User profile: LVLawDog

Beezie, good point. I agree with your theory that the local governments suffer a greater share of the problems posed by cheap immigrant labor while the state and federal governments receive the lionshare of the benefits.

However, if the problem is deciding how to better allocate the increased tax income created by immigrant laborers, is the best solution deportation of such workers? Especially when deporting such immigrant laborers would compromise the health of numerous businesses and industries? The same businesses and industries which the government has allowed to become dependent on immigrant labor in order to maintain their profit margins?

I think the best solution is to conduct a thorough study of who wins and who loses and allocate the money between the governments as needed--which is what the article seems to be advocating.

The biggest losers are Republicans. If a segment of the Republican party was not inherently racist, Republicans might see how easy it might be to gain the Latino vote.

Latinos are for the most part socially conservative--they oppose abortion and are big on family values. Wall Street conservatives already know the importance of Latinos in providing their businesses with low cost labor.

So the question is if social conservative Republicans and Wall Street Republicans would both benefit from gaining the Latino vote, why do Republicans want impose the toughest laws regarding immigration?...Because a segment of the Republican party cares more about America being white than it does about the main issues the party was founded on.

Its too bad...because I'm a socially conservative Wall Street Republican and I understand what an opportunity the party is losing...

Judy, let me give you an example of how Uncle Sam makes more money off immigrant workers than he does off of non-immigrant laborers.

Let's go back to my example of the lettuce farmer. Let's say that after nonlabor expenses the farmer is left with $1 million. The best case scenario for the government is that he pays nothing for labor. That would mean that all of the $1 million would be taxed in the highest possible tax bracket. The worst case scenario for Uncle Sam is if the entire $1 million is split amongst hundreds of workers who, due to their meager income, pay little to no taxes. Each additional dollar that ends up as farmer income, rather than laborer income, is taxed at a higher rate. This generates more income for the government.

In the case of immigrant laborers vs. non-immigrant laborers, cheap immigrant laborers generate more income for the farmer than would expensive non-immigrant laborers. This income is taxed at a much higher rate than the same income would be if it were paid to the laborers.

So the government, especially the Nevada government which extracts zero taxes from laborers, actually generates more income if businesses pay less for labor. This means more money for schools and other things that affect the Judys in the valley on a day to day basis.

Judy, you don't understand my comments. Uncle Sam's overall taxable income increases because corporations, which reap all the benefits of cheap immigrant labor, are taxed at a much higher tax rate than non-immigrant laborers would be.

In fact, Nevada benefits way more than other states because non-immigrant laborers would not be taxed at all (no state income tax). However, the state does tax increased corporate profits generated by cheap immigrant labor.

And lettuce is just one example of thousands. Countless commodities which you use every day are much cheaper to you because they were produced with the help of cheap immigrant labor. Moreover numerous businesses, even entire industries, would otherwise cease to exist if not for the small profit margins made possible by cheap immigrant labor.

You also conveniently ignore addressing how those savings are passed on to the consumer. How many lettuce farms would go out of business if they were forced to pay market rate for non-immigrant laborers? The reduced supply and the increased costs would drive the price of lettuce through the roof. California lettuce growers would never be able to compete with lettuce growers from Mexico and other parts of the world.

The government would then be forced to make a tough decision--either restrict imports of lettuce from Mexico and the rest of the world, which would mean astronomically high prices for lettuce, or allow the Mexican lettuce into the country and put California lettuce growers on unemployment. Either way,the public pays a huge price.

A lettuce farm is just one example. The same could be true of hundreds of industries throughout the US. Whether you like it or not, US industry and the US consumer have become dependent on cheap immigrant labor. The pink elephant that your study, and the study you site, mysteriously ignore.