Tuesday, December 20, 2005

US builds wall to keep in East Berliners

supposedly our wall along the Mexican border is as bad as the Berlin Wall.

Rich Lowry points out that it is being built by a democratic free nation that wishes to protect its borders while the other was built to keep oppressed serfs from getting any "reactionary" notions.

Of course the Mexican government is up in arms:

Mexican President Vicente Fox denounced the U.S. measures, passed by the House
of Representatives on Friday, as "shameful" and his foreign secretary, Luis
Ernesto Derbez, said Monday the wall was "stupid."

When did the US cede its right to protect its borders? Where is the law that makes it America's responsibility to employ everyone who wants to cross the border?

Of course the manner in which we treat Mexicans crossing our southern border is much better than how Mexico treats those crossing hers.

One of the arguments I hate to hear in opposition to border fences is: "If you are really interested in protecting our borders why don't you advocate the building of a wall along the border with Canada?"

Normally this is followed by a smug little smile because they think they have not only destroyed the premise of your argument, but also revealed you as a racist.

The answer is simple though: The Canadian government does not have a vested interest in the illegal migration of its people to the US. The Mexican government does.

The real problem is the culture of corruption that plagues the Mexican government. Lets just face facts, Mexico, nation rich in resources, is in poverty because its corrupt government does not wish to change. It is much easier to just send those potential troublemakers north to America than to de-socialize their economy. The added bonus of this is that those people will send their money back to family in Mexico which will artificially boost the Mexican economy and keep those who stay behind from agitating for change.

What has always struck me as insincere is the argument that America could not function without the low-paid labor of illegal immigrants. In fact this argument could be construed as an argument in support of slavery. It logically follows that the US can only survive with the labor of a poorly treated and compensated underclass with little or no legal status.

"But WordBearer", my New Left friend would say, "if we just granted them legal rights and protections, like the right to minimum wages, we could avoid this pressuption."

"That is a non-starter argument" I would retort. "The sole benefit that can be gleaned from allowing unfettered illegal immigration is the fact that they do not have to be paid the same wages as American citizens. If they received all the benefits one must confer on a citizen employee, then why not just hire a citizen?"

It would be easier to hire citizens. American citizens, even those willing to work for low wages, will be much better educated than the vast majority of those crossing the border. Additionally, they will speak English. That is the biggest plus for jobs in our service oriented economy.

The other argument that there are some jobs that Americans won't do is also hollow. If employers had jobs that they could not fill with workers they would either have to raise the wages they offer, or they would have to find another way to produce their goods. So the choice is either to help America's poor with better wages or to allow innovation to take shape.

I realize that the higher wages of American workers might push up the costs, but more mechanization would push prices down. Besides, paying illegals the same as citizens would also drive up prices. The money lost by our economy due to increased social services to illegals would also be recouped if we did more to stop the flow of illegals the border.