Imagine if there were some productive input, say for example a source of energy, that was cheaper than all of the other alternatives and allowed many businesses to operate with lower costs. Say this productive input was also illegal, but did not cause any externalities. Would right now, in the midst of a terrible recession, be a good time to crack down on this illegal input that many businesses depended on? This is what the Obama administration is doing with their crackdown on illegal immigration, and it is hurting businesses.
A recent story from the New York Times highlights how economically damaging this can be to successful businesses. Michel Malecot, a restaurant owner, faces 30 years in prison, $4 million in fines, and the seizure of his assets for hiring illegal immigrants at his restaurant. The governments indictment is causing him serious economic distress:
Since the indictment, Mr. Malecot said, he has lost at least $500,000 in catering jobs. Catering accounts for about 70 percent of the French Gourmet’s revenues, which so far this year amount to roughly $4.5 million, Mr. Malecot said.
In an industry with that employs an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, Mr. Malecot is not alone:
In June, the owner of two Maryland restaurants who pleaded guilty to hiring and harboring illegal immigrants was ordered to forfeit to the government more than $700,000 in assets — in addition to his motorcycle — and faces up to 10 years in prison. In November, a restaurateur in Mississippi who had pleaded guilty to hiring illegal immigrants was sentenced to a year in prison and a year of supervised release. Combined fines in the case, shared among several defendants, amount to $600,000.
I understand the rule of law is important and all that, but is there some pressing reason why choose now, of all times, to crack down on illegal economic activity? Note this is not just Obama fighting illegal immigration as previous presidents have, but “[u]nder a policy that went into effect in April 2009, the Obama administration is taking a much tougher stance on employers who hire illegal immigrants than any administration in decades”.
Now would actually be a good time to be really lax with illegal immigration, not crack down on it. People seem to understand that limitations on international flows of capital, aka protectionism, is a bad idea in a recession. This is true of international flows of labor as well: preventing labor from moving to it’s highest use will reduce global economic growth.

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ September 12th, 2010 at 10:00 am
blokeinfrance
I must pay more attention. As I began to read this, I assumed you were talking about oil.
Illegal immigration may be good for the economy but it is bad for wage labourers. These latter have the vote, the “economy” doesn’t.
Oil is good for both, but BP doesn’t have a vote either.
Sunday ~ September 12th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Edmigper
Undocumented workers taking the jobs legal residents might (with emphasis) reluctantly take would be a problem if we weren’t taking advantage of the opportunity to retrain our workforce. Sadly we aren’t; we could be training our unemployed for the future but that sounds like it’s too hard.
Sunday ~ September 12th, 2010 at 10:49 am
jazzbumpa
I understand the rule of law is important and all that,
Not really, or why this post?
I know you’re going to go all lump-of-labor on me again, but that still has not been proven to be a fallacy; and, meanwhile, we have 1) U6 near 17%, and 2) severe disinflation, tottering on the brink of deflation. So paying a decent wage to a legal worker, resulting in slightly higher prices is not a bad thing.
Those sad souls you mention above are not victims, they are criminals. (I happen to think our criminal justice system is a ridiculous failure, but that’s different story.)
Maybe the current administration has to overachieve on illegal immigration to undo the laxity of the W admin, which cast a blind eye on anything that benefited business at the expense of workers – here by importing unemployment, concurrent with tax breaks for exporting employment.
For sure, the mood of the country is anti-illegal immigrant – at least the ones who have brown skins, are forced into undesirable jobs at 3rd-world wage rates, and stuffed 12 to an apartment. Strangely, you don’t see much fervor about the ones from Sweden or Belarus.
Also, the choice here is to go after the ones who are profiting from the exploitation of the illegals and therefore the root of the problem, rather than the illegal workers who are the victims here. Why do yo have a problem with that?
Bloke – Illegal immigration is only good for those who profit from it. Economics is not the win-win situation that is is purported to be. BP can’t vote, but they sure as hell can buy public opinion, and possibly even elections. In this country we have the tea party, which is pretty much owned and operated by big oil.
Here comes fascism,
JzB
Sunday ~ September 12th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
blokeinfrance
Jez, you may be right about economics not being the win-win we hope. But commerce certainly is win-win, otherwise we’d all still be living in caves.
Illegal immigration profits the immigrant and his employer, and in many cases (Philippines?) profits those back home as well. It’s more uncertain that it has any benefits for the indigenous labouring class, the tax base (all undeclared) or wider society.
Surely it’s not fascistic to point this out? And since the illegal immigrant and fraudulent employer are in cahoots, what is prejudicial in targeting the easiest mark of the pair?
Sunday ~ September 12th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
jazzbumpa
But commerce certainly is win-win, otherwise we’d all still be living in caves.
This seems like a false choice to me. We were out of caves long before Tyson was factory-farming chickens. The reason that economics is not win-win is that commerce often is not, either.
And much of commerce historically has been murderously exploitative. Consider the slave trade, or Spanish conquests in So. America and the Caribbean, sweat shops in Asia, coal mining and the Pullman strike right here at home.
Sure, illegal immigration profits the immigrant – otherwise he wouldn’t be here. But that is only the case because conditions at home are so miserable, and they are desperate. And it is absolutely a disadvantage to the indigenous working class, if for no other reason than loweing wage scales.
My reference to fascism is the shift to business of control (some would say ownership) of government. And their tea party minions are authoritarian followers – the enablers of fascism.
Targeting the easiest mark is not only prejudicial on its face, it is going after a symptom, rather than the root cause, and doomed to failure as a policy.
JzB
Monday ~ September 13th, 2010 at 5:10 am
nyd
@jzb: “business of control…of government”. Like Chrysler/GM?
Monday ~ September 13th, 2010 at 5:15 am
nyd
Adam — see this story. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-10-immigration10_ST_N.htm
“The Obama administration is changing the federal immigration enforcement strategy…The changes focus enforcement on immigrants who have committed serious crimes…”
Monday ~ September 13th, 2010 at 7:47 am
jazzbumpa
@nyd -
business of control…of government”. Like Chrysler/GM?
Sorry, that’s just dumb. Fascism is characterized by control of govt by business. You’d have it exactly backwards, if what you said was right, which is isn’t. Gov’t bailed out those two companies. It never had operational control of GM, or any control of Chrysler. It gave those companies temporary financial backing to get them back on their feet, and now has no ownership of either.
Re: serious crimes – Yes, focus enforcement where the serious crimes are, irrespective of who the criminals are. That sort of makes legal sense.
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ September 13th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Apex
“and now has no ownership of either.”
WRONG
The Federal Govt did and currently does own 61% of GM, a majority and controlling interest.
http://www.redherring.com/home/26407
GM is also still subject to the govt pay czar approval on compensation due to the “exceptional assistance they are still getting from the bailout fund” as noted here:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2017516,00.html
When ones speaks authoritatively on an issue in a manner and tone so as to put down and disparage those of a different view, it’s best if you are in possession of the facts you cite lest you look like a horse’s hind quarter.
Tuesday ~ September 14th, 2010 at 5:20 am
nyd
@jzb – oh were it that I were being dumb. I wish. The Chrysler bailout cost over $400K per employee. Stop and think about that. Globally, there is overcapacity in auto production. Something like 7mm Americans had already lost their jobs in the recession. What could possibly justify spending that much preserving the jobs of Chrysler employees? And what about GM employees? As I recall, they paid something like a tenth of what the government did for their equity in the new company. Yet at the same time, the president was on TV telling the nation he was working to secure the best possible deal for taxpayers. And that’s just autos. We haven’t mentioned banks, though Simon Johnson does a much better job of explaining that than I could. If you prefer, read Matt Taibibi (sp?).
I don’t believe the US is fascist – you used that term, not me. I believe there is massive (i.e. broad and deep) political corruption, and those who contribute the campaign dollars – be that the UAW or the banks – get favorable treatment. That is what I mean by “business” control of govt.
None of this is partisan, and you shouldn’t infer any political preferences from this or my other comment.
Wednesday ~ September 15th, 2010 at 2:43 am
Eric Calabros
30 years for just hiring illegal immigrants? 30 years? now I understand why 2 in every 10 live in prison in your country