Mexico Demands U.S. Allow More Immigration

[rmnunez]

Corruption in Mexico is at a very pedestrian level, the charge to get a cop to look the other way depends on what you want to conceal. Running a red light, speeding, driving drunk, skipping a stop sign, parking wrong or driving without a license runs from about $5 to $20. Once heard of a case where someone ran over and killed a pedestrian recklessly, but solved the problem paying the cops about $500. Am unaware of bribes solicited of foreign residents for breach of immigration procedures, though I know of an instance when over $10 thousand was offered by a subsaharan to avoid deportation for the generic "incompatible conduct" (was caught with several million dollars in forged US currency).

[rmnunez]

Some conclusions on Mexican immigration from the Heritage Foundation:

Typical illegal aliens come to America primarily for better jobs and in the process add value to the US economy. However, they also take away value by weakening the legal and national security environment. When 3 out of every 100 people in America are undocumented (or, rather, documented with forged and faked papers), there is a profound security problem. Even though they pose no direct security threat, the presence of millions of undocumented migrants distorts the law, distracts resources, and effectively creates a cover for terrorists and criminals. The argument that immigrants harm the American economy should be dismissed out of hand. The population today includes a far higher percentage (12%) of foreign-born Americans than in recent decades, yet the economy is strong, with higher total gross domestic product (GDP), higher GDP per person, higher productivity per worker, and more Americans working than ever before. Immigration may not have caused this economic boom, but it is folly to blame immigrants for hurting the economy at a time when the economy is simply not hurting. As Stephen Moore pointed out in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal: Whether low-skilled or high-skilled, immigrants boost national output, enhance specialization, and provide a net economic benefit. The 2005 Economic Report of the President (ERP) devotes an entire chapter to immigration and reports that “A comprehensive accounting of the benefits and costs of immigration shows the benefits of immigration exceed the costs.”[3] The following are among the ERP’s other related findings: Most immigrant families have a positive net fiscal impact on the US, adding $88,000 more in tax revenues than they consume in services; and Social Security payroll taxes paid by improperly identified (undocumented) workers have led to a $463 billion funding surplus. The macroeconomic argument in favor of immigration is especially compelling for highly educated individuals with backgrounds in science, engineering, and information technology. The increasing worry about outsourcing jobs to other nations is just one more reason to attract more jobs to America by insourcing labor. If workers are allowed to work inside the US, they immediately add to the economy and pay taxes, which does not happen when a job is outsourced. Therefore, capping the number of H-1B visas limits America’s power as a brain “magnet” attracting highly skilled workers, thereby weakening US firms’ competitiveness. Congress increased the number of H-1B visas by 20,000 in November 2004 after the annual cap was exhausted on the first day of fiscal year (FY) 2005.[4] On August 12, 2005, the US Citizenship and Immigration Service announced that it had already received enough H-1B applications for FY 2006 (which began October 1, 2005) and would not be accepting any more applications for the general selection lottery.[5] These and other numbers show that more workers from abroad, not fewer, are needed. Still, critics of this type of insourcing worry that jobs are being taken away from native-born Americans in favor of low-wage foreigners. Recent data suggest that these fears are overblown. While the nation’s unemployment rate generally has remained just above 5% over the past year, unemployment in information technology now stands at a four-year low of 3.7%.[6] While the presence of low-skill migrant workers can be construed as a challenge to low-skill native workers, the economic effects are the same as the effects of free trade —a net positive and a leading cause of economic growth. A National Bureau of Economic Research study by David Card found that “Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant.”[7] The consensus of the vast majority of economists is that the broad economic gains from openness to trade and immigration far outweigh the isolated cases of economic loss. In the long run, as has been documented in recent years, the gains are even higher.[8] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1913.cfm

Emphasis all mine

[brien]

Quote by: rmnunez Corruption in Mexico is at a very pedestrian level, the charge to get a cop to look the other way depends on what you want to conceal. Running a red light, speeding, driving drunk, skipping a stop sign, parking wrong or driving without a license runs from about $5 to $20. Once heard of a case where someone ran over and killed a pedestrian recklessly, but solved the problem paying the cops about $500. Am unaware of bribes solicited of foreign residents for breach of immigration procedures, though I know of an instance when over $10 thousand was offered by a subsaharan to avoid deportation for the generic "incompatible conduct" (was caught with several million dollars in forged US currency).

So are you saying there is no corruption and bribery at the borders? I was under the impresson that not only are the Federales bribed over drug and human smuggling, but also the army is paid off as well. Otherwise, how could such elaborate tunnels be constructed as we have seen discovered lately? Those tunnels were very large and very sophisticated. Someone must looking the other way, ya think?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Some conclusions on Mexican immigration from the Heritage Foundation: Emphasis all mine

I notice that your conclusions conveniently neglect to mention any of the social costs of illegal immigration. How about this:

"A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers." http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

[Lilith]

Lets just annex Mexico. In a few short years we could make them productive. Just look what we have done for Massachusetts!!!!!

My thoughts exactly. Hell, most of the "United States" used to be "Mexico" at one point and time. Just make em' Americans....Anyways, just one of those silly thoughts that passed thru my head. What exactly have we done for Massachusetts? I'm missing something here...I tend to be mostly disconnected from reality at any given time. :)

[rmnunez]

Zee, I can't explain the discrepancy, your source says undocumented households enjoy $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, mine says they pay $88 thousand more in taxes than they consume in services, who is manipulating the statistics? Is your Center for Immigration Studies more reliable, honest or accurate than my Heritage Foundation?

The item on the billions in Social Security surplus resulting from phony identification numbers used by the undocumenteds does ring true though, you know they'll just make up a number or use someone else's to get a job. The deductions are taken from the "untaxed" undocumented anyway.

[ShOuLdEr]

If you have ever tried to find a Labor job in southern california you would see how you are screwed over by illegal aliens.

[Osborn F Enready]

Shoulder said: If you have ever tried to find a Labor job in southern california you would see how you are screwed over by illegal aliens.

I say:
I lived in San Diego while I was in the Navy. I used to take friends with me in my car down to the border along the coast where Mexico and California meet. ANY TIME I WENT, we saw illegals coming over the border. There was not ONE time I went, that we DIDN'T see illegals scrambling through the weeds, bushes and landbreaks coming across illegally. The problem is HUGE.

I also grew up in Northwest Ohio, and currently reside there. Our construction industry is FULL of illegals, as well as our rural farm labor population, as well as many of our non-union factory jobs. Illegals are a problem from the center of the United States to every corner, and it must be stopped.

I have no problem with legal immigration or emmigration, but if they can't come through the right way, they are enemies of mine.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: I lived in San Diego while I was in the Navy. I used to take friends with me in my car down to the border along the coast where Mexico and California meet. ANY TIME I WENT, we saw illegals coming over the border. There was not ONE time I went, that we DIDN'T see illegals scrambling through the weeds, bushes and landbreaks coming across illegally. The problem is HUGE. I also grew up in Northwest Ohio, and currently reside there. Our construction industry is FULL of illegals, as well as our rural farm labor population, as well as many of our non-union factory jobs. Illegals are a problem from the center of the United States to every corner, and it must be stopped. I have no problem with legal immigration or emmigration, but if they can't come through the right way, they are enemies of mine.

Os: You have put your finger right on the epicenter of the problem. America is proud to welcome LEGAL immigrants from all four corners of the earth. That said, America needs to seal the borders and channel immigration through LEGAL ports of entry, the same way we do international cargo.

It is ironic and hypocritical that the politicians who are up in arms and indignant about Port Security and Port Operations fall silent when it comes to re-establishing LEGAL ports of entry for human beings. It is another example of the hypocritical aspect of the political fear mongers that are currently whipping up hysterical hatred in the America over the questionable aspects of the UAE port deal. It is an excellent example of the Republicrat doublespeak.

[ShOuLdEr]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: I lived in San Diego while I was in the Navy. I used to take friends with me in my car down to the border along the coast where Mexico and California meet. ANY TIME I WENT, we saw illegals coming over the border. There was not ONE time I went, that we DIDN'T see illegals scrambling through the weeds, bushes and landbreaks coming across illegally. The problem is HUGE. .

lol thats where my experience is from, I was stationed in Camp Pendleton when i was in the marines...I had civililan friends that could never find labor positions due to illegals working for less than minimum wage...I'm sure you've seen taht awesome sign north of falllbrook before the illegal checkpoint that shows a mexican family running across the road to avoid the checkpoint lol...its like one of those watch for deer signs. That is my favorite sign in existence. I never payed much attention when i went to mexico..just walked across the border and took a cab everywhere...i don't see how you could have seen any illegals coming through san ysidro (or however its spelled) because that area there has pretty decent secruity...most illegals cross in secluded "non urban" areas.

[rmnunez]

America is proud to welcome LEGAL immigrants from all four corners of the earth.

In November 2004, since H-1B (temporary worker) visas available for 2005 had been exhausted, Congress authorized an extra 20 thousand. The 12th of August, 2005, BCIS announced they had already exhausted applications for 2006. On April 1st this year, they will exhaust the number of applications available for 2007. This should give an indication of a big part of the problem -not enough visas for people to LEGALLY migrate.

In the interparliamentary (legislative) Mexico-US summit currently underway, the Mexican delegation's top demand is for more visas and the US ought to listen. According to Census data, by 2025 it is expected there will be a shortage of 77 million workers in the US. Those will not be white-collar high-paying professional positions rather than the sort of stuff Mexicans do. The 77 million worker shortage isn't something that will suddenly crop up rather than a gradually growing demand, if nothing is done to address the problem now, worker shortages will curtail potential growth in the US.

[Osborn F Enready]

Shoulder said: I'm sure you've seen that awesome sign north of falllbrook before the illegal checkpoint that shows a mexican family running across the road to avoid the checkpoint lol...its like one of those watch for deer signs. That is my favorite sign in existence.

I say:
I know EXACTLY the ones you are speaking of.

I was stationed at NTSC San Diego for awhile, both boot camp and Radioman "A" School.

If you look, most areas along the border in Mexico have their concentration of population right along the border, while the U.S. side has a perimeter, and a canal along much of the southern border. There are areas along the border where towns actually SPAN the border from one side to the other.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_me...der/index.html

Here is a pic East of San Ysidro Port of Entry, and you can see it is very rural with exception to military installations.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_me...539426_002.jpg

When I was there, from the coast to East of San Ysidro you could spot illegals without even trying.

The illegals issue has got to be dealt with.

[rmnunez]

I wonder whether those who know of united statians unable to find work because undocumenteds would take all the jobs at less than minimum wage can tell us if their friends would take those same jobs at less than minimum wage. I doubt it, and until they will, they won't be hired for that kind of work.

Its unfair, preferably united statian employers would have to pay the same rate regardless of the worker's nationality, but if that were the case, who would hire an undocumented? If the idea is to remove demand for cheap undocumenteds by making their work as expensive as that of united statians, how is the added payroll expense going to be offset? Its a safe bet additional costs will be passed on to the consumer. That added cost is not insignificant as the figures suggest 8 or 10 million undocumenteds labor for less than minimum wage in the US. I've lived in California and seen undocumenteds at work, but I haven't been to any Central Valley farms, I've seen them working as short-order cooks, gardeners, janitors, on costruction crews, bagging groceries at the check-out stand, delivering pizzas... This suggests the passed-on costs of added wages if uniformly applied regardless of nationality would be borne by everyone.

In a US without undocumenteds there would be a tremendous demand for reliable and submissive workers willing to apply themselves to the most menial jobs at minimum wage. If that demand was not met, the employers would need to even raise their wages for menials to attract workers or else the economy would have to shrink. The US government forecasts an average 5% growth of the economy there over the next couple of decades and a 77 million worker shortfall by 2025, with undocumenteds flowing as they do already.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rmunez said: I wonder whether those who know of united statians unable to find work because undocumenteds would take all the jobs at less than minimum wage can tell us if their friends would take those same jobs at less than minimum wage. I doubt it, and until they will, they won't be hired for that kind of work.

I say:
What say we try it and find out?!? That is no excuse, nor a valid reason for having porous borders with illegals gushing through like a damn about to break.

If people from Mexico want to come and work, they are free to do so LEGALLY. If they can't come in legally, they show their disrespect for the nation the moment they cross the border, and deserve no more compassion than a common criminal, unless they we FORCED to seek the U.S. border to protect their life from tyrannical government FORCE.

Rmunez said: Its unfair, preferably united statian employers would have to pay the same rate regardless of the worker's nationality, but if that were the case, who would hire an undocumented? If the idea is to remove demand for cheap undocumenteds by making their work as expensive as that of united statians, how is the added payroll expense going to be offset? Its a safe bet additional costs will be passed on to the consumer. That added cost is not insignificant as the figures suggest 8 or 10 million undocumenteds labor for less than minimum wage in the US. I've lived in California and seen undocumenteds at work, but I haven't been to any Central Valley farms, I've seen them working as short-order cooks, gardeners, janitors, on costruction crews, bagging groceries at the check-out stand, delivering pizzas... This suggests the passed-on costs of added wages if uniformly applied regardless of nationality would be borne by everyone.

I say:
We are talking about National Security, not how to make life easier for other nations peoples. I could care less how many foreigners come to this nation seeking employment, as long as THEY DO IT LEGALLY.

I will not be compliant on any other measure if legality is not a REQUIREMENT. Plain common sense......

RMunez said: In a US without undocumenteds there would be a tremendous demand for reliable and submissive workers willing to apply themselves to the most menial jobs at minimum wage. If that demand was not met, the employers would need to even raise their wages for menials to attract workers or else the economy would have to shrink. The US government forecasts an average 5% growth of the economy there over the next couple of decades and a 77 million worker shortfall by 2025, with undocumenteds flowing as they do already.

I say:
And that is the point. With illegals messing up the market by being undocumented, it messes up the national picture of workforce statistics, welfare, public aid, and SKEWS the U.S. Labor market.

If we could STOP the inflow of illegals, we could eventually root out the ones that remain, and address the problem correctly THROUGH THE NATURAL PROCESS OF THE MARKET.

Obviously if goods are dependent on cheap labor to be sold, they are not very valuable, or necessities, and they will fall from the market like rotten fruit, AS THEY SHOULD.

[rmnunez]

Osborn, you capitalize LEGALLY in describing how the undocumenteds ought to be admitted. Do you know what the law requires? The procedure to gain admission LEGALLY to the US is indeed onerous. I know of a student visa application which hadn't been granted the requisite appointment 9 months after the date stated in his college admissions letter (submitted over a year earlier with the application). If you married a Mexican your wife would have to wait over 90 days after they process her visa application before she can join you in the US. Currently it takes 133 days to just get an appointment for a temporary visa interview from the US embassy in Mexico -then you turn in your application and they take some time in verifying the data. That the H-1B (temporary worker) visa availability for 2007 will forseably be exhausted by April 1st (this year) shows demand for LEGAL admission far exceeds what is needed and even the US Congress sees this as they issued an extra 20 thousand of these visas in 2004 to accomodate demand.

I also favour only LEGAL admission to the US, but think current regulations will have to be changed because they don't enable sufficient numbers to easily go work in the US. People overcome obstacles efficiently, if you needed work and couldn't find a job you might consider moving to someplace where there was more work. If you knew of a place where there were plenty of jobs, this might be an alternative. If that place required you submit to a process that could take years and cost you thousands of dollars and there were relatively safe alternatives that would cost you a fraction and only take a couple of days, would you still comply with the process? Some people, even Mexicans, strive to fulfill the procedures and trek over and again to the embassy with their elementary education transcripts and affidavits, but many get desperate and can't wait as long as it takes to LEGALLY admit them.

If the argument is that only those who comply with the present LEGAL process can go work in the US, then it makes sense to consider what strict compliance would look like, for example -no temporary workers could be admitted until sometime in 2008. Who would do the jobs they would ordinarily take, united statians at under the minimum wage?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Who would do the jobs they would ordinarily take, united statians at under the minimum wage?

Why should anyone be working in jobs that pay less than the minimum wage? Shouldn't the wages paid for a job be set by free market forces? Raise the pay until "united statians" take the jobs. If people don't want to pay what it costs to hire legal workers, I guess those people will have to mow their own lawns.

Your thinking is typical of the ultra-liberal - "Hey, we need something, you have it. Therefore, not only should you give it to us, but we have a right to have it"

[rmnunez]

On their failure to pay taxes and estimated size of the problem:

The SSA annually reviews W-2 forms and credits social security earnings to workers. If a name or a Social Security Number (SSN) on a W-2 form does not match SSA records, the Social Security earnings go into a suspense file while the SSA works to resolve discrepancies. In recent years, the SSA has been unable to match employee information with SSA records for 6-7 million workers a year. SSA has deposited over $420 billion in wages in the earnings suspense file as a result of the cumulative effect of these no-matches. The no-match letters are an annual attempt by the agency to reduce the earning suspense file and clean up its database to prepare for the release of its new Internet-based Social Security Number Verification System. Previously, the SSA would send no-match letters to employers when information submitted for at least 10% of their employees did not match SSA records. Until 2000, that system resulted in about 40,000 letters sent annually to employers. In 2001, that number jumped to 110,000 letters, with 1 in 60 employers receiving nomatch letters. In 2002, the SSA sent a letter to every employer who had at least one employee whose information did not match the SSA’s records. This change in practice resulted in the SSA issuing roughly 900,000 letters, the equivalent of 1 in 8 employers receiving these letters. Approximately 7 million workers were included on these letters. (p.19)

The US is not producing enough new workers:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that as the baby boomers retire, growth in the work force will slow to 0.4% per year. Barring unforeseen increases in immigration and/or participation rates among the elderly, there will be a reduction in the total size of the nation’s workforce.

Unskilled and semi-skilled occupations have the highest projected growth rate.

The Department of Labor ranked the top 30 occupations with the largest projected job growth from 2002-2012. Of the occupations listed, 20 require only short-term or moderate-term on-the-job training.

As the baby boomers age demand increases for Essential Workers.

The aging population and increased life expectancies will increase the need for health services. The healthcare services industry is expected to add roughly 3.5 million jobs —1 out of every 6 new jobs created by 2012. (p.31)

The US is plainly dependant on migrant farm workers:

According to a conservative estimate by the Department of Labor (DOL), over 50% of the US’ 1.6 million agricultural workers are undocumented foreign nationals. Private estimates run to 75% or higher. These individuals work grueling jobs to put food on our table, yet they remain unable to assert the most basic rights and protections. (p.33)

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=8494

[Osborn F Enready]

Rmunez said: I also favour only LEGAL admission to the US, but think current regulations will have to be changed because they don't enable sufficient numbers to easily go work in the US.

I say:
Who said in the modern world, it should be easy to go from one nation to another with spying technology at the level it is today? I am not saying that the system shouldn't be more EFFICIENT, but I expect all people coming in this nation to meet a certain requirement of knowledge before they come in the door, and they should be able to VERIFY who they are in some way that is legitimately acceptable.

Our goal is not to make it EASY for foreigners to come to our nation, cherry pick the economy for jobs and then take that money to their HOME NATION. That is like going to somebodies house for dinner, uninvited, having a couple servings, taking home the rest and leaving without a thank you.

I agree we need changes, but I don't think making legal entry a 3 minute process is beneficial to security or long term goals of the United States.

Rmunez said: I know of a student visa application which hadn't been granted the requisite appointment 9 months after the date stated in his college admissions letter (submitted over a year earlier with the application). If you married a Mexican your wife would have to wait over 90 days after they process her visa application before she can join you in the US. Currently it takes 133 days to just get an appointment for a temporary visa interview from the US embassy in Mexico -then you turn in your application and they take some time in verifying the data. That the H-1B (temporary worker) visa availability for 2007 will forseably be exhausted by April 1st (this year) shows demand for LEGAL admission far exceeds what is needed and even the US Congress sees this as they issued an extra 20 thousand of these visas in 2004 to accomodate demand.

I say:
All very sad cases indeed, but mostly DUE to the fact that there are so many illegals from "that nation" coming in already, we need to divert many of those funds to border patrols, sweeps, repair of fences, filling tunnels, searching the desert for survivors and then providing them care, dealing with the legal problems of so many illegals, bloated jails near the border due to illegals, ETC.

This is not a one sided problem my friend, and Mexico is MORE to blame for not being able to provide jobs, order and respect in their citizens for BOTH nations. The problem feeds on itself, and there is no easy answer except to eliminate all crossing for a short time, fix the system, reinforce the border, and actually put the National Guard to work in all border states as a REGULAR part of their service time. Once a rigid border policy is in place, there will be ONLY legal ports of entry left to select from, and that is the way it has to be to ensure mutual national respect of those borders, since Mexico refuses to address the problem without being provoked.

Rmunez said: Who would do the jobs they would ordinarily take, united statians at under the minimum wage?

I say:
Technology, if the market can not provide the labor base. The problem is we have been using technology to fill job positions that are already well filled out, instead of areas of labor where it is hard to find a livable wage. That is mainly due to corporate money being thrown at THOSE specific areas, to increase Executive pay, lower downtime due to human err, increase hours of production while lowering costs of production resulting in more product per hour, more hours of production, less downtime, more profit. The problem is, when things become AUTOMATED, and MASS PRODUCED, the price is supposed to come DOWN, not go up. This isn't happening due to bad corporate regulation from government, resulting in adverse market conditions and large amounts of unemployed, semi-skilled labor.

This is an INCREDIBLY complex problem, but if you would like to start another thread on this topic, I would love to carry on the topic of conversation without being accused of derailing the thread.

Rmunez said: The US is plainly dependant on migrant farm workers:

I say:
That is ONLY due to government interference in farm markets, and their ill attempts at farm market subsidies. It is an internal problem, and could be fixed by legalizing hemp, deregulating the farm market again, with the only regulation being on fertilizers and ground water contaminants. This would boom the farm industry again, drive up profits and wages, increase private farming, increase the bio-fuel, bio-plastics industries, and once again get America growing in a sensible fashion with decent earning abilities.

Perhaps you should be campaigning in Mexico to legalize hemp also, so as to boom your farm industry, encourage the U.S. to legalize, and both markets would have new trade markets to benefit from and build off of????

The War on Drugs needs to be stopped globally, to help lower legal drug costs, open the market to privatized competition, remove a large negative aspect of the black market, and lower crime.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez On their failure to pay taxes and estimated size of the problem: The US is not producing enough new workers: Unskilled and semi-skilled occupations have the highest projected growth rate. As the baby boomers age demand increases for Essential Workers. The US is plainly dependant on migrant farm workers: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=8494

"In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigr...caillegals.htm

"One of the most renowned agricultural economists in the world, Professor Philip Martin of the University of California at Davis, says that contrary to grower arguments, U.S. agribusiness has consistently experienced a labor oversupply. He does not see a shortage on the horizon." - Testimony of Richard M. Estrada
Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform http://www.utexas.edu/lbj...cir/120795.html

"No valid justification exists for a new agricultural guestworker program.
There is no actual or impending shortage of farm labor in the United States. We have not yet overcome the effects of granting immigration status to 1.1 million farmworkers under the 1986 immigration law. There is double-digit unemployment in many farm labor supply areas, including in Texas, Florida, and California. Washington State government reported that low wages in agriculture were partly due to a plentiful labor supply." - BRUCE GOLDSTEIN, co-executive director of the Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. for migrant and seasonal farmworkers http://judiciary.house.go...legacy/6052.htm

We're not "plainly dependant on migrant farm workers", Mexico is plainly dependent on sluffing off it's poor and illiterate onto American taxpayers. The double whammy of having to provide social programs to help their own people, combined with the loss of all that money the illegals send home would undoubtedly eventually cause enough social unrest to jeopardize the institutionalized graft and corruption practices of the ruling elite.

You seem to want to complain about how the migrants are treated here ("These individuals work grueling jobs to put food on our table, yet they remain unable to assert the most basic rights and protections"), yet at the same time continue to encourage more of your people to subject themselves to those conditions. If things are so bad in America, why don't you provide them with something better??