Immigration Reform, The Election & The US Economy
By Pete Lester, Sr.
January 8, 2007
I was talking with a friend of mine tonight about the Presidential Primaries. This friend related to me that one of the most important issues to him in this election is: immigration. I too think it is an important issue, but over the last few weeks (in Iowa and New Hampshire) the issue seemed to take a backseat to other issues.
I threw my four points concerning this matter his direction and realized, while it was not going to win me a Pulitzer Prize, I should post them here. So, here are a few thoughts on the subject.
First, for reasons of National Security, I am not sure we can afford to leave our boarders unsecured. Should it be a wall, a fence, or simply more guards? I am not sure. I will leave that to the engineers and immigration officials (how's that for leaving out an important detail), and simply state that: in this post 9-11 world where we are fighting enemies who largely ignore borders, this seems to make sense to me.
Second, the reason people come here is to find work. It is true that there are some jobs that, for whatever reasons, American citizens are reluctant to fill. It would seem that if the employers were forced to properly document their workers, or fined if they failed to do so, the jobs would dry up. To deter employers and employees alike, penalties and fines should be increased. In this way, the issue of how to return immigrants to their home country would be resolved. If there was no work, the incentive to come here, or even stay here would be removed.
Thirdly, specific to Mexico and Central America, I personally have enjoyed traveling there and would genuinely consider retiring there if healthcare and services were improved and property ownership laws towards Americans were relaxed. As I understand it, Americans are not allowed to own property within 50 miles of the boarder or coastline. The US State Department reports that there are over 600,000 US expatriates currently living in Mexico, so a few of my countrymen have figured out how and where to live South of the Rio Grande and my guess is that it is either - in the interior, or it is a lease.
Stemming the flow of immigrants into the US, solves only one part of the problem. By creating employment opportunities in Mexico for the citizens of that country, the tide of immigration could be further abated. With the Baby Boomers nearing retirement, the Mexican Government has an opportunity to attract unprecedented investment to the country and create the jobs and opportunity craved by its citizenry.
Lastly, in 2004, a newspaper near San Diego reported that the 3 million illegal immigrants living in the State of California cost the state’s healthcare system $9 Billion annually. [1] This combined with the strain illegal immigrants also place on other social services is not sustainable without some sort of restitution or relief. Additionally, I am not sure an illegal immigrant living in Mexico would be treated as well in regards to the social services that would be made available.
I am not saying that hospitals should turn away those in need. I am also not saying that children should be turned away from schools. I am suggesting that the bill for providing these services should be born, at least in part by Mexico or the person's home state. The reason I say "in part" is this: I am pretty certain that many ilegal immigrants work difficult jobs without the safety net of employer-provided benefits. Undoubtedly, we as consumers benefit. If these costs were in fact born by the employer as they should be, we would be paying more for some goods and services.
[1] “Cost of Illegal Immigration in California estimated at nearly $9 billion,” North County Times, Edward Sifuentes, December 5, 2004.
QUESTIONS for STUDENTS of ECONOMICS:
By Pete Lester, Sr.
January 8, 2007
I was talking with a friend of mine tonight about the Presidential Primaries. This friend related to me that one of the most important issues to him in this election is: immigration. I too think it is an important issue, but over the last few weeks (in Iowa and New Hampshire) the issue seemed to take a backseat to other issues.
I threw my four points concerning this matter his direction and realized, while it was not going to win me a Pulitzer Prize, I should post them here. So, here are a few thoughts on the subject.
First, for reasons of National Security, I am not sure we can afford to leave our boarders unsecured. Should it be a wall, a fence, or simply more guards? I am not sure. I will leave that to the engineers and immigration officials (how's that for leaving out an important detail), and simply state that: in this post 9-11 world where we are fighting enemies who largely ignore borders, this seems to make sense to me.
Second, the reason people come here is to find work. It is true that there are some jobs that, for whatever reasons, American citizens are reluctant to fill. It would seem that if the employers were forced to properly document their workers, or fined if they failed to do so, the jobs would dry up. To deter employers and employees alike, penalties and fines should be increased. In this way, the issue of how to return immigrants to their home country would be resolved. If there was no work, the incentive to come here, or even stay here would be removed.
Thirdly, specific to Mexico and Central America, I personally have enjoyed traveling there and would genuinely consider retiring there if healthcare and services were improved and property ownership laws towards Americans were relaxed. As I understand it, Americans are not allowed to own property within 50 miles of the boarder or coastline. The US State Department reports that there are over 600,000 US expatriates currently living in Mexico, so a few of my countrymen have figured out how and where to live South of the Rio Grande and my guess is that it is either - in the interior, or it is a lease.
Stemming the flow of immigrants into the US, solves only one part of the problem. By creating employment opportunities in Mexico for the citizens of that country, the tide of immigration could be further abated. With the Baby Boomers nearing retirement, the Mexican Government has an opportunity to attract unprecedented investment to the country and create the jobs and opportunity craved by its citizenry.
Lastly, in 2004, a newspaper near San Diego reported that the 3 million illegal immigrants living in the State of California cost the state’s healthcare system $9 Billion annually. [1] This combined with the strain illegal immigrants also place on other social services is not sustainable without some sort of restitution or relief. Additionally, I am not sure an illegal immigrant living in Mexico would be treated as well in regards to the social services that would be made available.
I am not saying that hospitals should turn away those in need. I am also not saying that children should be turned away from schools. I am suggesting that the bill for providing these services should be born, at least in part by Mexico or the person's home state. The reason I say "in part" is this: I am pretty certain that many ilegal immigrants work difficult jobs without the safety net of employer-provided benefits. Undoubtedly, we as consumers benefit. If these costs were in fact born by the employer as they should be, we would be paying more for some goods and services.
[1] “Cost of Illegal Immigration in California estimated at nearly $9 billion,” North County Times, Edward Sifuentes, December 5, 2004.
QUESTIONS for STUDENTS of ECONOMICS:
- If you were a business owner, what would you do if you were told that you had to let illegal immigrants under your employ go, or face penalties and fines?
- As a consumer, are you willing to pay more for food that is harvested by employees who have legal status in this country.
- While the immigration issue does not seem to be major problem in Baltimore, it does appear to be an issue in the upcoming election. Will this issue and the candidate’s policy concerning immigration impact who you will vote for in 2008?
No comments:
Post a Comment