"Stopping illegal immigration would mean that wages would have to rise to a level where Americans would want the jobs currently taken by illegal aliens"
About this Quote
Sowell’s line is engineered to puncture the feel-good myth that immigration enforcement is a cost-free moral gesture. It drags the debate out of the realm of slogans and into the blunt arithmetic of labor markets: if a sector relies on workers who accept lower pay and weaker bargaining power, removing that workforce doesn’t magically preserve today’s prices and profit margins. Something has to give, and Sowell nominates the most politically uncomfortable “something”: wages.
The intent is less to litigate border policy than to expose a coalition of convenience. Restrictionists can posture as defenders of native workers, but many of the loudest beneficiaries of illegal immigration are employers and consumers who enjoy cheaper labor and cheaper goods. The subtext is accusatory: people who demand crackdowns often don’t actually want the economic consequences of a real crackdown. They want the symbolism, not the invoice.
Context matters because Sowell is a market-oriented economist with a long-running interest in how incentives overpower rhetoric. The phrase “would have to rise” is doing heavy work: it frames wage increases not as charity but as a forced adjustment once a hidden subsidy (vulnerable labor) disappears. The provocation sits in “where Americans would want the jobs,” implying that reluctance isn’t about dignity alone; it’s about compensation relative to alternatives.
It also quietly challenges a popular narrative that immigration is only about “taking jobs.” For Sowell, the more revealing question is why certain jobs are structured to require a workforce with fewer options and fewer protections.
The intent is less to litigate border policy than to expose a coalition of convenience. Restrictionists can posture as defenders of native workers, but many of the loudest beneficiaries of illegal immigration are employers and consumers who enjoy cheaper labor and cheaper goods. The subtext is accusatory: people who demand crackdowns often don’t actually want the economic consequences of a real crackdown. They want the symbolism, not the invoice.
Context matters because Sowell is a market-oriented economist with a long-running interest in how incentives overpower rhetoric. The phrase “would have to rise” is doing heavy work: it frames wage increases not as charity but as a forced adjustment once a hidden subsidy (vulnerable labor) disappears. The provocation sits in “where Americans would want the jobs,” implying that reluctance isn’t about dignity alone; it’s about compensation relative to alternatives.
It also quietly challenges a popular narrative that immigration is only about “taking jobs.” For Sowell, the more revealing question is why certain jobs are structured to require a workforce with fewer options and fewer protections.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|---|
| Source | Later attribution: Thomas Sowell (Thomas Sowell) modern compilation
Evidence:
ofit this means that their products cost a million dollars more than they would have cost without profits it never occurs to such people that these products might cost several million dol |
More Quotes by Thomas
Add to List
