# "How To Break U.S. Immigration Law," by the Government of Mexico **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 3, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901 "2005-01-03T22:08:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901/61 "2005-01-04T22:23:00Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > We’ve already seen doublings and triplings in price due to domestic unavailability of Tomatoes in California caused by repeated storms in Florida. So it is definitely possible to see prices of domestically available products double and even triple in times of low supply. Invalid analogy. Storms directly decrease the supply of a crop by destroying it. The effect of increased labor costs would only indirectly affect the supply by _possibly_ lowering the demand. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901/62 "2005-01-04T22:36:08Z")
You guys are really in over your heads here. Let me explain it in the simplest possible terms. About 3/4 of the lettuce in the United States is grown in California. Whether you buy lettuce in California or Iowa, it probably came from the same place, so the labor costs are the same. So if there’s a 100% increase in California lettuce prices, that is a $1.29 increase, because lettuce already costs $1.29 in California. That same $1.29 increase, to represent the 6% quoted in my cite, would require the **current** price of lettuce in Iowa to be $21.50. 1.29/21.50=6%. Lettuce does not cost $21.50 in Iowa. Therefore, a 100% increase in California prices does not translate to a 6% increase in Iowa prices. So, what the fuck are you talking about, “That is 6% in Iowa”, **GaWd**? ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901/63 "2005-01-04T22:49:25Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > So, what the fuck are you talking about, “That is 6% in Iowa”, **GaWd**? Did you read the linked article? The article found in **fucking Iowa** that there was a 3-6% difference in price. Not in **fucking California**. These studies would need to be done region by region as the difference in sizes of agriculture in general, and in crops raised and sold and in immigrant populations. > [@Metacom](#): > > Invalid analogy. > > Storms directly decrease the supply of a crop by destroying it. The effect of increased labor costs would only indirectly affect the supply by possibly lowering the demand. No. John Mace contends that if the price were to double or triple in response to hiring American workers and paying legal wages/insurance/taxes etc. that alternative supplies of said food crops would be found and the price increase would be negligible. I sinmply contend that if that were the case, situations like the tomato shortage would not cause the prices to double or triple because alternative crops would be found that would take care of the missing supply. Proper analogy. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901/64 "2005-01-04T23:09:58Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > Did you read the linked article? The article found in **fucking Iowa** that there was a 3-6% difference in price. Wrong. The authors of the article worked for the state of Iowa. The article itself never mentions Iowa. In fact, the word “Iowa” doesn’t even occur in the [body of the article.](http://www.cis.org/articles/1996/back296.htm) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901/65 "2005-01-04T23:23:40Z")
But of course, you would expect the Government of Mexico to thus welcome with open arms it’s even more economically diadvantaged freinds from even further ZSouth. But there you’d be wrong. Mexico treats it’s Southern Worker Illegal Immigrants worse that even the most Right Wing Jingoistic American Politco would suggest. Which just goes to show you that Mexican Politcos are corrupt, hypocritcal assholes who can’t solve any of their own problems so they blame everything on “the Yankee”- while meanwhile asking Uncle Sam for more, _more_, **MORE**! (Our Politicos are somewhat less corrupt- their “corruption” is mostly legal; and _they_ blame everything on the other party.) I am speaking of Mexican Politicians. \* Not\* Mexican immigrant workers, who _by-and-large_ are salt of the earth hard-working dudes of value to our economy. Both those legal & illegal. However- other than the fact that cheap domestic labour might go way up- yes, we could “close the border” (and only allow a normal amount of Immegration on work permits) and the Agriculture industry would survive and most of us wouldn’t notice any increase in the price of our veggies. Now, if you made all the LEGAL Mexican Immigrants go away, and stopped even LEGAL immigration, then yes- there would be an economic upheaval- esp in certain areas and industries. However- Legit businesses do NOT depend on Illegal immigration. You forget there are mucho legal work permits. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901/66 "2005-01-04T23:54:49Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > I’d almost have to agree with you, but Hyperboy’s spluttering peabrained utterance makes no sense whatsoever. > > We’ve already seen doublings and triplings in price due to domestic unavailability of Tomatoes in California caused by repeated storms in Florida. Where’s the imported Tomato crop to prevent that? So it is definitely possible to see prices of domestically available products double and even triple in times of low supply. > > Sam That’s a differnt thing entirely. Remember our old friend, the “bad analogy”? 🙂 Imports aren’t going to fill the gap in sudden supply losses. But if the supply were PERMANENTLY interrupted, imports almost certainly fill the gap after a season or two. > [@Metacom](#): > > And that all assumes that any price increase due to using legal laborers (so far, the only cite that hasn’t been a total WAG has been 6%) would be greater then the shipping cost of importing fresh fruits and vegetables. But a large increase is the assumption that WAS put forward in the post I was responding to-- ie, that prduce prices would double and tripple. Had that assumption not been put forward, I wouldn’t have proposed the alternate solution that I did. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901/67 "2005-01-05T02:20:17Z")
From [UC Davis](http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=111_0_3_0) with more relevant info pertaining to produce and labor costs: > [@](#): > > Academics generally argued that the US farm labor market could > adjust to the absence of immigrant workers–legal, illegal, or guest > workers–with very little effects on the average American. Academics > testified that: > > First, it is unlikely that currently unauthorized workers will be > removed quickly from the farm work force. > > \*\*Second, even if the 20 to 30 percent of the current work force > that is illegal were removed from the farm work force, US consumers > may not notice their removal in food costs because farm worker wages > are, on average, only about 11 cents of a $1 produce item. Farmers > receive about one-third of the retail price of most fruits and > vegetables, and farm workers receive one-third of the farmer’s price. > This means, that for a $1 head of lettuce, farmers get an average > $0.33, and farm workers $0.11. > > Removing 20 to 30 percent of the farm labor force might raise farm > wages. If done quickly, as at the end of the Bracero program, farm > wages might rise by 30 to 50 percent --the UFW was able to negotiate > a 40 percent one-year wage increase in 1966 because farm wages had > been held down by Braceros, and Braceros were no longer available. If > farm wages rose 50 percent, from today’s $4 to $6 range to $6 to $9 > per hour, and if all of the wage increases were passed on to > consumers, the head of lettuce would cost consumers $1.05, i.e., a > doubling of farm wages leads to a five percent retail price increase. > > Retail produce prices may fall rather than rise, as occurred when > the end of the Bracero program encouraged farmers and processors to > change the way that tomatoes were handled. In the tomato case, the > end of immigrant labor caused production to rise, and retail prices > to fall. \*\* > > The tomato example illustrates that it is very hard to predict > what will happen when the labor supply changes. Many growers in 1963 > testified that the tomato industry had no choice but to follow its > pickers to Mexico, shifting production there. Instead, the harvest > was mechanized, and today almost five times more tomatoes are > produced in California. Those closest to the adjustment issue may not > have the clearest picture of likely adjustments. > > \*\*Most of the adjustments to fewer and more expensive workers in > agriculture occur on the DEMAND, not the supply side, of the labor > market. In other words, in the face of immigration reforms, lasting > adjustments are more likely to be found by accelerating labor-saving > mechanization, or changing the way farm work is done, or letting > production of the commodity shift overseas, not in launching new > efforts to recruit US workers, to build housing for migrant workers, > or to provide government services to farm workers that raise their > effective incomes. > > The notion that most adjustments to fewer and more expensive farm > workers reduce the demand for farm labor, not increase the supply, > reflects experience in the US and elsewhere. This is why, in most > societies, development is associated with a smaller percentage of the > work force producing food. \*\* > > Growers and their supporters typically frame the argument in a > manner that looks for SUPPLY adjustments. For example, if there are > currently 100 workers employed and 30 are unauthorized, effective > immigration controls would require the government to find 30 new > workers. > > The removal of unauthorized or guest workers from the farm work > force rarely prompts US workers to replace them. The more common > response is for growers to demand fewer workers, often by mechanizing > hand-harvest tasks. > > \*\*Engineers point out that there are alternatives to hand work in > agriculture, even to harvest raisin grapes, the crop often associated > with recently arrived and illegal workers. One California grower > planted twice the number of raisin vines per acre, cut the canes by > hand to let the raisins dry on the vine, and then harvested the > dried-on-the-vine raisins mechanically by shaking the raisins off the > vines. > > Machines to eliminate most of the 50,000 four-to-eight week hand > harvesters are available at a cost of $18,000 to $55,000 each. \*\* > > Economists testified that the agricultural guest worker debate > could be evaluated by asking three questions: > > First, are there any indications of labor shortages that are > putting upward pressure on farm wages? > > Second, if farm wages rise, how does the supply of labor respond, > e.g., do rising wages encourage more workers to seek farm jobs, or > current workers to work more hours? > > Third, do rising wages set in motion technological, trade, or > other changes that reduce the demand for farm workers? > > The rationale for guest workers is that the labor market is not > responding properly to market signals such as rising wages, or that > government intervention is needed to prevent market adjustments that > would have negative effects, such as rising food prices. > > If a new guest worker program begins before any of these > adjustments can be observed, it will never be known how easily the > farm labor market can adjust to changes in its labor supply. Underline and bolding mine…but just read the whole damn thing and git learnt. Again, I stress that MANY of you have a very NAIVE view on what illegal immigration/labor does to California’s economy. Stop spouting and start reading…When come back, bring facts. And do not confuse product demand/supply with labor demand/supply…two different variables, duh. [And now, what is the cost to have illegal labor here?](http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=2570&c=13) > [@](#): > > Analysis of the **latest Census data indicates that California’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration**. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden from those three areas of state expenditures amounts to about $1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident. > > This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison ten years later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report. > > As this report will note, other significant costs associated with illegal immigration exist and should be taken into account by federal and state officials. But, even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by California taxpayers, the programs analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing. > > The more than $10.1 billion in costs incurred by California taxpayers is composed of outlays in the following areas: > > **Education**. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in California and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Californians spend approximately $7.7 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. Nearly 15 percent of the K-12 public school students in California are children of illegal aliens. > **Health care**. Uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $1.4 billion a year. > > **Incarceration**. The cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in California’s prisons and jails amounts to about $1.4 billion a year (not including related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration). > State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at about $1.6 billion per year. > > The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, school feeding programs, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were added into the equation. > > While the primary responsibility for combating illegal immigration rests with the federal government, there are many measures that state and local governments can take to combat the problem. Californians should not be expected to assume this already large and growing burden from illegal immigration simply because businesses or other special interests benefit from being able to employ lower cost workers. The state must adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal alien use of taxpayer-funded services and on where they are employed. Policies could then be pursued to hold employers financially accountable. > > The state could also enter into a cooperative agreement with the federal government for training local law enforcement personnel in immigration law so that illegal immigrants apprehended for criminal activities may be turned over to immigration authorities for removal from the country. Similarly, local officials who have adopted “sanctuary” measures that shield illegal aliens from being reported to the immigration authorities should be urged to repeal them. > > November 2004 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-break-u-s-immigration-law-by-the-government-of-mexico/282901.md?page=3)