Virginia Bloggers Destroying Mexican Economy

Maybe not, but that conclusion could be drawn from today's Inter-American Development Bank press release. London's Financial Times reported, "US state migrant laws hit cash sent to Mexico". The Washington Post proclaimed, " Remittances to Mexico Slow. Fund Transfers to Relatives Hurt by Tougher U.S. Laws. It could appear that the campaign to staunch the flood of proto-citizens exemplified in the efforts of Black Velvet Bruce Li and others has been wildly successful. Then again the data, as always, may support other conclusions.

Based on a phone survey of 900 people conducted in Spanish, the Inter-American Development Bank concludes that Mexican and other Central American residents in the U.S. are sending less money home than they did in the past.

Allow me to digress at this point. I would love to have heard the conversation that took place during those phone interviews. I recreate from my imagination for you.

Interviewer: Hello, this is the Inter-American Development Bank. We would like to talk to you today about your jobs, wages and spending.

Respondent: How did you get my number, I thought trac phones were not listed.

Interviewer: Don't worry we just called at random. We would like to ask about the type of work you do and where.

R: Wait a minute, I have to look outside.

I: Why?

R: To see if La Migra is there.

I: Don't worry, we are not from ICE. Can I ask you the first question?

R: Yes, o.k.

I: What year were you born?

R: Are you sure you are not from ICE?

I: Yes, we are not from ICE? How old are you?

R: O.K. 37

I: Good thank you. Now what is your current annual income before paying taxes.

R: Mother of God, I know it, its the IRS.

I: No no not the IRS, we are just taking a survey, we won't ask your name or where you live.

R: O.K. so is this what I take home, or what I make. What about the under the table money.

I: Just all your earnings before any taxes are taken.

R: So maybe 27,000

I: Thank you. How long have you been living in the United States?

R: This time?

I: No all together?

R: 12 years.

I: And what state are you living in.

R: Look, you said you were not going to ask where I live. What is this?

I: I am not going to ask where you live, just what state. Is that o.k.?

R: O.K. O.K. Virginia

I: Do you send money back home for your family?

R: Of course I do, why do you think I am here?

I: In what country do you think you will be living five years from now?

R: Do you mean after Azlan or before?

I: No just use the current border for your answer.

R: Ok. the U.S.

I: Thanks. What type of work do you do in the United States?

R: Look mister, I go down the day labor center. Whatever job I can get I do.

I: Right, but what kind of work is that usually?

R: Mostly construction.

I: Compared to last year are you working more hours a week, less hours or the same.

R: The number of new houses is really down, we don't get as many hours as before.

I: Is it easier or more difficult for a Latin American immigrant to get a good paying job in the United States compared to a year ago?

R: Of course it is harder. Everywhere we go the Gringo's are out watching us. Some bosses now want real documents, and there are less jobs.

I: What is the biggest problem for you and your family now in the United States.

R: The bosses are very picky now, they want people with good looking papers.

I: So discrimination against Latin American immigrants is growing?

R: Yes, yes. We are always picked on.

I: And may I ask what is your legal status? Are you a U.S. citizen, a legal resident, or an undocumented immigrant.

R: I knew this was La Migra. No I am not a U.S. citizen and I don't have a green card of my own.

I: Thank you. We really are not going to turn you in. That is our last question. Have a nice day.

End of digression, returning to normal commentary.

The IADB in looking at statistics from the Mexico Central Bank and the national banks of other Central American countries finds that Mexican remittances are up 1% over last year and other Central American remittances are up 8%. The phone interviews indicate that only 64% of Mexican immigrants are sending home remittances compared to 71% the previous year. If average remittance amounts are assumed to be steady and total remittances increased 1% then the total population of Mexican immigrants could have increased by as much as 10% during the year. This increase in supply of immigrant Mexican laborers may be reflected in the greater difficulty in getting jobs.

If total remittances are up slightly for Mexicans and up 8% for other Central Americans, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the economies of their home countries are being decimated. After all the total money available to be spent at home is increasing and the number of people to spend it is declining.

So let us reexamine the headlines.

US state migrant laws hit cash sent to Mexico. The total remittances is increasing. We can conclude the total immigrant population has increased. There is no evidence presented in the article or the survey that there has been any actual change in state migrant laws, and therefore little to support the headline as a valid conclusion.

Fund Transfers to Relatives Hurt by Tougher U.S. Laws. More than half of the respondents indicated a reason other than immigration laws for why it is more difficult to get a good-paying job. While the 45% who indicated immigration laws were the reason it is more difficult now than a year ago to get a good paying job, this can only be perception. After all, the Congress, much to the dismay of so many actual citizens, has not passed any legislation making immigration laws more stringent. Further there is no evidence in the study that these difficulties were the basis for fewer Mexican remitters.

Sorry BVBL, perhaps you are not destroying the Mexican economy single handed after all.




Read More. . . .

No state or local role regarding Unauthorized Persons?

The presence of "unauthorized persons" in Virginia localities and elsewhere has been a frequent local topic of news stories. Two articles in the Sunday Daily Press address the issue and the efforts of another Blogs United Blogger, Black Velvet Bruce Li. I discuss an aspect of locality efforts to restrain the presence of unauthorized persons from a federalist perspective.

Building on weeks of controversy surrounding local government actions to limit local government services to legal residents, Sunday's Daily Press publishes in the local section two Washington Post written articles on the topic, one here and the second interestingly not included in the electronic index for the Daily Press but found online here in the Washington Post. In the first article, Greg Letiecq of the blog Black Velvet Bruce Li is featured for his role in using his blog to promote his group, Help Save Manassas. Letiecq, who attended the recent Blogs United conference in Newport News, is credited by Manassas City Council Member Marc Aveni for filling a need for news at the local level. The article reports that Letiecq reports on the minutiae of local news and politics to a degree that no other media outlet has matched.

The Daily Press articles appeared the same week a U.S.Federal District Court overturned a City of Hazelton Pennsylvania ordinance to regulate the presence and employment of illegal aliens. Efforts to restrain the presence of unauthorized persons have been the subject of the efforts of Help Save Manassas in Prince William county and similar efforts in Loudoun county. Details of these efforts are expounded in the Black Velvet Bruce Li blog.

The opinion in the case, Lozano et al., vs City of Hazelton is available here. As a federalist my first interest was to review the grounds that brought this case to the federal district court without a hearing in the Pennsylvania appellate courts.

The opinion of the court in this case seems to rest in part on the claim that the local ordinance violated the rights of persons not legally present in a way that the Congress had specifically preempted from the states and their political subdivisions. The opinion cites 8 United States Code section 1324a(h)(2) which reads:

the provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sactions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.

Since the City of Hazelton ordinance required an employee to obtain a permit to work in the city and allowed the city to check with the federal government directly to see if a work permit applicant was legally present, a condition the federal statute does not impose on employers, the court found that such a law was preempted by the federal statute and was unconstitutional.

As a federalist, it is this assertion of authority for the national government that bears consideration. The authority to preempt state or local law would seem to depend on authority to make law to begin with. The authority for the congress to regulate the employment of unauthorized persons seems to be based on Article I section 8 clause 4 which grants to Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. The court is this case is claiming that in carrying out its power to determine who may be naturalized the Congress has created authority to determine who can be employed in private businesses and then preempted the authority of states to make such regulation.

As the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the States or the people all powers not granted to the United States by the constitution, it can be argued that no power was granted under Article I section 8 or elsewhere for the Congress to regulate the employment of individuals not in interstate commerce. If the Congress had no power to regulate such employment it had no power to preempt state or local laws on the subject of employment. It is a federalist issue here of over reaching federal authority preempting the power of states and their political subdivisions to ensure that business that they license not carry out illegal activities. I posit that the Congress has exceeded the powers granted to it to the detriment of the people, a tyranny.
Read More. . . .