[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

I've a couple of quick thoughts.

First, on Krugman's article, I think that it is appropriate to say that there are jobs that Americans won't do. He's right to say that it can or should be qualified with the wage, but that's an ingredient in any job someone applies for. I won't serve coffee at the local coffee shop or bag groceries, because it doesn't pay enough. But I will if I can't find another job, but that won't happen until I've exhausted all my connections, I've taken out school loans to attend more school and become more skilled, and I've run out of all the welfare from the government, the family, the friends and the NGOs that are willing to give it to me. That hasn't been extinguished for some. We all put a price on our worth, that's why it's called work. I'll play for free, but I work for pay.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You wouldn't serve coffee or bag groceries because you are not an unskilled laborer.

The point, which both Krugman and Sowell correctly make, is that the only reason Americans "won't do" certain jobs is because illegal immigrant workers push down the price of labor.

Second on Sowell's argument, it's disingenuous to describe an illegal immigrant a criminal. There is no penal consequences of being in the US without legal status. No liberty is taken away. What does happen is deportation. But nobody goes to jail.

I think that's his argument. It IS against the law to enter the country illegally (thus the term "illegal"), but there is no real consequence, and therefore no disincentive which would be necessary to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

Third, on Sowell's argument, he must be forgetting what it was like to apply for a job, because last I checked, employers ask for documentation, i.e., social security cards and driver's licenses. Perhaps in the domestic worker, construction, agricultural worker setting they don't, but if they want to obey the law, they will ask for the documentation.

Well, I think that was a weak attempt at humor by Sowell, but you're really arguing semantics there. I think it is true that a lot of the blame falls on the employers for not complying with the law and on the government for not cracking down on employers who are violating the law.

Krugman makes a good argument that appeals to me. It's hard for me to on the one hand be in favor of immigration and on the other know that millions of Americans that don't have healthcare and go to State hospitals are waiting in line with illegal immigrants.

One fact missing from these articles, is the supreme difficulty in obtaining legal status for those from countries like Mexico, or China, countries that have perhaps, an over representation here. Only certain relatives can sponsor a person for immigration, and their wait can be 10 years or more. That doesn't mean that it is an excuse to be here without legal status, but it's something I consider when I think about immigration.

Krugman is right in pointing out that illegal immigrants are putting a serious strain on our system of public welfare.

Re: the difficulty in obtaining legal status, I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe there is any right for foreigners to come and take up residence here.