Why Labor Unions Support Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Disclaimer:  Don’t Tread on Virginia does not support amnesty for illegal aliens or minimum wage laws.  This article examines why skilled labor unions support these policies for their own interests at the expense of everyone else.  Please do not stop reading this article prematurely assuming this article or website supports these policies.  The purpose of this article is show that what’s good for unions is typically bad for America.

I've heard several talk radio hosts wonder why skilled labor unions support amnesty for illegal aliens.  The hosts typically allege that it will cost the union members jobs.  Many hosts write off the support for amnesty as support for liberal policies by the leadership regardless of the cost to rank-and-file members.  I agree that this is a frequent occurrence in union political involvement.  A key example is the union support for cap and trade when it hurts everyone, especially the industries with strong union presence such as mining and manufacturing.  However, this is not the only factor concerning amnesty.  In fact, there is an economically rational reason for skilled labor unions to support amnesty.  This reason is bad for the economy as a whole and those not in skilled labor unions, but it can benefit skilled labor union rank-and-file members.

The reason why it may be economically rational for skilled labor unions to support amnesty for illegal aliens is quite similar to the reason why they support minimum wage increases.  This article focuses on skilled labor unions because most unions are skilled labor unions and because advocating these policies will potentially benefit skilled laborers at the expense of unskilled laborers.

One of the main reasons employers hire illegal aliens is to sidestep the costs of burdensome labor and tax laws.  If you pay an illegal alien under the table, you can sidestep minimum wage laws, tax laws, and other labor laws.  Since the illegal alien is violating the law by being in the country illegally and working here illegally, you have a case of mutually assured destruction if the illegal alien reports the employer for violating labor laws or the employer reports the illegal alien to the INS.  Thus, hiring an unskilled illegal alien can be far cheaper than hiring a legal unskilled employee.  Hiring multiple unskilled illegal aliens can be cheaper than hiring one legal skilled employee (e.g., skilled labor union member) to do the same task.

Skilled labor is in competition with unskilled labor in many industries.  For instance, say an unskilled laborer can make one widget per hour while a skilled laborer can make three of the same widgets in the same hour.  The labor cost per widget is the same, ceteris paribus, if you paid the unskilled laborer $5 per hour and the skilled laborer $15 per hour.  The labor cost is $5 per widget despite the skill-level of the employee, so it doesn’t matter whether you use skilled or unskilled labor.

But, suppose there is a minimum wage of $5 per hour for all employees.  At this minimum wage, nothing changes because both skilled and unskilled laborers already make at least the minimum wage.   Now, suppose the minimum wage is raised to $8 per hour.  The labor cost for an unskilled laborer to produce one widget is now $8.  However, the labor cost for a skilled laborer to produce one widget is still $5 since $15 per hour is still above the minimum wage.  Skilled and unskilled labor are substitute goods, so ceteris paribus, the labor cost per widget would rise to $8 for skilled labor as well, for a skilled labor wage of $24 per hour.  However, labor costs are not isolated from other costs, so we can’t consider them ceteris paribus.  If $8 per widget for labor costs is too high for the employer, the unskilled laborers will be priced out of their jobs and replaced by cheaper skilled laborers in lieu of raising the wages of both types of laborers.  A reduced supply of potential employees with acceptable labor costs (now only skilled laborers) will increase the wages of laborers overall and reduce the total quantity demanded of laborers.  Wages of laborers will increase, but won’t skilled laborers lose jobs?  Probably not, and since skilled laborers are taking the place of unskilled laborers, they’ll probably gain jobs.  Remember, the total quantity demanded of labor will decrease, but the share of skilled labor in the total will skyrocket.  Plus, in this example, the work of one skilled laborer can replace the work of three unskilled laborers, so you would expect higher cost but more productive (skilled) labor to replace lower cost but less productive (unskilled) labor, raising wages but lowering the number of laborers.  Skilled laborers gain employment when a substitute good, unskilled labor, is priced out of the market.

That is why skilled labor union rank-and-file members benefit from minimum wage increases despite the fact that they typically make far more than the minimum wage.  However, this raises unemployment for the economy as a whole, especially for unskilled laborers.  What’s good for skilled labor unions is bad for the country.

Now, how does this tie into the main topic of this article, amnesty for illegal aliens?  Most employed illegal aliens are unskilled laborers and many are either paid less than the minimum wage or their labor costs are otherwise less because paying them under the table allows employers to sidestep labor and tax laws.

 Granting amnesty to illegal aliens takes away the threat of mutually assured destruction for the now legal aliens or citizens.  They can now demand that their employer pays them the minimum wage over the table and follows all labor and tax laws since they no longer need to fear deportation from reporting their employer for violating labor and tax laws.

For the former illegal aliens, this is effectively a minimum wage increase for unskilled laborers, which will price many of them out of the market in favor of skilled laborers.  This benefits rank-and-file members of skilled labor unions, again at the expense of unskilled laborers and the economy as a whole, especially the former illegal aliens.  Additionally, former illegal aliens that are in fact skilled laborers will join skilled labor unions, increasing the declining memberships of private-sector skilled labor unions.

In summary, as is often the case, skilled labor unions benefit at the expense of unskilled laborers and the economy as a whole.  Granting amnesty to illegal aliens means skilled labor union employment will increase while overall employment decreases.  So, skilled labor union support for this policy is more than just liberal politics.  Although, like most liberal policies, it favors one group at the expense of all other groups.

Earth Day: You Don't Support Murder, Do You?

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Earth Day was founded by Ira Einhorn, the Unicorn Killer, to honor Lenin's 100th birthday. The Unicorn Killer killed Holly Maddux and stuffed her in a trunk where she mummified.  His lawyer was Arlen Spector, who would become a liberal senator until Pat Toomey defeated him in 2010 (hopefully). Supporting Earth Day is supporting a murderer. You don't support murder, do you?

Essentials to Restoring the Several States Back to Jeffersonian Federalism

Sunday, April 18, 2010

  • Repeal the 17th Amendment (Direct Election of U.S. Senators)
  • Repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax)
  • Bring Back Nullification As A Viable State Option For Unconstitutional Laws
  • Restore the Sovereignty of the Several States Protected by, but not Created by, the 10th Amendment
  • Repeal the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution
  • Repeal the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution
  • Roll back Hamiltonianism in all of its forms
  • Eliminate the Federal Reserve

Pay Your State Taxes in Federal Reserve Notes? Your State Violated Article I Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution!

Friday, April 16, 2010

Did your state withhold and/or accept payment from you for your state taxes in Federal Reserve Notes (i.e., paper dollars or bank accounts backed by them)?  If so, your state violated Article I Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Federal Reserve Notes and checking, savings, credit card, etc. accounts that are backed by them are fiat money and not backed by gold or silver coin.  Therefore, if your state allowed forced you to pay your taxes (i.e., debt to the state) with Federal Reserve Notes, your state violated the Article I Section 10 constitutional prohibition disallowing states to "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

In fact, this clause of the U.S. Constitution is the key tenet in the Tenth Amendment Center's strategy for "Ending the Fed From the Bottom Up."  It was in fact most of the founders' (not Hamilton's of course) intent that the federal government would also be prohibited from printing fiat (not backed by precious metals) money as well.  Congress is given the power to coin money in Article I Section 8, which at the time of the founding meant specie (backed by precious metals) money.  Printing fiat money is not an enumerated power and is therefore unconstitutional.  Judicial activism on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed for Federal Reserve Notes to become fiat money, despite this being unconstitutional.

I really recommended reading the Tenth Amendment Center's article mentioned above, "Ending the Fed From the Bottom Up," for further discussion and enlightment on this topic.

If SCOTUS Rules ObamaCare Constitutional, States Must Nullify It

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

First, some background information:

As I write this, 20 states are challenging or have confirmed they will be challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare (click the lawsuit links to read the complaints filed in court): 

A lawsuit filed by Florida AG Bill McCollum in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division on March 23, 2010 includes or soon will include Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia as plaintiffs versus the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; the U.S. Department of the Treasury; Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; the U.S. Department of Labor; and Hilda L. Solis, U.S. Secretary of the Department of Labor as defendants.

Virginia's great defender of liberty, AG Ken Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division on March 23, 2010 with the Commonwealth of Virginia ex. rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II as the plaintiff versus Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as the defendant.  AG Cuccinelli's suit is separate because of the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, which asserts Virginia's sovereignty against the most blatantly unconstitutional part of ObamaCare, the individual mandate.  Virginia is the only state so far with such legislation passed and signed into law, although many other states are working on similar measures.

Now, to the point at hand:

The Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, contained in SB283, SB311, SB417 and HB10, consists of the following language:

No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage except as required by a court or the Department of Social Services where an individual is named a party in a judicial or administrative proceeding. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage. This section shall not apply to individuals voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act. This section shall not apply to students being required by an institution of higher education to obtain and maintain health insurance as a condition of enrollment. Nothing herein shall impair the rights of persons to privately contract for health insurance for family members or former family members.
This is a great first start to nullify ObamaCare within the Commonwealth of Virginia and provide the Commonwealth and its citizens legal standing to sue the federal government and attempt to get ObamaCare declared unconstitutional in court.  But, what if some of these suits make it to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and they declare ObamaCare constitutional in a massively disgraceful example of judicial activism?  Should the states listen to the SCOTUS ruling and just give up?

The Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act doesn't go far enough to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth at this point.  At this point, any state that wishes to protect its citizens and sovereignty will need to pass something like the Federal Health Care Nullification Act proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center:
An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.

SECTION 1. The legislature of the State of ____________ finds that:

1. The People of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more.

2. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.

3. The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of _____________ to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”


A new section of law to be codified in the [STATE] Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” within the limits of this State.

C. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.

D. Any public officer or employee of the State of ____________ that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding two (2) years or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment.

E. Any aggrieved party shall also have a private action against any person violating the provisions of subsections (C) or (D).

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
The most important addition in this proposed legislation is that it attempts to block federal enforcement of the unconstitutional law through harsh criminal and civil penalties for those who attempt to enforce the provisions of ObamaCare.  Federal employees who attempt to enforce ObamaCare would be guilty of a felony and state employees guilty of a misdemeanor and both subject to civil suit by the aggrieved party.  This would hopefully deter federal and state agents from enforcing ObamaCare for fear of personal criminal and civil consequences to the federal or state agent him or herself, not just to his or her agency.

But, if SCOTUS rules ObamaCare constitutional, doesn't the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prevent nullifcation of ObamaCare?

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The founders never intended SCOTUS to be the sole arbiter of constitutionality.  The is no enumeration of this power to SCOTUS anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.  This power was seized for SCOTUS by SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison (1803) by the Hamiltonian Chief Justice John Marshall in a gross power grab, Hamiltonian style.  Many of the founding fathers envisioned that states and each of the federal branches individually would share this role through competition.  This power is not an enumerated power of SCOTUS, but an unconstitutional seizure that has gone on for far too long.

The states have every right to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional and not supreme over their own laws because Obamacare was not made in "pursuance" to the enumerated powers given to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.

Remember the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 The states can and must nullify ObamaCare if SCOTUS does not strike it down.

American Idol President to Appear on...American Idol?

Monday, April 12, 2010

This just in...

Barack Hussein Obama and his leading lady will appear in their most important roles yet...the roles they were destined to play...the American Idol president will appear on...American Idol!

He's been worshipped as an idol for years now by the left...now he's going to appear on the show the left uses to pick their idols...American Idol.

He was so great...he became an American Idol without ever appearing on American Idol...until now!

Leftist news agencies have proposed picking our presidents like American Idol...now the American Idol president...on American Idol!

Maybe he'll impress Simon...with a few verses of...Barack Hussein Obama...Mmm...Mmm...Mmm!

Though he'll probably just make a pitch for charity...while his own half-brother lives in a hut...on $12 a year!

The shallow celebrity president...showcased on America's showcase...for shallow celebrity worship!

Barack Hussein Obama...appearing on Idol Gives Back...though the idol won't give back our freedoms!

Barack Hussein Obama...further degrading the office of the presidency...Wednesday, April 21, 2010 at 8:00 P.M. ET on FOX.

Divorce the Leadership, Not the Party (No 3rd Party)

Thursday, April 8, 2010

This post is in response to the post, Maybe it's time for a divorce..., by Marc V. at Considered musings and random commentary.

While I agree about Tiger being a sleazebag, etc. and Marc V.'s insights on fidelity, marriage, etc., I strongly disagree with Marc V.'s call to divorce the Republican party and start a third party.

The "Republican Party" has strayed, cheated, lied, been condescending, gambled, spent money on members of other parties, etc. Repeatedly. Long before Reagan, but especially since. How long should voters stay in an abusive relationship?

It may be time to throw the bum out...

Maybe it IS time for a divorce --er, third party. Get out there and date again. Find the right politician, not the loons, crazies, shiftless, druggies, or any of the other in the pantheon of low-lifes willing to take over our money and our lives.

How many of us have pled with representatives to NOT abuse us? Not just republicans, but democrats alike. DON'T DO TARP (did it anyway). DON'T DO BAILOUTS (spent our money on harlots and booze, and then gave the booze to underage boys along with the keys to OUR cars). DON'T DO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE! DON'T DO Crap and Tax! DON'T DO ...

The list goes on, and politicians on both sides ignore the people they are married to... the voters.

Maybe it's time.
I have many concerns with this line of thinking:

1) A third party is a guaranteed way to split the vote and give the liberals a permanent majority and therefore destroy the country further than they've already destroyed it.

2) Parties don't stray, cheat, lie, condescend, gamble, or spend money on members of other parties, only people (i.e., the leadership, members, etc.) can do that.  Political parties are collections of individuals with (hopefully) common ideals organized to further these ideals using the economies of scale that only a large organization can produce.  The leadership and certain liberal members of the party have committed these acts, but not the party itself.  The party is not the problem, its leadership and certain members are the problem.

3) Any political party will become a bureaucracy when it becomes large enough and experiences success.  If the TEA Party became a political party, the same problems would soon occur in it as in all political parties, if it ever became a success (see #4).

4) There's a reason why no third party has been successful in America politically:  It's incredibly difficult to get on the ballot with equal footing as the first two parties in most states.  There are so many hurdles to overcome, that we'd have a better chance in totally overhauling the Republican party to be the extreme conservative / constitutional party it needs to be than to start from scratch.

5) I think Marc V. is confused regarding TARP, Bailouts, ObamaLackOfCare, Crap and Tax, Porkulus, etc.  There was way more outrage after the travesty of TARP than before it.  I wish there was more outrage on the right before it passed, but that simply wasn't the case (regretably).  Regarding the rest, have you looked at the vote counts by party for these?  Really?  Are you really going to blame the Republicans for these?  Really?

6) I support divorcing (i.e., voting out of office, firing, or impeaching) the people in the Republican party that have committed these acts, not the party itself.  What are we, cowards afraid to fight?  If we can't fight to take back our party from liberals in disguise, how can we take back our country from liberals in disguise and in plain sight?

7) Look at the conservative take back of the Republican Party of Virginia.  With Pat Mullins at the helm, we swept the statewide offices with hardcore constitutional conservatives.  It can be done! 

In summary, divorce the leadership, not the party (no 3rd party).

LoudounI.com Poll Incompetence: If the members of Loudoun's Board of Supervisors were all up for re-election today, who would you want voted out of office?

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while, I've been dealing with some family issues.

I'm a little late on this topic, but I have some interesting insights on it.  Recently, LoudounI.com had the following online poll:

If the members of Loudoun's Board of Supervisors were all up for re-election today, who would you want voted out of office?

Stevens Miller (D-Dulles), extreme leftist, was winning the poll (to be voted out of office).  Then, a voting-bot was obviously put into use by the left-wingers to try to force Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling), conservative patriot to win the poll.  I seriously doubt this was illegal since the bots were merely voting, not trying to cause a Denial of Service or gain access to server.  Rather, it exposes incompetence in the management of the online poll because there are relatively simple ways to prevent this from happening if the webmaster put enough value in the poll to take the time to secure it.

The poll uses (it's still open) a simple HTML form that submits an HTTP POST request to transmit the vote and an ID for the poll itself, not the particular vote.  It is very easy to generate an HTTP POST request from any computer or server, submit it to the poll server, and vote, over and over again automatically.

One way the webmaster could deter this without out too much server-side tracking is to include two hidden form fields, a timestamp and an encoded version of the timestamp that was hashed with another value by a function on the server.  Each time someone loads the poll web page, the values would be different.  When the poll is submitted, the timestamp and the encoded version can checked for tampering (the timestamp field in the submitted vote re-encoded by the server should equal the encoded version in the submitted vote).  To detect machine submissions, use the timestamp to make sure the vote wasn't submitted faster than humanly possible.

No online poll can ever be considered accurate, but polls where the webmaster doesn't even attempt to deter vote-bots are totally worthless.

Until LoudounI.com, secures their online polls, their polls aren't worth the time to read the results.

UPDATE:   I just saw this article: Editorial: Listening to You

This week’s poll took off, largely due to its asking readers to announce the support (or lack thereof) of the Board of Supervisors and its members. While we feel that these surveys are valuable in taking a “room temperature” of public sentiment, the polls are not intended as a scientific study. As with any online poll, there is certainly the possibility of multiple votes being cast by the same person.
The red section above should read:
As with any online poll [ON OUR WEBSITE], there is certainly the possibility [GUARANTEE] of multiple votes being cast by the same person.
If you don't at least attempt to stop poll-bots, you're guaranteed to have them destroy the results of your poll whenever the two sides of an issue get fired up on a contentious issue.