The business plan behind illegal immigration

Who says business innovation is dead in America?

For years now, it has seemed like there was no business legal in the US that required lots of illegal immigrants. But lookee, there has been just such a business – a whole industry – for years. Right now it’s dominated by DCCC, but NRCC is working hard to catch up.

The lie of “immigration reform”

The lie is the assumption that, once current illegals get their legalization, pro-immigrant activists in both parties will continue to support the second half of the bargain, the increased security.

The chaos in Texas shows they won’t. Faced with a clear hole in the border – with a wave of tens of thousands of undocumented Central Americans crossing into the U.S. in order to get in line for hearings years from now, which they likely won’t attend while they continue to live here – pro-reform activists have scrambled, not to show their border security bona fides, but to generate arguments and outbursts designed to let the new wave stay. — Lie at Heart of “Immigration Reform” Exposed

Many reformers do not really want to stop illegal immigration. They want illegal immigrants, because their business plans rely on illegal immigrants. Legal residents would not do the work unless their employers paid what they would have to pay legal residents to do the same work.

And let me add, if your business plan is predicated on hiring illegals, that’s not good business; that’s organized crime, whether you’re a fruit grower, a restaurant owner, or a non-profit.

Trading

“…he very often laid the foundations of his fortune in a very curious and poetical way, the nature of which I have never fully understood. It consisted in his walking about the street without a hat and going up to another man and saying, “Suppose I have two hundred whales out of the North Sea.” To which the other man replied, “And let us imagine that I am in possession of two thousand elephants’ tusks.” They then exchange, and the first man goes up to a third man and says, “Supposing me to have lately come into the possession of two thousand elephants’ tusks, would you, etc.?” If you play this game well, you become very rich; if you play it badly you have to kill yourself or try your luck at the Bar.” — Eugenics and Other Evils, by G. K. Chesterton

Crooks

A business plan that requires illegal immigrants is simply organized crime.

“More than 50 million working age Americans are either officially unemployed or not working, but George W. Bush’s former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says amnesty and significant increase in legal immigration are needed because businesses can’t find suitable employees.” — Despite 50 Million Americans Out Of Work…

These business plans should be non-viable. Fortunately for these legitimate businessmen, we have the leadership of two political parties and several important non-profit corporations working hard to get them cheap labor. That’s just one example of our meritocracy’s approach to governance that’s helped make America what it is today.

It’s not the economy, stupid

Someone says “The thing about an increasingly childless economy is that it has major implications for consumption.”

No, that childlessness has economic implications is not the thing. That our economy, society, and culture in their present state discourage people from having children, that is the thing. Moreover, the habit of mind that casts a shortage of children as “an increasingly childless economy” is part of the reason so few people are having so few children.

Labor force participation

The labor force participation rate is way down. Fewer people of working age are working or looking for work than were in 1979. This has to be taken into account when looking at the unemployment rate. If as many people as were working in 2008 were looking for work now, the unemployment rate would be far higher. Some have retired; some have gone on disability; some are getting paid under the table; some are raising their children.

But what exactly is the labor force participation rate supposed to be, 60%, or 90%, and why? I remember the seventies. Moving from an economy in which industrial jobs supported middle class families, to an economy in which whatever men and women are left in the middle class work one or two ill-paid service jobs and rely on the earned income credit or other government assistance? That has been a lousy deal for everyone but the HR managers. It’s not clear to me that fewer, better-paid jobs is a bad idea, especially if those jobs encourage middle class families to form and thrive. Maybe we should ask the feminists and social scientists what they recommend, and then do the opposite.