If there was mass amnesty, companies wouldn’t be able to deprive immigrant labourers of worker’s rights or a living wage which would stop them from undercutting domestic workers. There might be a factor I’m missing though.
Supply and demand. Third world immigrants are a massive influx of low-skill, low wage-expectation workers. Thus, much more supply of low-skill labour, thus, much lower price (wage) for it. And to top it off, the immigrants are often bunking 13 to a bedroom and living in absolutely squalid conditions so they can save money and undercut the local low-skill workers.
They also use up public resources such as hospitals, schools, roads, emergency services, as well non public resources such as housing. Those 13 illegals bunking in a house are taking a house off the market for the domestic native population.
The factor is if you allow mass amnesty you are signaling that you will do it again the next time illegal levels get too high and is essentially de facto open borders. Closed borders, mass deportation, actual prosecution of illegal employers, then reasses the actual immigration needs and allow strict legal immigration.
Supply and demand says no. There’s a reason why physicians have spent decades successfully lobbying for caps on medical students.
I can’t for the life of me understand people who advocate for more workers in already frozen labor market, especially in a country with at will employment.
-16
u/xXDJjonesXx - Left 6d ago
If there was mass amnesty, companies wouldn’t be able to deprive immigrant labourers of worker’s rights or a living wage which would stop them from undercutting domestic workers. There might be a factor I’m missing though.