I just don't know where to start. You have no earthly idea what makes up a beneficial economic arrangement. The beauty of our free market, even in labor, is that an equatable arrangement means both parties actually think they are getting a good deal, many times both think they are getting the better deal. if they don't, they move on. I don't get the fed min wage argument. It is the effective market wage and it only affects min wage earners. Moreover, most unskilled workers earn more then min wage. You may be saying that min wage laws are harmful to the labor market. If you are, good on ya. But the very fact it exists is not important to this argument. Fed min wage, free market set wage, union wage, it makes no difference. If an employer knows his worker is illegal he will likely pay him less then a legal worker. You are the one saying business is evil. I am just saying they respond to incentives and dis-incentives, which is what economics really is.
I don't disagree with anything you said, with the exception of me saying business is evil. You brought up the concept of exploitation, which has a negative connotation. My argument is that the arrangement between illegal immigrants and companies who hire them is mutually beneficial, just like any other labor agreement.
Your comment wrt assimilation and illegal immigrants is totally wrong and not supported by facts.
I don't doubt that what you denoted in this paragraph happens; however, I do challenge the assertion that this is the norm rather than the exception. I will research some more hard data, but it would be nice if you provided links to support your claim that the majority of children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are not Americanizing.
Yet these off spring are legal citizens of the US. Therefore, illegal immigration breeds more people who become dependant on government assistance and they are completely legal to seek out and benefit from that aide.
Well, again, we're back to government labor intrusion and government welfare programs, both of which should not exist on the scale they do today, if at all. Using the same logic applied to illegal immigrants, perhaps we should throw all poor people out of the country, too, since their children likewise grow up poor, can't read/write English at a competent level, and suck money out of the taxpayers' pockets through welfare.
I've heard this argument before and it doesn't really hold water. Those immigrants you speak of 1) did so legally and 2) genuinely wanted to be an American and a part of this country.
That's not necessarily true. We still have Chinatowns and Little Italies in various cities in our country; to say that all immigrants who came here legally genuinely wanted to be an American is disingenuous.
I had to read that a couple time because I couldn't believe you just said that. You don't NOT enforce laws because people will continue participating in unlawful behavior anyway. That's just asinine. We are a society that expects our laws to be followed and if they aren't, there should be consequences. Similarly, we expect and depend on laws to be enforced. Illegal immigration doesn't get a free pass on this because some people's feelings will be hurt.
My point was that when a law is rampantly broken, then the law needs another look. Everyone is guilty in this illegal immigration equation, from the guy who crossed the border to the red-blooded Republican who pays a construction company using illegal immigrants for labor or purchases fruit at the grocery store farmed by illegal immigrants. There isn't a single person in this country who is innocent of supporting illegal immigration in some capacity.
