Conservative Utah has bucked the national GOP trend of embracing hard-line — and arguably inhumane — laws meant to make states inhospitable to illegal immigrants. Two weeks ago, Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert signed into law a bill that will grant work permits, and a path to legal residence, to undocumented immigrants and their immediate families.
And conservative Arizona, which last year passed the anti-immigrant law known as SB 1070, defeated a second slate of such measures, including one that sought to deny birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. There’s nothing inherently conservative about taking a punitive line against illegal immigrants. Instead, as these votes in Utah and Arizona show, old-school conservatism — that of employers and business interests — just might be the key to finally dealing justly with the 11 million people living within our borders without papers.
Business’ first loyalty is to the bottom line. That tends to make businesspeople seem indifferent to social issues; they concentrate on balancing their books and staying afloat, not on saving the world. For the politically liberal, that smacks of meanness and greed. But cool pragmatism is the right antidote for passionate bigotry. In fact, despite all the time and energy Americans spend praising the wonders of tolerance and the virtues of inclusion, bottom-line values have throughout our history done about as much to fight bigotry as has any particular brand of high-minded moralism.
In the 18th century, the French political thinker Montesquieu, whose writings influenced the founders, concluded that “commerce is a cure for the most destructive prejudices.” As a rule, he wrote, business flourished wherever one found “agreeable manners.”
Indeed, the United States owes much of its belief in religious tolerance to the capitalist legacy of Dutch New Amsterdam. When Peter Stuyvesant, the governor of what would become New York, tried to legalize discrimination against Quakers and Jews, it was the Dutch West India Co. that forced him to stop. In the case of Quakers, the merchants agreed that the sect was an aberration but that persecuting a minority in a polyglot colony was simply bad for business.
More recently, the profit motive helped undermine racial restrictions that were used to keep blacks out of certain neighborhoods. In her 2010 book, “The Warmth of Other Suns,” about the migration of African-Americans to the North, Isabel Wilkerson argues that efforts to keep blacks out of Harlem, and later some parts of L.A., failed “not because anti-black forces gave up or grew more tolerant” but because property owners had a choice to either maintain a whites-only policy in a market being deserted by whites or to take advantage of the rising black demand. Most wound up taking the pragmatic route.
As Jonathan Koppell, dean of the public policy school at Arizona State University, says, “Most businesses are hard-pressed to let visceral emotions drive decisions to the point where the balance sheet suffers. In the marketplace, alienating a significant segment of the population is never a good strategy. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the political arena.”
So how did business meet politics in Utah and Arizona?
Utah saw the economic damage Arizona did to itself with SB 1070. The law, which prods police to question those they stop about their immigration status, drew boycotts and cost the state millions of dollars in tourism and convention business. Pushed by business leaders and the Mormon Church, politicians didn’t repeat the mistake.
As for Arizona, with five more virulently anti-immigrant measures up for consideration, 60 state business leaders sent a letter to the Legislature asking them to not make matters worse.
None of this suggests that Republicans or most voters in these states are suddenly pro-illegal immigration. What it may mean, however, is that the pragmatism of pro-business conservatism is finally standing its ground against the emotionalism of social conservatism.
That’s a good thing, because emotion is no substitute for problem solving. When it comes to immigration, and so much more, America needs the bottom line now more than ever.
• Rodriguez is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
Comments (28)
Add commentJust try illegally
Just try illegally immigrating to Mexico and see how tolerant they are...
No merit
This article is very lopsided. Since when has Arizona gone down the tubes because they chose to fight illegal immigration? Their social services are draining the budget. How about immigrants that try to get in legally? They wait and wait with mountains of paperwork while the illegals hop the border and they're in. Not much incentive to obey our laws.
Ignores the big picture
Mr. Rodriguez is grasping at straws. In one sense, he's right - businesses do act in their own best interests, and focus on the bottom line. He left out the caveat "in the short run". I'm sure that all the restaurant owners, hotels, construction companies, store owners, landscapers, etc. who are hiring illegals under the table, paying them far less than they would have to pay U.S. Citizens, and pocketing the 'savings' in both labor costs AND taxes on those wages (are you paying less for a construction job now, even though the workers are only making $7-8 an hour with no benefits? I don't think so) are perfectly happy to do so right now. The problem is that Americans who used to do all of those jobs are out of work. The cost of the items I've mentioned above have not gone down because an illegal workforce is being tapped. But costs for all of us have gone up, in the areas of:
1. Unemployment payments for Americans
2. Forclosures and other economic detriments for Americans with no jobs
3. Increased schooling costs for illegals who do not pay taxes
4. Increased emergency room care for illegals who do not pay taxes
5. Increased jail costs for illegals who do not pay taxes
6. Increasing burden on the U.S. economy by a workforce who is not gaining entry to the dwindling "middle class" and whom will never have the money or legal status to buy a home, get a loan for a car, get a student loan for college, etc.
And, aside from the weight of the first 11 million, Mr. Rodriguez, what about the second 11 million, and the third 11 million, if we continue to allow illegals to pour into this country?
I have a very dear friend who's a legal immigrant. He's still struggling, being paid under the table doing construction for $8 per hour. I'm learning Spanish so that I can better communicate with his mother, and the rest of his family. I am certainly not a bigot. However, I can tell the difference between short term gain and long term problems.
@swimmergirl: illegal
@swimmergirl: illegal immigrants have been doing these manual labor jobs for decades--at least since the 50s. U.S. citizens haven't deigned to lower themselves to picking strawberries for quite some time. As a result, the price of many items is lower than it would be if Americans were working the fields (because, of course, we're subject to minimum wage laws and safety regulations).
In reality, illegal immigration isn't a big problem. You'll notice that the anti-immigrant wave always grows when we're in recession and then recedes to the fringes when times are good. This is called scapegoating. There are real costs associated with illegal immigration, like on your list. But they're not actually that large, and in fact may even be a net positive.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584
What really gets me is that the anti-immigration crowd always goes after the immigrants. Maybe it's because they have brown skin, but the businesses that HIRE these illegal immigrants are the ones actually breaking the law (entering this country illegally is not a jailable offense). To hire an illegal immigrant, you either have to pay them under the table (illegal) or falsify documents (such as a social security card) to make them appear legal (which is VERY illegal).
Businesses and certain individuals are the ones actually creating the problem, because immigrants wouldn't come over here illegally if they knew they couldn't get a job. The immigrants--they live in terrible conditions and want a better life, which is not morally wrong. They are not some malevolent force bent on destroying America.
Kevin, how does having an
Kevin, how does having an illegal workforce using public education, emergency rooms, and filling our prisons end up as a net positive? Its a minus and a big one. It gets even bigger when you figure the unemployment of US citizens. They may not stoop to picking strawberries very often, but thats because big brother steps in and pays them the welfare check to sit on the couch watching those positive role models, like Homer Simpson or Roseanne. If we didnt pick up the tab for them, they would be looking for work. Any work.And the cost of things go up anyway as the owner of the strawberry fields has to pay increased taxes to cover the cost of supporting the out of work American and paying to educate the illegal kids. So I really dont see any net positive, except in Mexico where the illegal is sending his check.
If we stopped paying out
If we stopped paying out welfare and snuffed out illegal immigration, then we'd have a large workforce of impoverished strawberry pickers. The jobs illegal immigrants "take" from us are NOT living wage jobs. Without the cheap labor, our food costs would be much higher than they are now. And I'm not advocating for illegal immigrant employment--just the contrary, I find it repugnant that businesses and some people take advantage of their desperation.
Businesses essentially get a big positive on their balance sheets, as the labor they put in for these companies is worth much more than they are paid for it. And these illegals do have to buy food and necessities from other American companies.
The result is a siphoning of GOVERNMENT money, but an increase in overall wealth (possibly--I'm not an economist). Which brings us to the real cause of our financial woes: grossly unequal distribution of wealth.
Also, I know it's easy to imagine welfare recipients as lazy couch potatoes who are stuck in the late 80's/early 90's, but that is not the reality. The reality is that for a variety of reasons, there are more employable Americans than there are jobs in the U.S., and FAR more Americans in need of a living wage than there are jobs that pay a living wage. People don't go on welfare to leech off the system. They go on welfare to feed, clothe, and house themselves (and their family).
How about employers
The basic fact is there are lots of laws on the books that employers fail to meet when it comes to hiring illegals. Yet rather than placing any focus on the employers it seems the GOP only wants to get the illegals. Who get the benefits of undocumented employees: employers.
It is time we take existing laws and enforce them on employers. A set of fines that increase with every occasion an employer is found having undocumented workers. Fines where employers who have larger number of employers pay substantial larger fines based on the number of illegals discovered.
The continued GOP attempts to get the illegals and pay little or no attention to the employers illustrates the conservative lack of concern over allowing business to profit from using undocumented employees.
This is an interesting discussion.
I find the bottom line is, people who come here illegally have broken the law. Whether or not you like it, it is a law made to protect American people.
@ Kevin, I used to be on welfare, because I was a single mother and could not get a job. It was the most humiliating experience of my life and I busted my rear to get off it.
That being said however, I knew many people who were on welfare and working under the table, getting support for kids they didn't have, supporting drug habits and having children just to get more money. I know one woman who had 5 kids by 5 different fathers, she made a pretty good living. It seemed that I was the exception to the rule.
I advocate drug testing, job searches, alcohol testing and time limits for families getting any kind of public aide. I would rather pay for a single mother's schooling so she could get a "good Job", than some losers drug habit.
Many more Americans would take those low wage jobs if we quit supporting the dead weight.
Bigotry?
When all arguments from the pro-illegals fail, they pull the race card. Since when is following laws in America bigoted?
Costner, you don't have a clue. Try living amongst the illegals and see how large numbers of them have a tremendous impact on a community. It is billions of dollars. Nice try playing the class warfare card too. Clueless, in your sheltered, emotional little world.
Maybe the pro-illegal immigration folks should study up on how illegals are treated by their own people. Ever heard of rape trees along the border? Ever heard of layup areas and drop houses? Ever heard of threats of killing family members in Mexico if enough drugs aren't peddled to American kids? Ever heard of them claiming 12 dependents and gettting thousands of dollars in tax refunds?
One real problem is the 14th Amendment. What to do with all the "anchor babies"?
You're not the exception to
You're not the exception to the rule. It seems everyone against welfare "knows" at least one person intimately enough to be able to articulate how they're using welfare to buy drugs, sirloin steaks, big-screen TVs, or whatever. And the statistics do not bear it out.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm
In reality, while fraud does happen, it's pretty rare. And honestly, fraud occurs in ANY system--it's impossible to get rid of without also penalizing most of the honest participants. The myth of the "welfare queen" stems from Ronald Reagan's anecdote back when he was sowing the seeds for the economy's imminent collapse. Most people are like you and find being on welfare humiliating and degrading--probably even moreso when others find out and immediately assume they're just lazy.
Without welfare we'd be in pretty big trouble. Of the developed nations, we have one of the weakest social safety nets, and we also have substantially lower quality of life, higher income inequality, longer workweeks, and far more poverty than countries like Norway or France or Denmark, which have strong social safety nets.
Circular Logic
Aside from the welfare debate...
I think it's ironic that the only reason that the author cites for Utah not following Arizona's path is a direct result of the high-minded moralism he had earlier dismissed:
"Utah saw the economic damage Arizona did to itself with SB 1070. The law... drew boycotts and cost the state millions of dollars in tourism and convention business."
Hi Calypso. You understand
Hi Calypso. You understand that in order to file a tax return you have to have a social security number, right? And that if you have a social security number, the government knows whether you're allowed to work or not?
I'm sure all these illegal immigrants are expert forgers with intimate knowledge of the SSA's database. Or maybe you're making things up. Either way, you're using questionable anecdotes meant to scare up an emotional response instead of an actual argument with facts.
And as for following laws, again, illegally entering this country is not a jailable offense. Forging government documents to hire an illegal alien is. If you're so concerned about illegal immigration, you'd be against the forces that enable them to gain employment and thus have an incentive to come here in the first place. But you're not. You're concerned with scapegoating.
We're not talking Strawberries
Kevin - You are still primarily talking about field work, picking fruit and veggies. I'll give you that one. But I disagree with you that illegals have been filling the rest of the jobs I mentioned at the degree that they do since the 50's. I'd argue that in the 50's, through the 80's - many hotel maid and restaurant jobs were filled by students, people getting their first job, folks taking part-time second jobs, and many of those who are now instead on welfare. In the case of construction and landscaping type jobs, these were good paying jobs, which may have developed into a business for some. And again - last I checked, cost for hotel rooms or new construction/remodels has not gone down due to cheaper labor. it is simply a matter of the owner/boss pocketing the difference.
I do agree with you that buinesses should be targeted and held accountable to a much greater degree than they are now. But I think the impact on American jobs is much deeper than you think.
Well, for those jobs it is a
Well, for those jobs it is a bit different. I don't think it's as prevalent, but a lot of those industries still depended on an underclass in the past. Maids in both hotels and homes were often underprivileged black women, landscapers (of the basic grass-cutting and gardening variety, not professional landscapers), were often black men, and these people were underpaid and treated poorly just as illegal immigrants are today.
Illegal immigration is definitely an issue, but it's just not a big one. Our economic woes are due more to supply-side economics, overconsumption, short-term economic policy, and government deregulation than anything. And honestly, we don't have the resources to throw out all the illegals. Right now, the federal government just focuses on the ones who commit violent crimes or traffic drugs.
Costner, you are so wrong on
Costner, you are so wrong on most of your "facts". What's your favorite news source for all this disinformation? I'd like to be sure and avoid it myself.
Now, where to start? There IS giant welfare fraud. Are you kidding? What about the new law making it illegal to use the food stamp debit card at casinos? Were those cards being used to feed the children?
"The myth of the "welfare queen" stems from Ronald Reagan's anecdote back when he was sowing the seeds for the economy's imminent collapse." Laughable!
Study this link to see the fraud committed by illegals to game the tax system to the tune of billions of dollars.
http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=103852&catid=188
And yes, I want employers held accountable. That's why I like e-verify. Chipotle was raided recently and I hope they paid big fines or something. I'd have liked to have seen Steve Ellis perp walked! Einstein's has an e-verify sign in their window. Laws are made for everyone.
Also -
It is true that many if not most illegal immigrants send a large portion of their wages home - the total is in the 10s of billions now I believe - which means they are not buying goods or services, saving for college, or getting loans for homes or cars here in the U.S. - which would be spreading the wealth around.
A Few numbers: Poverty Threshold - per year
single person - $11,344
2 person household - $14,626
4 person household - $22,314
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html
Average wage - hotel maid:
Between $21,170 and $25,286 per year
(I'd argue that two people in a household doing that could manage to save a little money - buy a house, rent a room to someone else, go back to school, etc.)
http://www.cbsalary.com/national-salary-chart.aspx?specialty=Hotel%2BHou...
Amount spent on Educating Illigal Immigrants
ABC News source noted around 65,000 undocumented immigrants graduate every year. I'd guess that is very conservative, and of course doesn't count dropouts.
Utah alone spent in 2008 - $8224 per student per year. Let's conservatively say that in 3 years that's risen to $8,600.
If a child was brought to the US illegally when they were 8 years old, 2nd grade, that's 10 years of schooling on you and I - or $86,000. multiplied by let's say 100,000 graduating per year, and that's a lot of money.
http://www.utaheducationfacts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti...
Hi Calypso. I read your link.
Hi Calypso. I read your link. The net cost was $1.6 million, not billion. Just an order of magnitude difference. No big deal.
Again, how embarrassing for you.
The fact that the best link you could come up with on your Google search was a small potatoes raid proves my point. If you read the link I provided earlier, the study concluded that the fraud rate is roughly 1.9%.
@swimmergirl: yes, it is a
@swimmergirl: yes, it is a drain on the government's money, but again, the businesses are the ones receiving the gain. I do appreciate you providing facts and statistics for your argument, and I agree with you, but I still say the problem is not the immigrants themselves, who only want a better life, but the people who hire them illegally in the first place.
Tax fraud committed by
Tax fraud committed by illegals in one state costs millions. Multiply that by 49 other states and it reaches billions of dollars. Try to look at the big picture even though only one link is given to further the argument.
Your government report from 2002 is slightly outdated, I'd surmise. 13 weeks of unemployment are now 99 weeks and there are around 40M Americans on food stamps. You do the math using the 2002 fraud number of 1.9%. Probably has grown exponentially.
Hi Calypso. $1.6 million
Hi Calypso. $1.6 million multiplied by 50 is $80 million. Of course it probably doesn't matter to you that most states don't have an appreciable illegal immigrant population, making your point a little worse than a guesstimate. It also sounds like the accounting firm in your article was PROVIDING SSNs for illegal immigrants. I do doubt this practice is widespread, but if it is, then the firms are really at fault.
I also don't understand why you'd think welfare fraud would grow exponentially with people on welfare rather than proportionately. There's no evidence to suggest fraud grows exponentially with ANY system, let alone social services.
It's almost as if you're pulling your arguments out of thin air.
And I agree
with you, 'costner' that we should crack down on any and all businesses hiring illegals to such an extent that they stop hiring illegals at all - perhaps that would help solve the problem.
Why quotes around my name?
Why quotes around my name? Didn't you like "Dances With Wolves"? EVERYONE ELSE DID.
But really, the way to solve the problem is to make Mexico a nice place to live. All of Latin America, really. Mexico has come a long way, but there's still a lot of poverty and inequality, and until it has the level of prosperity of Canada, it will forever be a Mexico.
Ya'll Ger
"You're ALL illegal immigrants, so saith the Lord"
-Tlingit Torah
Just guessing
That it's not your real name.
And who's responsibility is it, Kevin, to make Mexico a nice place to live, in your opinion?
It's everyone's
It's everyone's responsibility to make everyone's life better. And if everyone acted on that responsibility everything would be a whole lot nicer.
But I'm going to say Spain and Texas.
Equal Treatment Under the Law
Since the federal government retains sole authority and responsibility to protect the borders of the U.S. and to regulate all matters relating to immigration and citizenship, I expect Attorney General Eric Holder to initiate a lawsuit against the state of Utah, just as he did against the state of Arizona.
The only solution.
Seriously. Come on. As long as there are jobs, they will come. So, the only solution is to make hiring them as absolutely painful as possible.
Keep blatantly hiring illegals and get your business fined and put under. Walmart considers it a cost of business at a couple 100k a year. It should cost them millions and get there attention. No due diligence on their hiring paperwork? For shame.
Swimmer, agreed and more agreement. And also agreeing with all those you say that there will be a reckoning on loss of our ultra cheap labor force. It's needed. Maybe then people will know exactly what it takes to make a business work instead of pretending they are slumlords "helping" people out.