Op is describing very real cost shifting that happens. Certain corporations get large benefits from migrant workers but they are human and have to live somewhere so the cost of housing and feeding them gets shifted to adjacent communities. These adjacent communities get hit twice because migrant labor also decreases salaries for locals. People who are in the high earning buckets benefit from the cheaper wages and abundant work force for construction, landscaping maid services.
Op should blame the people in the high earning bucket. It is ridiculous to blame the poor migrant workers in this situation - its not like they are living high on the hog. They are, by your description, victims as well, employed only because they can be treated more poorly than local people.
Op is in fact criticizing the policy those people benefit from. Just because the migrants are used as human pawns doesn't mean the policy critique is invalid.
Funny, I stayed at a hotel in a small town in Texas recently that was across the street from a construction site. The hotel owner said that since Trump was elected that occupancy was way down. Lots of the workers at the construction site were undocumented and stayed at the hotel. Since Trump's election, nothing had happened at the construction site and the hotel's future was in question.
> These adjacent communities get hit twice because migrant labor also decreases salaries for locals.
If the migrant labor is filling in labor gaps, then no, this is not true. Seems the evidence also disagrees: "Consistently, economists have found that an increase in immigration rates does not cause a drop in wages for U.S.-born workers" [1]
Please provide evidence that your statement is true even in any instance, let alone generally true. The economic impact of migrant labor is quite real, and positive, in terms of taxes and money spent back in the community.
