Declining wages for poor young males drew them to crime as crack ravaged inner cities during the economic boom of the late 1980s. Low wages and the lure of crack profits thus discouraged young men from finding honest work. Economists and criminologists who can refer to data from all 50 U.S. states to help them understand what is going on have found little indication of a strong link between economic growth and crime. They instead credit some of the sharp fall in crime in the U.S. in the 1990s to larger police forces and harsher prison sentences. More stringent laws and larger government expenditures have also played an important role in the fall in the crime rate.

The truth is that broad figures on crime conceal large differences in specific crimes, each with its own particular explanation. Crimes, broadly speaking, have been falling for a decade. Car thefts are down because cars are harder to steal. Modern televisions and other home electronic equipments tend to be either too large to steal or too cheap to bother with.

That should take the focus away from crime. The economic downturn is threatening an increase in crime, illegal immigration, and extremism, putting further strain on tight police budgets. Illegal working is forecast to increase as migrants’ opportunities for legal employment decline and businesses seek to save costs.

Economic downturn also risks increasing the appeal of far right extremism and racism. Experiencing racism can be one of the factors that can lead to people becoming terrorists.

Local police resources could come under increasing pressure. The ever increasing gas prices might leave the police forces facing financial pressures.

So if the war against crime is to be won, then more stringent laws and increased federal, state, and local spending on law enforcement are needed. In other words, crime declines not because the economy is booming but because the government passes stringent laws and spends money – larger prisons, more police, and tougher punishments.

An article, “Immigration: Issues and Perspectives for Businesses,” by Sarena Davila insists that immigration can be beneficial for the U.S. economy. Immigrants are a source of labor at relatively low cost. The high cost of labor has forced many U.S. companies to move their operations to countries like China and India where the cost of labor is much lower. If labor is available at lower costs, most American companies would continue to operate from here rather than move their operations abroad. If a worker is skilled and meets the requirements of the company at a lower cost, any company will hire that worker. In this era of globalization, American workers must get competitive or they stand to loose. The real concern here should be if the immigrants are paid sub-standard wages on account of their immigrant status. It is important to continue to encourage those who want to come to the U.S. to do so legally and continue to contribute to the economy.

Immigrants often fill undesirable jobs – the jobs American workers do not want to do – or jobs of American workers who drift into higher paying occupations. This implies there is no loss in jobs as immigrants do not take jobs away from currently employed citizens.

American businesses who hire illegal workers are actually breaking the law because employers who hire illegal workers also violate immigration laws when misled by false documents.

To tackle this problem, a mere legal mechanism to check immigration is not sufficient. Most immigrants come to the United States looking for jobs and end up in less skilled jobs. There is a real shortage of less skilled workers in the United States. Add to that the minimum wage laws. These two factors act as an incentive for U.S. businesses to hire immigrant workers – both legal and illegal. Immigrant workers who want to come and work in the United States will do anything it takes to get here. They want to get here because they know they will get work no matter what their immigration status is – legal or illegal. It’s simple economics. There is demand for such workers. So long as there is a demand, these workers will continue to come to the United States looking for work. Instead of just concentrating on legislation to tackle this issue, the government should address the root of the problem – the demand for such workers. If there is no demand, these workers would look at other countries. But then again the government cannot just put a complete stop to the hiring of immigrant workers. These workers are needed if the U.S. economy is to maintain its competitiveness.

When the government gets cracking on illegal immigrants, the main opponents of the government action are the human right activists and other immigrant rights associations. Local law enforcement authorities generally crack down on illegal immigrants in their jurisdiction and the businesses that employ them. Business caught hiring undocumented workers generally have their licenses revoked. Now businesses have started resisting the government attempts to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Businesses and the government have benefited handsomely from the present flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S., but they refuse to reimburse local and state authorities and taxpayers for the related costs. Undocumented workers illegally hired by U.S. businesses contribute more than $8 billion to Social Security and $2 billion to Medicare. All Social Security Administration projections and budgets include, and rely heavily on, the billions in annual contributions from undocumented immigrant workers. Social Security would have a significant solvency problem without this revenue.

There is now fierce political pressure from business lobbies, immigrant rights groups, and members of Congress. This has resulted in a steady retreat by the government from workplace enforcement in the 20 years since it became illegal to hire undocumented workers in this country.

Arizona has some of the nation’s most rabidly anti-immigrant politicians and enacted some stringent employer punishments last year. But a business group has succeeded in gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that could soften some of the stringent punishments.

Riverside, New Jersey, is a perfect example of how the crackdown on illegal immigrants has adversely affected local businesses. In July 2006, the Riverside Township Committee unanimously passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which made hiring or renting property to an illegal immigrant punishable by a $2,000 fine and jail time. Since then, town officials estimate, as many as 2,500 immigrants, or nearly one-third of Riverside’s population, have fled. Downtown merchants and restaurateurs report declines in revenue of as much as 70%. The ordinance was never actually enforced. It was almost immediately tied up in court after 62 Riverside business and property owners filed a lawsuit claiming that the Illegal Immigration Relief Act was unconstitutional and improperly superseded federal authority.

Without the cheap labor of the illegal immigrants, the local economy in many towns and cities would virtually collapse. The irony is that while the nation requires the immigrant’s cheap labor, the nation does not want the immigrant.