Illegal Immigration

We recently did a commentary that said what appears obvious is often not correct. Recently I read a statement in Bloomberg BusinessWeek that seemed to me obviously wrong. That statement was, quote: "What makes the political impasse over immigration particularly frustrating is that hiring an illegal alien is good for the illegal alien, good for the US economy, and good for the country he or she comes from. So what's not to like?" end quote.

How could that statement be correct? Isn't it obvious that in an economy suffering high unemployment, the last thing you need is an influx of cheap labor - and let's not forget the US and most of the Western world has had high unemployment for a generation. So saying illegal immigration is good for the US economy makes no sense. The Bloomberg article quotes various studies that conclude as follows:

1 . immigration actually creates more jobs for native workers, partly because often immigrants will take jobs that would otherwise be farmed out overseas.

2. unskilled immigrants often work as manual laborers, unlike unskilled native workers who are more likely to work in jobs such as call centers. So both groups are employed, which also means that both groups have an income, allowing them to be consumers of goods and services.

3. illegal unskilled Mexican workers make two and a half times what they'd earn in Mexico. And, they often send money "home" to help their families, improving quality of life in Mexico, too. A Harvard Professor of the Practice of Economic Development calculated that if wealthy countries were to boost their workforce by three percent via more immigration, the lives of people in poor countries would be three hundred BILLION dollars better off. Clearly, this is a much better, and more practical, way to fight poverty overseas than foreign aid, and might even encourage poorer countries to purchase more North American goods.

First of all, one can probably find studies that conclude the opposite of the studies Bloomberg quotes. I mean science is still debating whether Global Warming is man-made or a natural occurrence. The most shocking statement in the Bloomberg article is this. Quote: "When a law itself prohibits doing the right thing, when it is immoral rather than annoying or inconvenient, and when breaking the law does no great harm to others, it is justifiable for people of conscience to choose to break that law. Current U.S. immigration laws have all the moral standing of pass laws in apartheid South Africa." End quote.

Whoa Nelly!! Bloomberg BusinessWeek appears to be advocating Civil Disobedience and disregard for US immigration laws. How about disobedience of Homeland Security laws as well? If a nation cannot control its borders, and those that enter those borders illegally - does not chaos result? Should every nation throw open its borders to whoever wishes to enter, in unlimited quantities?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
It's a wonderful sentiment - but is it realistically doable?

So what are your thoughts? Have you read the Bloomberg article and have any comments? Would you open the borders to more foreign workers? We'd love to hear your opinions, so write to us here at feedback@NakedNews.com