|
DO WE NEED MORE CONTRABAND?
by Mark Andrew Dwyer -- 11/25/02
Originally published in the Alamance
Independent
Regarding the "undocumented" workers, the governors of states that claim shortages of low-skilled laborers, and several local governments that attempt to circumvent the U.S. immigration laws by making it easier to illegal aliens to live and work in the U.S., keep repeating their old mantra: "We need them".
Or do we?
Because there are some who hire them (in order to profit from their relatively low expectations)? If one were about to accept this kind of "logic" then one should also conclude that "we need" other smuggled goods, as long as there is a demand for contraband in this country. So, as long as computer users are willing to buy illegally copied software (courtesy of People's Republic of China and other "entrepreneurial" nations), illegally distributed in the U.S. with forged trademarks of Microsoft, Oracle, and other American companies, the U.S. government should not attempt to crack on these criminal activities. Or as long as there are crack cocaine addicts desperately in need of prohibited substances, the Feds must not prosecute drug smugglers. Yeah, right. That would be equally "justified" as looking the other way when smuggling of thousands illegal aliens through Mexican border takes place on a daily basis. Because some businesses want to make a buck.
Here are but a few examples of devastating results that mass importation (even if legalized) of "cheap labor" will cause.
Today's "cheap labor" means tomorrow's reparations. Some cotton and sugar plantation owners were so much in need of "cheap labor" that they had to bring millions of slaves to America. They certainly profited from that trade handsomely. The rest of us have been left with the tab for its social cost; that tab may include a price of "40 acres and mule" for each descendant of a slave. If you thing that this is a not likely epilogue, think twice. Mexican President Fox and his administration are already making claims in U.S. courts for past and present violations of "migrant workers" rights, and some substantial monetary awards (for instance, for Mexicans who participated in the "Braceros" program shortly after WWII) have already been paid.
Today's "cheap labor" means lowering living standards of average Americans and over taxing America's public institutions. Public schools in the areas that experienced fast growth of population of "cheap" laborers, flooded with their non-English-speaking offsprings, are becoming overburdened and dysfunctional. So are public health care institutions and government-sponsored housing projects. As the author of "Poverty cycle can harm us all" (Denver Post, Friday, November 15, 2002) wrote, "poverty in our country will grow - and a large impoverished population hurts the nation in many ways. Education suffers. Our work force becomes less technology-driven and overly abundant in unskilled labor, which impedes national progress and wreaks havoc on the economy."
Hence, today's "cheap labor" means regress in manufacturing technology. The companies that hire "cheap laborers" will lose incentives to promote and fund more advanced, labor-free technologies (like robotics) because the short-term cost of those "cheap laborers" is lower than the cost of advanced research. Moreover, these companies will monopolize, eventually entire branches of manufacturing sector, because businesses heavily investing in research and development will not be able to compete with them. The monopoly will send consumer prices through the roof, contrary to what the proponents of mass importation of "cheap labor" promise.
"Cheap labor" means suppression of wages and lowering working conditions of American workers, as well as reversing accomplishments of years of union movement. We already see it in the meat industry, where workers used to enjoy good wages, generous benefits, and decent working environment. Not anymore. Many unionized companies were driven out of business by the new ones who hired (mostly "undocumented") immigrant workers (mostly from Mexico). Oddly enough, AFL-CIO, focused on increasing its falling membership, doesn't seem to be concerned with that trend and has joined the mass "cheap labor" importation camp.
Today's "cheap labor" also means tomorrow's socialism. Even without mass importation of low-skilled workers, shift to the left is already visible not only in Third World countries, but also in Western Europe. Growing proletariat is what, according to Marx, left-wing liberals will need if they want to push their agenda of "redistribution" of wealth. Obviously, one cannot hope for socialist revolution if the lower class size is nowhere near 50% of population.
If someone needs something that is not readily available on the domestic market, or that has a price that exceeds one's ability to pay for it, that fact alone is not a valid excuse to tolerate smuggling or to accept contraband as a solution - or to legalize it. For common good, we all agreed, except for few stubborn egoists, to not be driven by the "I want it so give it to me now" natural principle. The borders and the laws regulating them have been created for a reason; in many cases, country economy's health would have been at stake if the tariffs and importation quota were not enforced. This limitation pertains both to goods and to people who flow through the American borders. So, if one needs cheap labor, let him hire welfare recipients. Or high school kids and college students who may need the job to help their parents with the tab for their education. If that's not enough, let him replace the menial work with technology. After all, advanced technology is the single most important reason why America is wealthy and Mexico and other Third-World countries are not. And abundance of "cheap labor" will omly impede further technological progress.
