If all the illegals went home, your food-industry buddy would still be in business (we’d still have to eat wouldn’t we?), wages would be higher. (It’s amazing how many “progressives” want people to get paid higher wages but aren’t eager for employers to pay higher wages. What is it about transitive verbs that they don’t get?).

So obviously American unemployment would be decline. Just different people and different complexions at the work stations. Some of those complexions would even belong to that group of people that the immigration lobby hints darkly are too lazy work hard. Others would be that complexion that the immigration lobby hints brightly are too stuck up to work hard. And of course others, as David Card tells us will, will have the same complexion — just an earlier version and will make more money. (Many people think it’s OK for that complexion to earn less because their station in life is to earn less money. That’s why they came.) It pays to know the race code of the immigration lobbyist.

But less unemployment is less inefficiency.

Your first point is well-taken. I happen to believe that both laws are enforceable, but immigration laws are much easier to do.

Checking employment records for false or stolen social security numbers is relatively easy. As soon Simpson-Mazoli went into effect, the Social Security Administration started noticing discrepancies in its records and started generating “no match letters.”

The Chamber of Commerce went to court to block use of no match letters for workplace enforcement a few years ago. The Chamber of Commerce was not there to raise its labor costs. Same story on e-verify; the people who want to block it are not afraid that it will be ineffective. They are worried that it will work.

On the other hand, enforcing minimum wage laws, whether miserly or generous requires lots of inspectors and constant monitoring. It can work if the penalties for violations are serious enough and if a LOT of resources. I support it, but it’s the more difficult of the two to enforce.

However, the “Law of Supply and Demand” is self-enforcing – which is why the Chamber of Commerce fears it when it is allowed to work for their employees. That is why they scream for more “guest workers” or “essential workers” whenever a “shortage of labor” (the mechanism that drives wage increases in a market system) threatens.

But you seem to be confused about the supply & demand model. What you call my ASSUMPTIONS are the RESULT of the standard supply demand exercise applied to a simultaneous increase in a binding minimum wage and the labor supply. My point is that the increase in unemployment is invariant with respect to the assumptions. Since the number of jobs is fixed by the minimum wage, every new worker will cause a one-for-one increase in unemployment. That is a result.

And I question those assumptions about the effects of a higher minimum wage. People would have more money to spend, which creates more jobs, not fewer. Tax revenues would increase. Some prices would go up, but that would be offset in a progressive way (the people with the higher minimum wage would now be in a better position to pay the higher prices, while richer people can already afford to).

I guess the Malthusian argument about higher wages attracting more immigrants makes sense, but my intuition is that it’s not right.

Either the government is incapable of enforcing the laws, in which case, immigration is inevitable; or it is capable of enforcing the laws, in which case, taxes are inevitable.

There is another irreconcilable inconsistency in the modern pseudo-Democratic position on immigration.

Those arguing that minimum wage laws do not cause unsustainable increases in unemployment must argue that labor market supply and demand are inelastic: prices don’t cause large quantity changes (and vice versa).

Those who argue that mass immigration does not seriously depress wages must assert that labor market supply and demand are elastic: prices cause large quantity changes (and vice versa).

Can’t technically reconcile those two things. It’s like saying that you are for motherhood and against sex.

But there is no question that if you try to combine mass immigration and serious minimum wage laws — you just get mass unemployment – whatever assumptions you make about elasticities. (If you know how to use supply and demand curves — try it! — there is only one possible outcome of combining the two.) That’s why the immigrants brought to France on the dishonest pretext that that their labor was needed — riot and burn cars because they can’t find work.

Don’t bother to argue that they can’t find work because of “discrimination.” Discrimination is unfair competition. If you claim discrimination you are just admitting that the immigrants came to compete for the same jobs as the natives.

Besides – the minimum wage is a poverty-level wage. Enforce the minimum wage laws (which don’t even apply to many industries –like seasonal agricultural labor) that attract illegal immigrants and people will still be poor and without health insurance. Too many people and not enough jobs!

But if all the illegal immigrants ever did leave for one reason or another – and you would have a labor shortage. Read a freshman economic textbook – labor shortages cause an increase in the general wage level. Employers simply have to compete to attract the available labor force.

Romney was lucky – he lost the election and is not trapped in his campaign lies.

But woe to the victor – his frauds are exposed!

Signed — A Truman Democrat (and the other two surviving Truman Dems both agree with me!)

I say train those ICE people in accounting and let them audit books instead of making life even more miserable for those poor, poor people. Plantation owners won’t run away when they show up.

A realistic minimum wage is a great idea in any case, not just for these people. According to Dean Baker, the minimum wage would be almost $20 today if it had kept pace with inflation and productivity increases since the late ’60s.

If an employer cannot attract an engineer (or economist) at $8 an hour, he raises the pay until someone decides it is worthwhile to take the job. The same should be true of jobs requiring stamina, patience, or stalwart effort, but not just education.

Cutting meat, for example, is a skilled and dangerous job. The answer is to pay more for disagreeable work, not cheat the system with undocumented workers. The pay has to increase until it reaches the level that creates demand among applicants. That’s true capitalism.

I wouldn’t cut meat for $7.25 an hour, but at $40 it starts to make sense, and at $100 an hour the line would be a mile long. And if that raised the price of meat, so be it. Our American society is not about living on the cheap, but instead maintaining fairness and justice in all spheres, including compensation.