From: Champie Jack
What social problems are you referring to? The unfortunate economic conditions of Central American countries as well as Mexico? Or are you referring to the business practices of US companies that include utilizing illegal immigrant workers? Or are you referring to the condition of American workers who don't want to do jobs that immigrants will do?
What is the 'problem' as you define it?
NOTE: I am not claiming that any of these arguments are valid, I am just listing the possible social conditions you vaguely refer to in your post.
Good good, you're asking questions. I do hope you want to know. At any rate, the problem isn't soley any of those things. It could be partly the the economic conditions of others, our companies using available law to their (as opposed to anyone else's) greatest advantage, and it could also be working conditions in America today. But it's not really any one of these things.
Lets first start with "Corporations" as they tie into many facets of this. Multinational corporations in particular. In previous centuries, there was little to no world market as far as we consider it today. Countries were isolated economically from each other in many ways. Part of this was that we didn't have cargo planes or super tankers to transport natural resources from one part of the globe to the other relatively easily compared to making the trip over land or an iffy sea journey.
Don't get me wrong, there was still plenty of trade going. But what matters to the arguement is, essentially, that one group would take advantage of another to their economic benefit. Today's iconoclastic example would be the multinational corp. They have the potential to reach into every market on the planet for labor, resources, and marketing of their product (whatever that may be). The idea here is that they can exploit every available law anywhere to achieve their maximum profit. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking this practice. It will eventually reach a level of global parity where labor and resources are more globally defined and have the same value everywhere. It's a long way off, but I'm not going to fault the multinational for not addressing the social problems it may cause (which are ultimately not their fault).
Now on the other side of this we have a rather large amount of independent countries with different rules, laws, and prejudices toward how they value their own resources and labor. In some cases this makes it easier for the multinational because it can seek out the path of least resistance toward getting what it wants (usually money).
So the thing about creating barriers between nations is that it allows a multinational to exploit that path easier than if there was no barrier. It is purposely setting up different labor pools from which they may draw. There's nothing fundamentally different from a base unit of labor in one country to the next. An hour's work is an hour's work. But with the barriers in place, an hour's work in one nation will cost the multinational 3 times what it will cost them in another. It seems a simple enough business choice to go for the best price. But it's not really good for that guy that isn't working at all because that other guy is working 3 hours to his 1.
One solution that has obviously reached the public is that the work of the cheaper laborer becomes worth more if he lives in the same geographic location as the more expensive laborer. As more and more people come to understand that, one of their options is to relocate to the place where their labor is the most valued.
So the corporation continually searches for the lowest price to create their goods and the laborer continually searches for the highest price they can receive for their labor. Eventually the problem should solve itself as parity is achieved. What has to be realized is that the parity should be the goal.
And to get to, possibly, the point: setting up a barrier will only make immigration (illegal or otherwise) last longer as a problem situation. Whether that barrier is material (a wall, landmines, machine gun nests) or immaterial (laws requiring a long waiting list that can take many years to get through). Just like a corporation, people will seek the least resistance to their personal happiness. If that involves sidestepping material or immaterial barriers, it won't bother them if they achieve what they set out to achieve.
I can explain more of these points if you want, although I won't bother arguing any inaccuracies with regards to history. That was just for some potentially helpful background. I certainly hope you can understand why I think reducing the immigration barrier (by streamlining and speeding up that legal process) is the better way to go; also why I believe a wall is a bad way to go.
