I get the AARP bulletin in the mail, these days, every few months. I recently received the latest bulletin, yesterday. In this bulletin, Senators McCain and Schumer were discussing—from two different perspectives— immigration reform. There was one thing they could agree with, immigrants were needed to “grow our economy.” Student immigrants were needed “to build businesses in this country and create jobs.”
There are some arguments here that both Senators seem to be ignoring. They both have a pie-in-the-sky approach to immigration, period. First of all, illegal immigrants come here to take advantage of better wages. Certainly better than what they could get “back home,” where ever that may be. Further, should they come from deeply impoverished neighborhoods, what ever they get in wages here, is fully intended to help their families, “back home.” The money is sent out of country. It isn’t being used to “grow the economy.” Should the illegals become legitimate green card holders, it would still likely be true. As for the claim of how that would beef up Social Security… First of all, illegal aliens wouldn’t qualify for such an entitlement. Probably however, some of their wages may already have entered the program. That would depend on whether the employer actually cut checks for all employees, or simply paid the illegals under the table. In the case of taxes, if the employers paid the illegals under the table in the first place; then tracking the dollar amount plus wages to hours ratio, might be extremely difficult and a very expensive system to try to start. It would also have the people, who just love to hire all those illegals, beefing about even more government intrusion.
In this article, I read about how employers are “required” to hire foreign workers. They actually aren’t “required” to do anything of the sort. If they have businesses on American soil, then their first choice should be, maintaining an American work force. The preference of hiring foreign workers is that they are cheaper. With that thought in mind, I happened to have a discussion with a neighbor who was telling me about Idaho’s pay scale being 46th in the nation. I have a complimentary copy of the Coeur d’Alene Press, probably because of the Diamond Cup, hydroplane races. I can certainly read for myself, Idaho’s abysmal jobs and wages record, of what makes most people impoverished in this state. We tend to work real cheap around here. However, as my neighbor pointed out, nothing else is. Don’t ask me how illegal aliens would get by. Honest and hard working Idahoans, can’t. Further, I think that illegal aliens are preferred because they tend to be temporary. The next door neighbor to an agribusiness, that prefers to hire illegals, is not.
The next rather strange position that both Senators took, is foreign students being required to stay in this country and start businesses. I could suggest that both Senators look into the various complications of state codes, taxing structures, and the various federal bureaucracies that presumably would add massive complications to any such endeavor. Just on that alone, the foreign student would prefer to go home and start his or her business there. Further, there are all kinds of evidence of business interests, small to corporate, who’d have much to complain about, concerning any federal incentives to “foreign competition” on American soil. They would soon send in the lobbyists, I am certain, to squelch such a concept. At the same time, the same business interests would be no more likely to hire American. They prefer their status quo. One that buttresses their bottom line. But as for helping the country, the way Schumer and McCain seem to think ought to happen? Not at all. To say the least, neither Senator is thinking very much. There are a lot of pitfalls to this proposed legislation.
Visiting the letters and opinions section of the Spokesman-Review online yesterday, I had a few hilarious moments. That was when a member of the apologia choir for corporate interests said, that the CEO is not responsible for your well-being. Is that an argument that you can be paid not at all and manage to somehow buy food, clothing, etc.? I ended up telling the fellow who posted that comment, following that line of reasoning, presumptive employees and customers should tell the man, they aren’t responsible for his wealth. The apologia choir wanted to give his own pie-in-the-sky approach to marketable skills. Well now, you are in a job that trains you toward marketable skills. You enter a college or university course that teaches marketable skills. How about entering the workforce where you are actually paid to make use of them? When that was no longer true at J.C. Penney, I left. As it is, personally crafting stuff to sell at the Farmers’ Market, is what pays me. This is what makes me an old fashioned capitalist. People must have money to buy something from me. I’ll assume then, if they are customers, they have a paying job. The apologia choir of these corporate interests make the same kind of disconnect as do the corporate interests. A wage earning employee distributes that capital to other businesses. So that in effect, the attitude of the management of J.C. Penney is that, the corporation isn’t responsible for the individual employee’s well being, neither are they interested in the well being of other businesses. Under the circumstances, I think that both Senators should take a closer look at the economic mess, the business interests are still insisting on making, and leave immigration reform for another time.