1

Immigration Labor

The questions and ethics that regard immigration labor deal with immigrant

workers, native workers, hiring companies, and our Government. They must be

separated into two different categories: illegal immigration labor and legal immigration

labor because the ethics that surround both are quite different and they must be explained

separately. Due to our nation’s dependency on immigration labor, but individual’s

opposition to companies that hire immigration labor, American’s often form a viewpoint

that immigrants are something we cannot live with, but cannot live without. Despite the

problems that surround immigration labor in the United States, there is a possible solution

in which most sides can benefit, as long as all sides are willing to negotiate and make

some sacrifices for the greater good of our economy.

The factors that cause immigration from one country to another are mostly driven

by economic differences between countries. Many immigrants come to the United States

because they can make more earning just minimum wage in the United States than they

can make working in their home country. The standard of living is high in the United

States, and immigrant families can provide adequate education for their children, good

health care, and other governmental benefits. The United States is a place where

immigrants can get ahead, live a better life, and pursue the “American Dream”.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there are 37.5 million legal

immigrants who reside in the United States. They make up one in nine United States

residents, one in seven U.S. workers, and one in five low-wage workers. They are

concentrated in specific fields or industries as well. For example, 44.7% of the category

“Farming, Fishing, and Forestry” in the United States is made up of immigrants. Many
 2

other industries have relied on immigrant labor for years, including American farmers in

the southwest, and business that provide household services in Southern California. A

huge percentage of immigrant workers are undocumented in the United States.

According to the Urban Institute’s Immigration Studies Program, two of every five low-

wage immigrant workers are undocumented, and labor force participation is higher

among undocumented men than among men who are legal immigrants or United States

citizens. There is no doubt that immigrants, both legal and illegal, account for a large

percentage of our population and our labor force, especially in the low skill and low wage

segment.

The group that is most often found morally responsible surrounding illegal

immigration in the United States is the hiring employer associated with a company. An

employer who knowingly employs an illegal immigrant creates an unfair advantage in his

company’s market. The employer is able to do this by having no regulation. He or she

has the option to pay their workers less than minimum wages and force them to work

however long they want them to. This immoral and unfair process produced by the

employer artificially drives down wages or, if wages are sticky, drives up unemployment

in the native worker population. Rival companies who only hire legal labor may see no

benefits from their moral-based actions, and employers may have an incentive to

disregard their practices and also hire illegal labor to stay competitive in their market.

Employers of illegal immigrants in the past have gotten in little trouble with the

law, and the enforcement and punishments for such employers was considered laughable.

Since 2003, when the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was established,

enforcement has been stricter and more companies involved in black labor markets have
 3

been exposed. Recent employers of illegal immigrants have included Wal-Mart, Tyson

Foods, and Swift and Company. Swift and Company’s crackdown in 2006 was the largest

exposure of illegal immigrants in the workforce in history with about 1,300 arrested in

six states. Braulio Pereyra-Gabino, an official with the United Food and Commercial

Workers Union, was sentenced to a year and a day in prison and a $2,000 fine for

concealing illegal aliens, and shielding them from detection in a building at a Swift and

Company plant. Investigation done by the ICE found that it was difficult to determine

others who may have been involved in the hiring and conceiling processes of the

immigrants and only several other individuals were brought to trial.

Many decisions made by lower level management can and do work their way up

the company’s ladder, but it is difficult to prove the involvement or knowledge of illegal

operations that occur throughout the company. Despite this, higher level management in

such companies have a moral responsibility to be aware of all actions taken by their

company, and almost all have an idea of the company’s atmosphere and opinion on shady

matters such as black market labor. The reason this moral responsibility is often

overridden is because a company’s motive to keep labor costs down to maximize profits

too frequently trumps all other responsibilities and morals.

Despite the recent increased enforcement by the ICE, the type of punishment they

enforce will have little effect in deterring other companies from hiring illegal immigrants.

Also the individuals who have been held responsible are lower level management, while

the ones who should be held most accountable are those in charge of company operations

such as CEOs or Presidents. What companies are most concerned about through the

actions of the ICE is the effect on their public image and how their consumers will think
 4

of them. This is what can influence their profits, financial security, and reputation the

most. Despite this, the financial punishments are enforced by the ICE too low because,

as Chris Tapping stated in his presentation, it is difficult to rely on ethical consumerism

to make large influences on markets and a company. Many consumers are not

knowledgeable enough about shady actions of a company and they, like companies, try to

pinch pennies and they will purchase the cheapest product or service on the market if the

quality is the same. Also the profits that can be made from using less than minimum

wage workers can easily compensate current fines charged. If the ICE were able to

increase their fines and target companies as a whole, instead of the individual, who hire

illegal immigrants, there would be a financial incentive for companies who’s only

concern is to maximize profit to not violate their moral responsibilities.

One of the questions that is associated with illegal immigration is who is

responsible for hiring illegal immigrants and to what degree can a business entity be

punished for doing so. All businesses claim that they do not knowingly hire illegal

workers and they hire only if their applicants meet legal requirements for employment.

Although most of the time this is true, managers often ignore obvious indications that the

validity of documentation an immigrant may provide such as identification and a Social

Security number is questionable. However some employers argue that they should not be

the ones who spend effort and money training human resource managers to identify a

legal immigrant from an illegal one, and that responsibility should be delegated primarily

to their Government. Many anti-immigration organizations go further to claim that the

Government makes a profit off of illegal immigrants. When illegal immigrants pay for

their taxes, they often use social security numbers of a non-existant person. They will
 5

pay for social security, but never receive any of their money back in the future, and the

Government has no reason to stop the process. Also, according to figures calculated by

the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal immigrants make up at least 10 percent of the work

force in construction, leisure and hospitality, and in agriculture and related industries.

The effect of losing such a huge part of our labor force would be devastating to our

economy.

Legal immigration is an entirely different subject with different conflicts that

differentiate from illegal immigration. The ethical issues surrounding legal immigration

arise from conflicts between the same four groups involving illegal immigration labor,

which include hiring companies, native workers, immigrant workers, and the

Government.

Many companies that hire immigrant workers are concentrated in specialized

industries, and they claim that they desperately need more labor and especially temporary

labor or seasonal labor. This type of labor is seen in fields such as agriculture,

construction, and forestry. These companies need huge increases in low wage and low

skill labor, which comes mostly from migrational labor, for relatively short periods of

time and many of them claim they need larger increases in such temporary labor in the

future, otherwise they will not function as a profitable business.

Native workers who work in low paying low skilled level jobs often complain

about competing with immigrant labor. An increase in labor from a population of a lower

standard of living in an economic model will drive down wages and increase

unemployment. Because we have a fixed minimum wage, benefits such as pension plans

and medical care are cut instead of lowering wages and unemployment increases in the
 6

economy as well. With an increase in labor and unemployment rates being high,

companies are not as willing to negotiate with unions and will be more willing to hire

cheaper immigrant labor. Another argument native workers have is that a company

should have responsibilities other than being a money maximizing machine. They argue

that a company has a responsibility to look after their employees who are United States

citizens before assisting non-citizen immigrants. Native workers claim that the cost

cutting done by companies is not as necessary to compete in their industry as it may

appear on paper. That is because workers who occupy their jobs for a long period of time

and have developed personal bonds towards their fellow employees are more effective

and skilled at their jobs. Although this interaction is much more important at high skilled

jobs, there can be a negative effect if interaction between supervisors and their workers is

complicated.

Immigrants take a Utilitarian stance and claim the labor they perform in the

United States benefits most Americans in the short term and long term. Most immigrants

do not try to compete with unions and native workers for the jobs they already occupy.

Instead they look for industries that lack employment or industries that demand low-skill

labor or that has unfavorable working conditions and few benefits with low wages. Most

of this type of work occurs with seasonal labor, or labor that is only needed temporarily.

Therefore their argument is that they as immigrants perform the work Americans don’t

want to do. Also they believe that their increase in labor allows industries that were held

back by lack of labor to be more profitable. This boost in located industries affects our

economy as a whole and both American citizens and the United States Government

benefit from increases in wages and increases in tax revenues. Although much of the
 7

revenue they make goes back into their home countries to support their own families and

local communities, some of the money they make from their wages goes towards food,

clothing and other living necessities, and that stimulates local economic growth in

communities. Those opposed to immigration state that they increase public and social

expenditures associated with them living in the United States. However these costs are

overly compensated by the taxes they pay.

If an industry is unable to find the labor they need in the pool of willing citizens,

or if they can find the same labor for a cheaper price, they will outsource their industry if

they have the ability to do so and it is cost effective. Although a business does have a

responsibility towards the well-being and security of its current employees and being

loyal to its country of origin, their responsibility to be profitable and make money for

their shareholders almost always trumps all other responsibilities. If a company is able to

receive an increase in cheap labor in the United States, it would not make as much sense

to move their industry to another country where wages paid would only be slightly lower.

As stated by V.K. Ramaswami in a two page note, when choosing between outsourcing

and inviting foreign labor to work at home, it makes more sense to bring foreign labor

into the host country because it increases real national income at home. The effects of

outsourcing are more negative than the effects of an increase in immigration. Many

employees are laid off during outsourcing, and governments, both State and Federal,

would receive no “gain from trade” and they would lose tax revenue from these profiting

companies.

Another problem with outsourcing in regards with immigration is that labor that

occurs from companies that outsource cannot be regulated as easily as legal immigrant
 8

labor that occurs in the United States. In “third world countries” where sweatshop labor

exists and governmental regulation is not strong, human right violations can occur by

employers. Human rights violations that may occur in the United States workforce are

much more heavily enforced. Although the government could attempt to restrict the

amount of outsourcing that could occur in the United States, it is not always practical. If

the United States Government tries to deter companies from investing outside of the

United States, foreign companies may also be deterred from investing inside of the

United States.

Legislature in the past has focused on trying to regulate the amount of labor that

can be brought into the United States on a seasonal basis. In 2007, the Comprehensive

Immigration Reform Act was brought to the attention of Congress. It called for tighter

security along the United States borders, but most importantly, it included a guest worker

program that would bring immigrants into the United States from their home countries

temporarily for seasonal labor. It also included a retirement fund for the immigrants that

could only be accessed by the immigrants in their home country, which would give them

some incentive to return back to their home countries once their visas expired. The bill

was supported by many prominent political figures including John McCain, Ted

Kennedy, and George W. Bush.

When looking at the Bill, I agree with all of its features except the increase in

border security. I do believe in maintaining our country’s borders to a certain degree,

however there will always be illegal smuggling of immigrants across our borders. With

an increase in border security, which American taxpayers pay for, the street rate for

smuggling immigrants into the United States increases. Those who do smuggle
 9

immigrants across our border thus are able to make a handsome reward, and an illegal

market is strengthened. In the past 5 years, the going street rate has increased from

around $3,000 to $5,000, which many immigrants are willing to pay because of the

economic incentive to work in the United States.

Some conservatives stated that despite providing a retirement fund accessible in

an the immigrant’s home country, the incentive was still not strong enough, and an

immigrant would have more incentive to overstay their visa and try to work in the United

States illegally. Also the Bill created an easy path to allow undocumented immigrants to

become citizens. It disregarded other immigration laws that were already in place, which

many politicians in Congress had supported and were not eager to throw away. Some

liberals stated that the bill did not allow immigrants to reunite with their families they

may have in the United States. It was important for such immigrants to be able to live

and travel with their families in order to support them financially. Many of those who

supported immigrants resented the fact that the immigrants would be provided no benefits

through the program. They would be unable to have health care, pension plans, or any

other benefits that may be given to native workers by their companies. This fierce

opposition that came from all sides caused the bill to be shot down before it could even

be voted on in Congress.

The inability of Congress to not only not pass this bill but not even take it

seriously was a failure of Congress and our system of government. Almost all members

of Congress and many economists believed that our country needed some form of

temporary immigrant labor system. Despite this, they bickered over the finer details of

the Bill and were unable to negotiate with one another. As a result, the United States
 10

economy is worse off that what it could be and specific industries that demand temporary

labor continue to feel economic pressure.

According to William W. Beach, the director of the Center for Data Analysis of

the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., our country needs a program of work visas

that vary in length in which our Government knows who those people are, where they are

going, what their skills are, and the program would allow us to control when they would

leave. As Beach believes the program is necessary as he quotes, “We need that system,

we cannot do without it”. The companies that demand more temporary labor will

continue to demand that temporary labor, and they will have three options, none of which

are positive or ethical for the company. First, they can outsource their industry and get

the labor necessary at a cheaper cost abroad. Second, they can resort to hiring illegal

labor, which many of them do already, in order to obtain the labor necessary. Or third,

they can cut back on production and not be as competitive or profitable as they once

were. Being unable to be competitive creates a financial risk for the company by giving

their competitors an edge in their labor costs.

Overall, the United States economy would suffer as a result of such an action by

the company. Many companies do not have the option of lowering their wages for their

low skilled employees any lower to increase demand for temporary labor because there is

a fixed minimum wage for all industries, and the wage rate for temporary labor in most

industries is already at or just above minimum wage. The end result of the

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act’s failure to be passed is that there is an

abnormally high demand on labor among industries that demand temporary or seasonal

labor, and many of them will continue to rely on illegal immigration labor to be profitable
 11

and competitive.

Because these industries have no choice but to pursue one of these options, we

cannot put ethical blame on entire industries or companies as a whole. The actions by a

few hundred people in our government are to blame. They failed to recognize our

Country’s need for temporary immigration labor, and they failed to negotiate with one

another to respond to that need. I myself disagreed with one of the main parts of the Bill,

but I would be willing to make sacrifices and compromise with others because the Bill

would have benefited our Country as a whole. Some sort of legislation like the

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act needs to be brought back into Congress, and all

sides need to be able to work together in order to get it passed. Although there may be

parts that all sides disagree on, it is crucial to have more labor in specified industries that

can be regulated by the Government. If this is done, these industries can be more

profitable and it will be an action that can help bring our economy out of its current

slump.

References:

Jones, Ronald. "Immigration vs. Outsourcing: Effects on Labor Markets." University of

Rochester Web.3 Jul 2009. http://www.econ.rochester.edu/Faculty/jones/Immigration
 12

%20vs.pdf

Carey, Lee. "Illegal Immigration and Low Wage Labor." American Thinker 06 Feb 2008
Web.17 Jun 2009.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/illegal_immigration_and_low_wa.html.

Sum, Andrew. "The Impact of New Immigrants on young Native-Born Workers, 2000-
2005." Backgrounder Sept. 2006 Web.17 Jun 2009.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back806.pdf.

Parker, Laura. "USA just wouldn't work without immigrant labor." USA Today 22 Jul
2001 Web.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/july01/2001-07-23-
immigrant.htm.

Capps, Randy, Michael Fix, Jeffry Passel, Jason Oxt, and Dan Perez-Lopez. "A Profile of
the Low-Wage Immigrant Workforce." Urban Institute Immigrant Studies Program
Web.03 Jul 2009.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310880_lowwage_immig_wkfc.pdf.

Webb, L. Roy. "International Factor Movement and the National Advantage: A

Comment." Economica. 1970. Blackwell Publishing. Web.3 Jul 2009.
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-
0427%28197002%292%3A37%3A145%3C81%3AIFMATN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-
1&origin=repec&cookieSet=1.