job would depend on the skills and preferences of employers and employees.
Think about it: If I have a ranch and want to hire cowboys, why do I have to interview every last American for the job before I can hire a skilled Mexican? Is one of the inalienable rights granted by the Creator to every American the right of first refusal of every job in America?
Don’t most people now agree that is was hubris to think that an entire economy can by planned and controlled by a few People’s Ministers? Determining what is an “exorbitant” amount of software engineers and what is a correct one is something that gets worked out by a market, not by politicians.
One of the sources I mentioned previously has some online chapters
I realize it can be hard to learn new things, especially when unemployed. I have been unemployed from the software industry for 3 years. I’m proud to say it has not changed my feelings on free trade, just as I am proud that I have never stolen food even when I was hungry.
though.