You go in to some detail about the circumstances for and around the ag workers who receive welfare payments but you still don't do anything to show that it subsidizes the employer. (Makes it so the employer can pay them less.)
Showing an area with many low income workers, a number of whom get welfare payments, is not the same as showing that the welfare payments subsidize the employers in any way.
If the welfare payments didn't happen then, at least to the extent they either make more than minimum wage, currently work under the table, or would accept under the table work (which would also be more likely if they didn't receive any welfare payments) it would be easier for the employer to get the current or potential employee to work.
Also to the extent they are illegal there are many forms of assistance for themselves they are not eligible for (this is mitigated by the fact that their kids born here can be eligible), and to the extent they can defraud the government it hardly makes them easier to hire.
the Framers, who howled for cheap labor, and got it, either via illegal immigration to start with, or later through the various "guest worker"/amnesty, whatever, and indeed those farmers have for several decades benefited by having cheaper labor than they could have gotten local whites to work for.
That's "the farmers benefit from cheap and often illegal labor", not "the farmers are subsidized by welfare payments." |
