Economic effects of tighter border security

Found this story from yesterday’s L.A. Times to be interesting. Apparently, the tightening of the southern border is having such an effect on nationwide farming that the Bush administration is now working “quickly and quietly” to modify current regulations for visas for immigrant farmworkers.

“It is important for the farm sector to have access to labor to stay competitive,” said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. “As the southern border has tightened, some producers have a more difficult time finding a workforce, and that is a factor of what is going on today.”

The farm work force is down about 20%.

Almost three-quarters of farmworkers are thought to be illegal immigrants.

In turn, farmers and agriculture officials are warning of price hikes as crops lie rotting in some fields.

The California Farm Bureau says farmers are “squeaking by” in California this year, but say immigration crackdowns have created a chronic worker shortage that could be devastating in future years, causing produce prices to rise.

With the US economy in a very fragile state, it will be necessary to exercise some level of caution in the actions taken in these matters. Solutions are not as simple as saying “pay a higher wage” and workers will come to those jobs. The economic balances and effects of inequity need to be considered carefully. It is higher costs that end up being passed to consumers who then either pay those higher prices, choose alternatives or go without. In some cases, workers in other sectors may require higher paying jobs to keep up with the rising cost of living. In turn some of these companies will go out of business, raising unemployment rates and creating additional obstacles to economic recovery as well as greater need for federal assistance on the backs of a lesser number of taxpayers.

While this may be an oversimplification for the sake of keeping the information accessible, the principles behind it are quite sound.  I still think tightening the borders is necessary, but additional actions are also required in order to maintain the necessary balances to our economy.

How do we propose to balance all of these issues that must be addressed simultaneously?

Enough

Over the past several days, I’ve been trying to find out more about what really went on “behind-the-scenes” of Autumn Fest.

But, despite having received a good deal of information, I began to wonder something … if more time was taken to get to the bottom of this, what should the consequences be?

I mean, how serious is this, really, in the context of everything going on in the Village?

So what that the Trustees didn’t get official invites in their packets?! Perhaps in the future there should be no expectation to either send or receive written invites to such events. After all, the Board was made aware of the event, given specific details about the event, and it was a Village coordinated event. Hopefully eliminating written invites in the future, we can make sure that no one’s feelings get hurt if there is misunderstandings or miscues that occur.

And, is it really a big deal that Trustees Sigwalt and Teeter participated in the parade, but didn’t pay the $10 participant fee?

Community pride and desire to be involved should have compelled everyone on the Board to participate appropriately. That some didn’t speaks more about their true feelings, but do any of these things require disciplinary action? Nope.

So what the heck is the Board doing wasting more time at meetings arguing about it?

The same goes for this talk of disciplinary action over private conversations. One should wonder what Trustee Sigwalt’s plan is to monitor all conversations — emails, phone calls, letters, or even conversations around the dinner table — of the Village President and the Trustees; or any of the Village staff for that matter? But, the idea is so preposterous that it shouldn’t be raised again.

Now, let’s start dealing with the real business of the Village!