I just read a third final essay in a row arguing that illegal immigrants are detrimental to the US economy because they "steal jobs" from citizens and don't pay taxes on their earnings. I'm shocked that so many of my students are brainwashed by racist propaganda that they fail completely to see the fallacy of this argument. Is anybody preventing employers from paying a decent wage and attracting citizens to their jobs? If unscrupulous employers didn't choose to hire people they can underpay and exploit, this problem would not exist.
The students who wrote about illegal immigrants "stealing" jobs recognize that these "stolen" jobs do not have citizens queuing up for them because they pay less than minimal wage and obviously carry no protections and benefits attached to them. Still, these students can't make the next step in their reasoning and see that dishonest and exploitative employers should be blamed for breaking the law and hiring people to work in these horrible conditions.
10 comments:
I always ask my students to give me a draft of their final essays at least a week before the submission deadline so that I will never have to read these horrors.
Ol.
My friend, I have so many students in this class that reading these essays twice would kill me.
This problem is more complex that just the issue of nasty businessmen hiring illegals to exploit them with low wages. That happens, sure, and it shouldn't because it's illegal. But there are other issues, too. The first and most important is that the U.S. should control its borders. That's a primary function of sovereignty. The second is that while it's sometimes hard to make the point that illegals take jobs from American citizens, it's sometimes true. If we control our borders, enforce wage and working conditions laws, and devise a reasonable means of regularizing illegals already in the country, the problem will be solved.
I take a bit of exception to the charge that anyone who has a different view of illegal immigration is ipso facto a racist (or a dolt "brainwashed by racist propaganda"). That's usually not true and amounts to an ad hominem argument designed to shut off discussion.
I meant an outline, not a draft. Or you could ask you student to write their idea in two sentences. It involves more work, but you kill the disease at an early stage.
Ol.
Yes, it is more complex, Tom. What you call "our borders" used to be "their lands." You want people to respect your "sovereignty" right after you disrespected theirs, invaded, and took away their lands.
I am horrified by how short people's historic memories are. How easy it is forget why Los Angeles, San Francisco and so many other places have Spanish names.
The borders you want to "protect" are artificial lines drawn arbitrarily by invaders. You cannot expect people to respect them. You cannot wrestle my property away from me and then show righteous indignation when I don't respect your right of brute force.
I agree with the Libertarians on very little, but I do believe, like many Libertarians, that anyone ought to be able to live wherever in the world she or he wishes. It may be expected that totalitarian states will try to control their borders but freedom lovers should not, except to keep out those who would make (actual, not metaphorical) war on their society.
Clarissa, there's no arguing with that logic. Virtually all countries exist on land that once belonged to some other people at some point in history. If you believe that national sovereignty is an illegitimate myth, or something along those lines, and that national borders are artificial, then you can make all manner of illogical arguments. However, reality is what it is, and you either live within the general boundaries of that reality or you live in a dream world somewhere.
'Anchor Babies' Congress Grapples Making Illegal Immigrants, Illegal
WASHINGTON – In January 2011, The House will be in Republican hands. In a few weeks, Congress will no longer be trying to help illegal immigrants to be legal. The debate will shift to the meaning of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Does the constitutional citizenship include children born to parents who are in the country illegally?
Read more...
http://www.under5cents.com/2010/12/anchor-babies-congress-grapples-making.html
I find the argument that the illegals don't pay taxes (presumably income taxes) as a little specious.
From a fiscal conservative point of view, that money saved by the business owner goes into creating economic growth. The owner either spends the profit, pays tax themselves on the profit, or invests the profit in the business. No matter what, it's going into economic growth, which should increase the tax revenues of the government anyway. That is the simple explanation for the argument in favour of lowering personal and corporate tax rates. The illegals are just at the most extreme end of 'lower taxes'.
Interesting. I never thought about it this way. What about the argument that immigrants send a huge part of their income overseas? (It's not my argument but I have heard people offer it.)
Post a Comment