Quote Originally Posted by xblackdogx
Illegal immigrants employ jobs such as restaurants, lawn service, construction, agriculture, and hotels. Let's say business owners are punished for hiring illegal workers (getting paid 5-6). They all have to hire native-born or legal immigrants on the books which they pay (10-12, which actually costs 15-17/hr b/c of taxes the companies pay for each worker).

Now think about the hundreds of thousands of jobs, and see how they effect the the profits of ALL restaurants (pizza to steak joints), lawn service (cutting grass or removing trees), construction (of houses, businesses), agriculture (apples to avocados), and hotels (holiday in to the hyatt).... they all would have to pay over 10 dollars more for EACH worker, how do you think they will pay? higher prices to consumers!

We are shooting ourselves in the foot not letting them work here. Extreme inflation along with regular wages staying the same is bad news for everyone. Who is going to be happy when we cannot go one day without at least one product being produced or served by illegal immigrants, and now pay a much higher price for it while you're still making the same as last year.
It's a good argument, but I thought just to level the playing field I would offer some arguments from the other side of the table (I personally am not going to state which side I agree with)

1) Hiring illegal immigrants forces American (unskilled) workers out of jobs they could have potentially had. The gap you mentioned of $10 more for each worker is instead being doled out by the government in the form of unemployment insurance, so there are no extra expenses (in total). Yes, there are more expenses for restaurant owners but less for the government. Maybe a temporary solution would be a subsidy for restaurant owners? I don't know, I'm just giving some ideas.

2) Yes, prices will rise with the rising costs for the restaurant owners, and these costs will be bore by the consumers. But consider, less people start eating at restaurants because it becomes too expensive. Say now instead of eating out 4 times a week, they cut back to once a week and cook the other days (realize food prices haven't changed, just labor prices). Restaurants will be forced to cut their costs until the prices are cutthroat, and competition will drive down price not quite as low as it was before, but almost as much.

So in other words, the point in 2) that is being made is that consumers will bare minimal amounts of the cost, but owning a restaurant will be less profitable. This seems kind of gloomy, but as production rises, the market tends to ameliorate these kinds of problems. In the short term you would probably only see a change in the amount of diners and lower-end restaurants that are opening.

Now feel free to choose which side you agree with. I think both sides of the argument have their merits.

Best,
GC