In “Ghettoside,”an exploration of black homicides in Los Angeles, Jill Leovy points out that Hispanic immigrants are pushing African Americans out of the job market. “Although public employment remained a bright spot, by the 2000s, black people had lower labor-market participation than their Hispanic counterparts, who as a group were less educated, and they still lived largely separate from whites, crowded into their own private Rust Belts. This fit a national pattern. Blacks lived in figurative walled cities; Hispanics did not. Black people had long been vastly more segregated from white people than Hispanics and were more concentrated. In fact, black people and remain more crowded together and isolated much longer than any other racial group or ethnic group in America. ‘Black segregation was permanent, across generation,’ said the sociologist Douglas Massey.”
11
"What immigration basically does," George Borjas says, "is create a redistribution of wea lth from labor to people who use immigrants....The question you have to ask yourself is who are you rooting for?"
The answer is simple--We ROOT for the AMERICAN WORKER!!!
The answer is simple--We ROOT for the AMERICAN WORKER!!!
14
The correct terminology is "illegal aliens" - they are both here illegally and alien - or, not residents. Why don't we, as Americans, stand up for America for a change.
See “Word Police Targets Illegal Immigration” at http://t.co/cOxvPGoWKR.
See “Word Police Targets Illegal Immigration” at http://t.co/cOxvPGoWKR.
14
Proponents for utter lawlessness and chaos in our country's immigration policy are like the Meathead on that old show All in the Family.
These undocumented immigrants are being exploited to drive wages down and provide future easy votes for the democratic party, in spite of the fact that many of these immigrants will not have any loyalty to the US as their new home but merely as a nation run by greedy saps who couldn't care less how much damage they cause in the course of garnering an easy buck.
These undocumented immigrants are being exploited to drive wages down and provide future easy votes for the democratic party, in spite of the fact that many of these immigrants will not have any loyalty to the US as their new home but merely as a nation run by greedy saps who couldn't care less how much damage they cause in the course of garnering an easy buck.
16
Unfortunately, the mentality of a self-righteous zealot such as Adam Davidson is akin to that of a religious fundamentalist, which means he is impervious to reason, and anyone who seeks an honest debate is evil.
15
PROOF that H1B is used by corporate US to drive the wages down .
"the median salary offered to H-1B applicants by some of the biggest tech companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — is well over $100K and continues to rise."
http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/29/how-google-facebook-and-others-pay-thei...
"the median salary offered to H-1B applicants by some of the biggest tech companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — is well over $100K and continues to rise."
http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/29/how-google-facebook-and-others-pay-thei...
5
US Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, sent 123 billion dollars in 2012 alone, back to their native countries.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/20/remittance-map/
How in god's green earth can this be good for our economy? Not only are they occupying a job here, they are NOT spending most of those earnings here.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/20/remittance-map/
How in god's green earth can this be good for our economy? Not only are they occupying a job here, they are NOT spending most of those earnings here.
15
To learn more about this pair of harmful trends, please search by title for the PDF version of the 2012 article, "How Record Immigration Levels Robbed American High-Tech Workers of $10 Trillion" Additional details are found by searching for the PDF version of "The Greedy Gates Immigration Gambit." The first article was published in 2007, with a follow-up having the same title in 2014.
Another thing that economic elites can do is to buy media outlets to promote their viewpoints. The world's wealthiest man, Carlos Slim, now has a 17% ownership stake in the New York Times, per the January 14, 2015 article titled, "Carlos Slim More Than Doubles His Stake in Times Company" Of course, it takes much smaller amounts of cash to induce hungry journalists to disseminate the elite's point of view. :-(
Another thing that economic elites can do is to buy media outlets to promote their viewpoints. The world's wealthiest man, Carlos Slim, now has a 17% ownership stake in the New York Times, per the January 14, 2015 article titled, "Carlos Slim More Than Doubles His Stake in Times Company" Of course, it takes much smaller amounts of cash to induce hungry journalists to disseminate the elite's point of view. :-(
14
The author of this nonsense has already castigated my comment as "noise", but I believe he has conflated many of the issues which he addresses. Projections indicate that 40% of the world will not have adequate water supplies by mid-century. Perhaps California comes to mind.
We do not need more people here. More is not better. My father and grandfather worked and fought to give ME a better life and I will work and fight to give MY children a better life. Not someone else's.
I am proud that my country reaches out to all the nations of the world to aid in their economic development and assist when other countries are hard-pressed by natural disasters. But what gives illegal immigrants the right to tax our resources here at home because they will not control their own numbers?
We need to keep people in their own countries and help them there, not invite them here because the author suggests we've given up on the idea of mass deportation!
It's time to do our own laundry and pick our own crops.
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
We do not need more people here. More is not better. My father and grandfather worked and fought to give ME a better life and I will work and fight to give MY children a better life. Not someone else's.
I am proud that my country reaches out to all the nations of the world to aid in their economic development and assist when other countries are hard-pressed by natural disasters. But what gives illegal immigrants the right to tax our resources here at home because they will not control their own numbers?
We need to keep people in their own countries and help them there, not invite them here because the author suggests we've given up on the idea of mass deportation!
It's time to do our own laundry and pick our own crops.
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
16
The immigration debate - where the alleged party of big business fights for the interests the american working man, and where alleged the working man's party fights for interests of big business.
6
It appears from these and the comments on other similar articles that on a solid consistent basis the vast majority of readers are against illegal immigration and against legalizing the undocumented ones already here. This government is of, for and by the people so why are we not being heard by our elected officials and our President who is insistent on shoving unpopular immigration "reforms" down our throats. I think this issue should find its way to the ballot and be up for a vote.
15
I don't think I have ever read a column that is as out of touch with reality as this column. The largest nations are, in fact, very poor. China and India, despite their recent spectacular economic gains, have per capita standards of living far below our own, primarily due to their huge populations. According to the late Colorado physics professor Dr. Albert Bartlett, the U.S. can only sustain indefinitely 150-200 million people, and we are at 320 million and climbing due to immigration. Truly beneficial immigration reform for the U.S. would reduce immigration by tenfold, not increase it by that much.
20
I guess every job an illegal alien does is a job an American never did. That's the only possible way that the premise of people here illegally are not taking a job from an American.
As for immigrants, they come legally and are not taking anything, they're entitled to look for a job because of their legal presence here.
As for immigrants, they come legally and are not taking anything, they're entitled to look for a job because of their legal presence here.
13
Until American politicians accept responsibility for creating the desperation that results in waves of immigration, little is likely to change in terms of US immigration policy. NAFTA drove Mexican immigrants to the United States as cheap, heavily subsidized US imports undermined that country's agriculture economy creating a level of economic desperation that has made the Drug Cartels possible (along with US illegal drug consumption). The recent waves of immigration from El Salvador and Guatemala are also driven by the desperation that has lingered for so long in those countries wrecked by the U.S. foreign policy (often illegal) in the region in the 80's and 9o's. We reap what we sow, and if we sow war and desperation in nearby lands we will inevitably inherit their peoples. This is not the explanation given to our workers here by their politicians, unions and the media. And as long as we lie to ourselves about the reasons people are forced to immigrant, we will never accept immigrants. One only has to look at the levels of immigration by children from Central America to understand the despair their parents must endure - and what is our country's response? Shamelessness where there should be blame
5
Here in the real world not from some liberal elitist enclave such as this author does one see or recognize the effects of illegal immigration. My two neighbors who are illegal immigrants work in a union making prevailing wages. All one has to do is go to Home Depot and look at other working buying supply's which I am sure would gladly enjoy their jobs. Or the immigrants that are encroaching in medical billing. We all understand the benifits of bringing working age adults here as it reduces societies cost to raising and training are own. More importantly we understand that immigration has the biggest financial benifit, -people lacking in American faith and values- to individuals who have the most to gain in the stock market. Perhaps we can change our institution from democracy to purely capalitalism. Sorry to late happened long ago.
3
I would like to see the unskilled, uneducated American born population that we have in this country, and there are many of them, apply for those jobs that the immigrants are now filling. The jobs are out there, they have to want them, the company's have to want to hire them and they have to have the confidence that they will be hired if they apply. But they must try and be encouraged to do so. If this does not happen, there will be no one to fill those jobs if immigration does not continue.
2
Wow. People are jumping out of the woodwork to not even contemplate that their might be truth in this article. And bringing out the "illegal is illegal" chestnut over and over. This really has hit some kind of nerve. And often the truth will do that.
10
The sad truth is that for amoral economic elites, "Overpopulation is profitable." While Davidson has neglected the economic law of supply and demand regarding wages, glutted labor markets drive down wages and facilitate illegal employment discrimination against older workers, women, "historically under-represented" groups, and handicapped workers. That is trend number 1 that benefits the amoral economic elites.
The second trend is that immigration-stoked population increases bid up the prices for the necessaries of life such as shelter, transportation, and food. Most of the economic benefit from this latter trend also benefits the amoral economic elites.
The second trend is that immigration-stoked population increases bid up the prices for the necessaries of life such as shelter, transportation, and food. Most of the economic benefit from this latter trend also benefits the amoral economic elites.
14
The best counter to Adam Davidson's arguments here? Adam Davidson's very own Planet Money Podcast #436, "If Economists Controlled the Borders." Feb 19, 2013:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/02/298383246/episode-436-if-econo...
It's well worth the 18 minute listen.
As for the impact on jobs, well, yes, the PhD economists whom Davidson cites in this article likely would not be negatively affected. Only those low-skilled workers, the very ones most vulnerable and least able to adapt. In LA, think roofing, hanging drywall, and laying flooring, that's if you're a lucky unauthorized immigrant. If you're one of the unlucky ones, it's the carwash, lawn crew, and selling snacks from a pushcart. We also have garment sweatshops.
The fact that Davidson has to extrapolate from a study of the job impact of the Mariel boat lift reveals a lot. Why don't economists study those nations with open-border policies and amazing economic prosperity? Good luck finding one.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/02/298383246/episode-436-if-econo...
It's well worth the 18 minute listen.
As for the impact on jobs, well, yes, the PhD economists whom Davidson cites in this article likely would not be negatively affected. Only those low-skilled workers, the very ones most vulnerable and least able to adapt. In LA, think roofing, hanging drywall, and laying flooring, that's if you're a lucky unauthorized immigrant. If you're one of the unlucky ones, it's the carwash, lawn crew, and selling snacks from a pushcart. We also have garment sweatshops.
The fact that Davidson has to extrapolate from a study of the job impact of the Mariel boat lift reveals a lot. Why don't economists study those nations with open-border policies and amazing economic prosperity? Good luck finding one.
14
A little thought experiment. Suppose that the author is right, that unrestricted immigration really does raise the economic boat for everyone, in violation of our normal, everyday expectations of supply and demand, and that even the people in direct competition with the new arrivals are going to make more money. Surely, then, we would have tech companies clamoring for fewer H1-B visas, because their tech salaries were getting too high. Construction companies would want a crackdown on illegal workers, since it was getting too expensive to pay them. Wealthy homeowners would be complaining in this comment section that with all the new maids and gardeners around, it just cost too much to hire them any more. I'm not seeing it, are you? Employers aren't stupid enough to believe the stuff in Davidson's column, and neither is the American public, if the comments below are any indication. There is a reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is in favor of increased immigration - more competition for jobs = lower wages. Does anyone really believe they would support immigration if it meant wage increases for workers?
12
Migrating to America legally is, and should be, a thorough procedure
meant to protect the interests of American citizens. It involves more than
simply jumping a fence and heading north in pursuit of free health care,
education, food stamps, and other handouts paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Legal immigration means enduring rigorous hurdles like background checks to
detect a criminal background or possible ties to terrorists; medical
examinations to detect diseases still prevalent in third-world nations, but
long since eradicated here; proof of financial solvency so as to prevent
newcomers from becoming a burden on U.S. taxpayers, and testing for
knowledge of American history and English skills.
Those who have jumped a fence into America in order to avoid our
immigration checks are not immigrants. Rather, they are invading criminals,
with no claim whatsoever to the welcome mat extended to legal immigrants.
Such people do not deserve recognition or sanction by the United States,
and should be rounded up and deported as soon as possible, without
exception.
In truth, illegal aliens have invaded our nation, leaving America
vulnerable to undetected crime, terrorism, disease, and financial
devastation at the hands of people with no legal or moral justification for
being here.
When you can get arrested for fishing and hunting without a license and not for
being in this country illegally then you are living in a country run by idiots.
meant to protect the interests of American citizens. It involves more than
simply jumping a fence and heading north in pursuit of free health care,
education, food stamps, and other handouts paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Legal immigration means enduring rigorous hurdles like background checks to
detect a criminal background or possible ties to terrorists; medical
examinations to detect diseases still prevalent in third-world nations, but
long since eradicated here; proof of financial solvency so as to prevent
newcomers from becoming a burden on U.S. taxpayers, and testing for
knowledge of American history and English skills.
Those who have jumped a fence into America in order to avoid our
immigration checks are not immigrants. Rather, they are invading criminals,
with no claim whatsoever to the welcome mat extended to legal immigrants.
Such people do not deserve recognition or sanction by the United States,
and should be rounded up and deported as soon as possible, without
exception.
In truth, illegal aliens have invaded our nation, leaving America
vulnerable to undetected crime, terrorism, disease, and financial
devastation at the hands of people with no legal or moral justification for
being here.
When you can get arrested for fishing and hunting without a license and not for
being in this country illegally then you are living in a country run by idiots.
7
Adam Davidson’s points are interesting, and deserve the public’s consideration. However, they do not tell the whole story, and many other commenters have pointed out.
By definition, our discussion of the pros and cons of immigration centers on Latin Americans. The US shares a 2,000 mile border with Mexico which is used as a transit point into the US for immigrants from across Mexico, the Caribbean, as well as Central and South America. In addition, a sizable number of those who overstay their tourist and student visas are also from the Spanish and Portuguese speaking nations of the Americas.
That being said, it remains a fact that the net impact of mass immigration is not positive for many in the US. Dr. Borjas’ work at Harvard, that identifies the damaging effect of immigrant job displacement on poor Americans, is important for us to understand. Nobody should take the elitist view that displacing America’s poor with the poor of other nations is of no consequence. I believe that the example of Miami’s experience with the influx of 45,000 Cuban working age adults in 1980 does not provide a valid comparison. As other commenters have pointed out, those 45,000 new workers displaced unemployed Americans. Some estimates note that 40% of black unemployment nationwide can be linked to the impacts of immigration, especially in regard to the undocumented.
By definition, our discussion of the pros and cons of immigration centers on Latin Americans. The US shares a 2,000 mile border with Mexico which is used as a transit point into the US for immigrants from across Mexico, the Caribbean, as well as Central and South America. In addition, a sizable number of those who overstay their tourist and student visas are also from the Spanish and Portuguese speaking nations of the Americas.
That being said, it remains a fact that the net impact of mass immigration is not positive for many in the US. Dr. Borjas’ work at Harvard, that identifies the damaging effect of immigrant job displacement on poor Americans, is important for us to understand. Nobody should take the elitist view that displacing America’s poor with the poor of other nations is of no consequence. I believe that the example of Miami’s experience with the influx of 45,000 Cuban working age adults in 1980 does not provide a valid comparison. As other commenters have pointed out, those 45,000 new workers displaced unemployed Americans. Some estimates note that 40% of black unemployment nationwide can be linked to the impacts of immigration, especially in regard to the undocumented.
10
The United States is the richest country in the history of the world. Our biggest structural economic problem is inequality rather than GDP.
Importing poor people increases inequality. I don't like Davidson's 'Growth at any Cost' philosophy. I suppose it is a matter of priorities. Quality of life vs quantity of economic activity.
As far as the argument that 'no one would do the work' except immigrants, it is true in a trivial sense. But, some work isn't very important (like extensive, chemically based maintenance of golf courses). And other types of work, including agricultural farm work, can become attractive jobs through capital investment and automation. The residual work? If it isn't worth a living wage for native Americans, then we must question if it is really important. The most important work will always command salaries high enough to attract workers.
Importing poor people increases inequality. I don't like Davidson's 'Growth at any Cost' philosophy. I suppose it is a matter of priorities. Quality of life vs quantity of economic activity.
As far as the argument that 'no one would do the work' except immigrants, it is true in a trivial sense. But, some work isn't very important (like extensive, chemically based maintenance of golf courses). And other types of work, including agricultural farm work, can become attractive jobs through capital investment and automation. The residual work? If it isn't worth a living wage for native Americans, then we must question if it is really important. The most important work will always command salaries high enough to attract workers.
10
"The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else."
The chief mistake the author makes is called the Tragedy of the Commons. If everyone is allowed to graze their sheep on the grass of the town commons without limit, it will soon become a barren wasteland -- a Malthusian catastrophe.
The most sensible thing to do is to immediately expel all illegal aliens from our country. It just makes good sense.
The chief mistake the author makes is called the Tragedy of the Commons. If everyone is allowed to graze their sheep on the grass of the town commons without limit, it will soon become a barren wasteland -- a Malthusian catastrophe.
The most sensible thing to do is to immediately expel all illegal aliens from our country. It just makes good sense.
9
The most uninformed article ever written about illegal immigration and employment. Several years ago I managed a pre-fab home factory in Riverside, CA that employed 350 workers. ALL were illegals brought into the US by employed coyotes who were paid by the company (Modtech Ind.) to secure illegal labor on demnad. The company paid the coyote for his service, then took the $3,000 to $5,000 coyote fee directly out of the illegal's paycheck - all illegals used false SS numbers and ID provided by a local counterfeit ID maker - also under contract to Modtech.
After one raid by immigration 200+ Modtech "employees" were deported - within a week all had been replaced with fresh illegals by coyotes.
We trained the illegals in all construction trades - carpentry, plumbing, electrical, roofing, etc. When they felt confident in their craft they relocated by the thousands from similar factories to Los Angeles proper where thay were employed by construction companies in the trades - off the books - performing $24.00 an hour union craft work for $8-10.00 per hour.
Please do your research before writing such a Liberally biased pro-illegal story that has no basis in fact.
After one raid by immigration 200+ Modtech "employees" were deported - within a week all had been replaced with fresh illegals by coyotes.
We trained the illegals in all construction trades - carpentry, plumbing, electrical, roofing, etc. When they felt confident in their craft they relocated by the thousands from similar factories to Los Angeles proper where thay were employed by construction companies in the trades - off the books - performing $24.00 an hour union craft work for $8-10.00 per hour.
Please do your research before writing such a Liberally biased pro-illegal story that has no basis in fact.
12
No one against immigration, but rather against ILLEGAL so called immigration, or more correctly illegal breaking into this country. Why is the word "illegal" not once mentioned in this article? No matter how often people clarify this and explain writers on this issue who share Mr. Davidson's view insist on calling it "immigration" and riding piggy back on the issue of legal immigration. The obfuscation is deliberate,obvious and a patronizing insult.
13
I suspect the way to fix illegal immigration is to crack down hard on the employers of illegal immigrants. If there weren't jobs here for them, they wouldn't be so keen to come here.
3
The point of the article is what the actual impact of the immigration is on employment for existing workers who are already here. The legality of their status is a separate issue. One would think that if existing people per se, were harmed by the influx of immigrants that they would oppose immigration legal or otherwise. If the result of such immigration is not harmful to the existing pool of unskilled labor then there is little reason to oppose immigration reform. What many on the right refuse to recognize is - who hires these people in the first place - maybe Republicans perhaps who own the businesses - just maybe? Does that imply that Republican business owners discriminate against maybe white unskilled labor or does it mean they desire to hire illegals more because they have no legal protections and of course will work for less money and that increases profits. Maybe the right wing should look up at just who is beating their heads in economically rather than listen to the non-educated idiots on the tv and radio who just happen to be talented at reading a script that in terms of actual economic policy benefits doesn't add up to a hill of beans.
I agree with this opinion piece in large part. Born American, I have a degree in Latin American Studies, and speak Spanish and Portuguese. I harbor no xenophobia.
But I did hire a white, working class drywall/plaster expert for a kitchen project from a posting on Craigslist. He had worked Union jobs around the country and lamented the popular practice of labor consultants hiring illegal immigrants with little or no skill, providing falsified documents and planting them in Union jobs. The consultant then charges them a substantial fee, deducted from their wages to form a kind of indentured servitude. The union floundered toward lower wages and less workmanlike project outcomes.
That has happened throughout the building trades. And it's not just some random immigration trend. The major homebuilders, the US Chamber of Commerce, hospitality employers and more have used illegal immigrants to drive down the collective bargaining power of American tradesmen for three decades or more. Every worker in Miami may still have a job, but the problem, at least for skilled tradesmen, is that it probably still pays the same hourly wage that it did in 1984.
Homebuilding executives, on the other hand, have done fabulously!
But I did hire a white, working class drywall/plaster expert for a kitchen project from a posting on Craigslist. He had worked Union jobs around the country and lamented the popular practice of labor consultants hiring illegal immigrants with little or no skill, providing falsified documents and planting them in Union jobs. The consultant then charges them a substantial fee, deducted from their wages to form a kind of indentured servitude. The union floundered toward lower wages and less workmanlike project outcomes.
That has happened throughout the building trades. And it's not just some random immigration trend. The major homebuilders, the US Chamber of Commerce, hospitality employers and more have used illegal immigrants to drive down the collective bargaining power of American tradesmen for three decades or more. Every worker in Miami may still have a job, but the problem, at least for skilled tradesmen, is that it probably still pays the same hourly wage that it did in 1984.
Homebuilding executives, on the other hand, have done fabulously!
10
This paper sure did tun into a rag. What a crock, I work construction and really love it but if you went to a job site its almost all hispanic. If there are jobs an American is willing to do than that job should go to and American first.
13
I am unpersuaded by Mr. Adam Davidson's thesis that opening boarders to any will benefit all. I don't leave my front door open 24/7; neither does he. Why then should the nation open its door to anyone who shows up? The title of his article was apt, however. Open Your Mind. Indeed.
7
Cutting Immigration and tightening the labor market does work, and would solve a host of problems by putting more American back to work, putting upward pressure on wages and our standard of living. increasing tax receipts by many billions while reducing welfare cost by billions....all good things.
While allowing the status quo of millions of illegals, Visa Holders and over-stays to remain in our labor market does not help Americans, it hurts us.
Right now those same American workers they refuse to employ are forced with the rest of us to subsidize these business with cheap labor under-written by our tax dollars, driving down our real wages and our standard of living, diverting needed resources away from our communities and Citizens who deserve our help, to fund public services and welfare for Illegals who should not be here at all. Liberal spin all you like, but that is the economic reality of the imbalance created by this flood of cheap labor subsidized by 10,s of billions of by tax payer,s money into our nation.
We should be asking our politicians when they plan to address the needs of Americans they swore to represent for a change, and stop worrying about the wants of Illegals and the Corporations who hire them at our expense?
31
I just finished reading an article about milk farmers in N.Y. and how hard it is for them to find workers. One of the farmers went on to say he's tried over and over to get locals to work for him but no one wants those jobs. So I don't understand your false way of thinking..."by putting more Americans back to work." The jobs these people are willing to take are the jobs many Americans, including yourself, are just NOT WILLING to take. The truth is, the people here LEAGALLY are the ones getting billions in welfare NOT the illegal ones. I've done a ton of research and numerous papers on the impact these illegals have on our economy. They have been here for so long now, that they have become a BIG part of our economy. Take out all the millions of illegals and deport them and watch what happens to our everyday things that we buy. Prices will go up, people will buy less, and there goes the trickle down effect.
Here's why they author is wrong about the Lump of Labor idea. He contends that in 1980, 45,000 Cubans moved to Miami and the city's labor supply increased by 7 percent. He said that for PEOPLE ALREADY WORKING in Miami, there was no measurable impact on wages or employment. Gee, how about the people who were NOT working and looking for jobs? The ones already employed wouldn't have been affected, but the ones looking for work might have been. I mean, why else would there have been an increase in the labor supply. It might have been that with so many unskilled workers, employers felt they could pay less - which would have cause people to work more to pay their bills - resulting in a greater labor force participation.
This is just ONE of the instances that this biased article drew the wrong conclusions. He should have listened to his Grandfather.
This is just ONE of the instances that this biased article drew the wrong conclusions. He should have listened to his Grandfather.
24
If uncontrolled immigration of poor, poorly educated people, and radically open borders would benefit us, why has no other country in the world come to that conclusion? If poor, poorly educated people really helped an economy, they would be treated as a valuable resource. But that isn't happening.
The example used of illegals at a construction site is grossly in error, from my experience. When we had a house built in houston, there was only one person in the crew that spoke english, and he was hispanic. And boy, did those people work. Sat, Sun, Thanksgiving day, never saw them put in less than a 10-12 hour day. My strong suspicion is these people were working far more hours than they were getting paid for. We ended up with a house that would have cost us about twice as much to build in the northeast, where the construction crews are not illegal immigrants.
I paid my way through college mowing lawns all summer. I think its safe to say that nearly 100% of the lawn service employees in texas are illegal immigrants. You can't tell me american kids wouldn't do that work, because I did it. Just like you can't tell me the construction workers working for less didn't bump american workers from those jobs.
The example used of illegals at a construction site is grossly in error, from my experience. When we had a house built in houston, there was only one person in the crew that spoke english, and he was hispanic. And boy, did those people work. Sat, Sun, Thanksgiving day, never saw them put in less than a 10-12 hour day. My strong suspicion is these people were working far more hours than they were getting paid for. We ended up with a house that would have cost us about twice as much to build in the northeast, where the construction crews are not illegal immigrants.
I paid my way through college mowing lawns all summer. I think its safe to say that nearly 100% of the lawn service employees in texas are illegal immigrants. You can't tell me american kids wouldn't do that work, because I did it. Just like you can't tell me the construction workers working for less didn't bump american workers from those jobs.
35
"You can't tell me american kids wouldn't do that work, because I did it."
Your "sample of one" personal experience cannot be extrapolated and asserted as universal truth, despite how true it rings to you. I tired all winter to find a neighborhood kid who was shoveling driveways ... crickets.
Your "sample of one" personal experience cannot be extrapolated and asserted as universal truth, despite how true it rings to you. I tired all winter to find a neighborhood kid who was shoveling driveways ... crickets.
3
You have to realize that the U.S. you knew when you were a kid is orders of magnitude much less developed (socially, educationally, and technologically) than the U.S. my generation is diligently crafting. This makes your comment all that much more funny--you come here and impose your experience of a different, less developed world as if it was relevant.
It's sad to see so many people from prior generations (pre-1980) whine and moan about the changing times. Get with it. New industries will flourish and the global population will have no choice but to become more educated and technically specialized.
It's sad to see so many people from prior generations (pre-1980) whine and moan about the changing times. Get with it. New industries will flourish and the global population will have no choice but to become more educated and technically specialized.
Any kid can get some lawn equipment together and do lawn work. Having a lot of immigrants doing it does not stop an American kid from doing it. He just has to offer a competitive price. He probably wants more than the immigrant doing the work. Tell him to lower his price and work the longer hours that the immigrants do...he will be successful.
And you saved lots of money using all that immigrant labor, and you didn't mind the price saving, did you? In fact, you may not have been able to afford that house had it not been for the cheaper labor, right? It's okay, I guess, as long as you benefit. I doubt you asked the contractor if all his crew was legal.
Immigrants are a net benefit... in many ways, not just economic, but they are a benefit economically. California and Texas are the states with the most economic growth right now, and what do they have in common? High levels of immigration.
And you saved lots of money using all that immigrant labor, and you didn't mind the price saving, did you? In fact, you may not have been able to afford that house had it not been for the cheaper labor, right? It's okay, I guess, as long as you benefit. I doubt you asked the contractor if all his crew was legal.
Immigrants are a net benefit... in many ways, not just economic, but they are a benefit economically. California and Texas are the states with the most economic growth right now, and what do they have in common? High levels of immigration.
It is obvious to me that you have not done your homework.
But before we can cover that, we must define immigration.
Immigration is where somebody become an American and they compete with their fellow Americans for jobs which is good, and I heartily support that.
Temporary worker visas on the other hand are no different than "scabs" being brought in to break union picket lines simply because they already have a job lined up long before they are brought to America by a company, and the American was not allowed to compete for that job.
But, it gets worse.
Have you ever really studied the BLS CES (current employment survey) data from a long term perspective, say from 1970 till current time?
If you do, you quickly realize that we have had a long term trend line from 1970 to 2000 that has now been broken.
You also begin to realize that we have only created about 365,000 jobs since the high in 2007/8 was broken..
All of this works together to displace the American citizen in America.
The chart can be found via the following link if you would like to dig further.
http://keepamericaatwork.com/finally-a-way-to-show-you-that-23-million-j...
But before we can cover that, we must define immigration.
Immigration is where somebody become an American and they compete with their fellow Americans for jobs which is good, and I heartily support that.
Temporary worker visas on the other hand are no different than "scabs" being brought in to break union picket lines simply because they already have a job lined up long before they are brought to America by a company, and the American was not allowed to compete for that job.
But, it gets worse.
Have you ever really studied the BLS CES (current employment survey) data from a long term perspective, say from 1970 till current time?
If you do, you quickly realize that we have had a long term trend line from 1970 to 2000 that has now been broken.
You also begin to realize that we have only created about 365,000 jobs since the high in 2007/8 was broken..
All of this works together to displace the American citizen in America.
The chart can be found via the following link if you would like to dig further.
http://keepamericaatwork.com/finally-a-way-to-show-you-that-23-million-j...
20
Adam Davidson, like all immigration activists, seems to have a total disregard for the law. Every country on this planet has immigration laws that protect their citizens. It seems that USA is the only country where these laws exist only to be ignored, including by the president of the country. Don't worry Mr. Davidson, I can guarantee that every presidential candidate who shows softness for illegal immigration, including republican, is going to lose. Why do you think the Democrats suffered such a setback at the last elections? Besides, your rationalization about the increasing number of jobs is faulty. The US accepts 1 million legal immigrants per year. This more than covers any excess jobs there are. In addition, computerization will eliminate most unskilled jobs in the next decade or two. The introduction of driver-less cars will eliminate the jobs of millions of cab-drivers and truck-drivers. This is just one example. There are many more. In fields where jobs are very scarce, it is not even about qualifications any more, it is about who you know. We are constantly advised to "network" to find a job, basically to use a less than fair system based on connections rather than qualifications. This does not seem to me like a system that encourages performance, mostly it encourages discrimination of all kinds and depression of wages. Those who advocate for immigration are always people who stand to benefit from it and are not in danger to lose thier jobs because of it.
23
Thank you. I agree completely. I would not limit immigration at all. Open the doors, our economy will boom. Dump the republicans in office so we can tax and spend on great education systems for all.
2
This guy continues through the whole article saying "the people who are anti-immigration". I don't know anyone that is anti-immigration But I do know, myself included, people who are against illegal immigration. There's a big difference between between the two but he doesn't seem to know the difference. Also there is no way open borders would benefit us.
33
I see nothing in the article believable. You simply can't compare a day when the US averages 125k immigrants a year back in the days of Ellis Island, or even the days of 5-600k a year back in the 70's and 80's. Today the US takes in 1.4 million legal immigrants a year which is including work visa's. Ontop of that the US feds still show the number of 1.2 million illegal immigrants a year from back in 2007 and plenty believe that number is now much higher due to Obama's policies and lack of enforcement. Add in a reported 400k babies born a year in the US to illegal aliens (fed statistics from 2007/2008). That is at minimum 3 million new foreigners entering the US every year. That is 1% of the US population and 1.5% of of the US Citizen Population. In 10 years that's a 10% population growth rate and in Ellis Island days it was said it takes at least one generation for immigrants to adapt to the US Way and meld into society. A generation is considered roughly 20 years back then. However its impossible in that 20 years when you add 20% population increase.
Anyways, 3 million new foreigners in the US every year. The US produces roughly on a decent year 2 million new jobs. That is 1 million jobs short for these new foreigners. Yet don't forget every year there are more AMERICANS entering the work force and fewer leaving the workforce then was the average 20 years ago. These numbers based off FED statistics are solid proof the article is wrong.
Anyways, 3 million new foreigners in the US every year. The US produces roughly on a decent year 2 million new jobs. That is 1 million jobs short for these new foreigners. Yet don't forget every year there are more AMERICANS entering the work force and fewer leaving the workforce then was the average 20 years ago. These numbers based off FED statistics are solid proof the article is wrong.
23
Blah Blah Blah................this is about being a nation of laws, we have laws on the books which are not being enforced, we have borders that are wide open...no other nation on earth allows illegal aliens to flood their country............we have ways to come to the US legally and we have people waiting to do so. Why would we continue to pander to those coming here illegally who show no respect for us, becoming criminals?
9
I've attempted to do some calculations about the costs of illegal immigrants to US citizens.
I figure we are educating about 3,000,000 children of illegals, at an average cost of $12,000/yr, which is more likely too low than too high. That's $36B per year that is almost all paid by US taxpayers.
The average cost for healthcare is a little harder to get, but $2000/yr for each of the 13 million illegals here (11.5 is very low) is another $26B we spend every year.
324,000 children were born to illegals in this country in 2013, according to CDC stats, and the cost to provide services to those children aren't counted as benefits to illegals. Yet they clearly are. And i think its safe to assume that the billions in hospital costs to deliver those babies was a cost absorbed by americans.
I figure we are educating about 3,000,000 children of illegals, at an average cost of $12,000/yr, which is more likely too low than too high. That's $36B per year that is almost all paid by US taxpayers.
The average cost for healthcare is a little harder to get, but $2000/yr for each of the 13 million illegals here (11.5 is very low) is another $26B we spend every year.
324,000 children were born to illegals in this country in 2013, according to CDC stats, and the cost to provide services to those children aren't counted as benefits to illegals. Yet they clearly are. And i think its safe to assume that the billions in hospital costs to deliver those babies was a cost absorbed by americans.
14
Ok. It's settled then. We should allow anyone who wants to do so to move to America and set up shop without doing anything so old fashioned as ask permission first or get on a waiting list. After all it's better for the "world". What's better for the world than to have the US reach the same population density as India? That would only be fair. And today's US economy has such a strong need for unskilled uneducated workers that we would be fools not to welcome such people with open arms. The US and the US alone among nations evidently should not be able to enforce its borders or engage in heresies like asking if it actually needs millions upon millions of illegal immigrants.
15
Stop referring to these people as "Immigrants", an Immigrant comes to a country (any country) thru the proper legal channels. These people are ILLEGAL ALIENS and should be treated as criminals (and it doesn't matter what country they came from, or what their skin tone is). If they truly wanted to be American they would file the forms and wait in line for Legal status and not sneak across a border or over stay a visa and then simply expect the government (and the american people) to simply forgive them and allow them to stay.
If the legal process is too difficult or restrictive then the process should be/needs to be changed, granting an amnesty to people who have already broken the law by being here illegally isn't the answer.
If the legal process is too difficult or restrictive then the process should be/needs to be changed, granting an amnesty to people who have already broken the law by being here illegally isn't the answer.
23
1. When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
4
What happened in 1980 Miami is not relevant, in this context, to 2015 USA. In expanding economies, adding to the labor force is a good thing. However in a great many cities in the USA today, we have contracting economies. I live in Atlantic City, New Jersey. I am sorry but the last thing we need right now is more immigrants comming there and looking for work. Maybe in Manhattan or San Francisco or Washington DC right now things are better but much of America is going through a severe depression and in many areas there are not enough jobs and there are no emerging businesses either. The job markets are contracting and it's painful; more immigrants will increase the pain.
I was an economics major too... I took comparitive economics where the thesis of the class was essentially that what is good or not is entirely dependent on the particulars of the relevant economy. Today in most cities unemployment is a real problem... there are not enough jobs and there's simply not enough money in the area for new businesses to emerge. When nobody has any money nobody is going to open up a new restaunt. Everywhere isn't Miami with multimillionaires hanging out.
I was an economics major too... I took comparitive economics where the thesis of the class was essentially that what is good or not is entirely dependent on the particulars of the relevant economy. Today in most cities unemployment is a real problem... there are not enough jobs and there's simply not enough money in the area for new businesses to emerge. When nobody has any money nobody is going to open up a new restaunt. Everywhere isn't Miami with multimillionaires hanging out.
11
There is something called an HB2 work visa. We bring in 1000's and 1000's every summer to fill all of the tourist related industry requirements. Mostly beach resort areas but also theme parks and concessions within our Nat'l parks. This hurts the wages of every lower income person in that regional tourist destination by keeping the pay scale so extremely low, it's impossible to live on. But most of the HB2 workers are gone after the season ends to where ever they came from. They take their money and go, the business owners close up then leave the locals to tough out another squalid winter from their measly 8 dollar an hour seasonal job. Americans can't compete with these imported masses of worker bees from abroad. I ask where can WE go to find jobs? Canada? We can't just up and go, this is OUR home. We really ought to be hiring from within our borders first.
Same with HB1 visas for tech. Please business owners try and hire Americans first and pay them a decent wage. We're here already and need to live and get by some how. It used to be 'Buy American' now it's 'Hire American'.
Support the businesses that do.
Same with HB1 visas for tech. Please business owners try and hire Americans first and pay them a decent wage. We're here already and need to live and get by some how. It used to be 'Buy American' now it's 'Hire American'.
Support the businesses that do.
17
Do not think many citizens have any hard feelings against LEGAL immigrants, it is the ILLEGAL immigrants we want booted out of our country with no amnesty, and borders sealed.
18
i bear no resentment to immigrants, legal or illegal. i do bear some resentments against us politicians who are not representing the interests of american citizens as they should be. there are immigrants in every country. ONLY in the USA do we give more rights to immigrans than we do to it's own citizens. (well the ottoman empire did that too, we may be in for a similar fate)
1
As a legal immigrant, I do NOT support amnesty for illegal aliens. There is a big difference between those that followed the law and those that broke the law.
19
What about the cost of educating undocumented children at the cost of American children? What about failing schools in low income neighborhoods? What about the rising cost of food stamp and public assistance programs? What about overburdened emergency rooms? What about suppressed wages in some industries? What about unevenly enforced laws like driving with a license or using pesticides and fertilizers in the landscape? What about money not being spent in the USA but being sent as remittances in the trillions of dollars to other countries? What about the importation of poverty? What about illegal drugs flooding over the borders? What about the cash economy? Please New York Times, consider all aspects. Isn't the point of you to ask hard questions, to express the concerns of the citizenry, to not just swallow whole and regurgitate the liberal/paternalistic line? Almost all reasonable people support immigration within the law and with order. But just like the distribution of perceptive drugs; outside of a legal and correct way, there is a great problem.
43
Wrong. Let's spend the money on great education systems for the poor and newly immigrated. Cut defense, tax the rich. We will all benefit.
2
Well said, Raaya.
2
"People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country."
Americans despise cheaters and cheating, which is why everyone in the world wants to come here. Illegal aliens are cheaters as well as thieves, stealing jobs from Americans. Moreover, America's immigration policy makes it clear that America has no need for a poorly-educated, low-skilled immigrant. If such a person qualifies as a refugee, he/she is welcome! Otherwise, that person needs to improve his/her skills and then re-apply.
Americans despise cheaters and cheating, which is why everyone in the world wants to come here. Illegal aliens are cheaters as well as thieves, stealing jobs from Americans. Moreover, America's immigration policy makes it clear that America has no need for a poorly-educated, low-skilled immigrant. If such a person qualifies as a refugee, he/she is welcome! Otherwise, that person needs to improve his/her skills and then re-apply.
24
." Illegal aliens are cheaters as well as thieves, stealing jobs from Americans"??
Well, I think that if you're a low-skilled american, then you're in trouble, go back to school and learn a trade, improve your skills and stop crying.
Well, I think that if you're a low-skilled american, then you're in trouble, go back to school and learn a trade, improve your skills and stop crying.
1
The immigrant who come into the country illegally is doing no less than you would do if you needed to get your family into a better place and fast, at least I hope you would do it.
If America had come to the point where our economy was so bad that there was little work outside of the cities, and the work that you could find paid so poorly as to lead me to not be able to support my family, I would hustle across that border we have with Canada tout sweet if that economy was better than ours. I would do what I had to do, from living twenty to a house, to taking less in wages, to working longer hours to sending money back to the states so my family could have a better life, and so they could join me sooner.
If you would not do these things, then your spirit as an American is gone; give me the immigrant spirit and drive any day. Those people that ride "the beast" or the death train all the way thru Mexico, who cross rivers and deserts to get here are the ones I want in the country. That is the energy we want and need...
If America had come to the point where our economy was so bad that there was little work outside of the cities, and the work that you could find paid so poorly as to lead me to not be able to support my family, I would hustle across that border we have with Canada tout sweet if that economy was better than ours. I would do what I had to do, from living twenty to a house, to taking less in wages, to working longer hours to sending money back to the states so my family could have a better life, and so they could join me sooner.
If you would not do these things, then your spirit as an American is gone; give me the immigrant spirit and drive any day. Those people that ride "the beast" or the death train all the way thru Mexico, who cross rivers and deserts to get here are the ones I want in the country. That is the energy we want and need...
1
Every set of hands comes with a mouth also. Immigrants increase the supply of labor but also the demand for what labor produces.
Perhaps the confusion arises because the immigrant does not necessarily purchase goods and services produced in their new country. We all work in a global economy were its impossible to follow all of the transactions between what we produce and what we consume. That we be true even if nothing ever crossed international borders.
Perhaps the confusion arises because the immigrant does not necessarily purchase goods and services produced in their new country. We all work in a global economy were its impossible to follow all of the transactions between what we produce and what we consume. That we be true even if nothing ever crossed international borders.
4
Throw out the baby with the bath water- the mantra of liberals galore. There are NO situations or cases where it is appropriate to encourage or allow immigrant labor- it's a non starter and any attempt to explain how "they're good for the economy" or "they pay social security taxes" will not be excused except for little wit.
We are thankful and fulfilled when the "world" improves; however American soil cannot be the resource nor the answer. To fantasize that American soil is a part of the answer is an example of faulty thinking. Pro-immigration starts out fairly benign with lofty ideals and purposes however it has metastasized into a horribly cranky political entity as well as providing a staunch glue for the dismembered and imploding liberal campuses.
We are thankful and fulfilled when the "world" improves; however American soil cannot be the resource nor the answer. To fantasize that American soil is a part of the answer is an example of faulty thinking. Pro-immigration starts out fairly benign with lofty ideals and purposes however it has metastasized into a horribly cranky political entity as well as providing a staunch glue for the dismembered and imploding liberal campuses.
15
Absolutely no discussion of the replacement of Good, Union jobs in the meatpacking and chicken processing industry with low wage immigrants. The world economy may be better overall, and we all get cheap Fast Food, but is the Nation better off?
Unless you are a major stockholder in Tyson Chicken, etc, I say no.
Unless you are a major stockholder in Tyson Chicken, etc, I say no.
20
Hey undocumented immigrants are a BOON to businesses. Look at construction. Why pay a union guy, when you can get an illegal worker for $100.00 a day? And with this kind of unlicensed workforce, you have all sorts of disasters. Beams and bricks falling, building and cranes collapsing. And then there's the explosion in the East Village yesterday. Unlicensed plumbing work?
17
Where is this happening you make this sound like the whole country is falling apart and do you really know that it was illegals that did the plumbing work in New York.
1
Very much doubt it is the labor force causing those problems, but rather the faulty cheap goods we buy from China looking to save an almighty dollar when building our houses, instead of buying American products and trying to help American manufacturing..
I think every reasonable American agrees in fair-minded competition and it is also clear fair competition strengthens the economy.
Want access to large population economies' markets that do not have enough employment? Gain a little access by shipping jobs there, even if it *really* very expensive.
Don't like STEM folks (their just geeks, nerds, etc., so say neo-Luddites), then destabilize their job markets. Watch innovation crawl to a halt.
Want to invest in your career just to see a giant (lobbied) increase in immigration of weak competitors destabilize your opportunities by creating job market confusion?
Immigration in the US is driven by poor politics lobbied by greed and foolishness. This is compounded by disregard for personal investment in talent development, not to mention higher-education. Further, it is damaged by professions other nations choose to focus on while the US plods along with no direction.
So, Davidson's argument miss American's real experience with lobbied and foolish immigration policies. Fair and reasonable immigration may work fine, but ours if far from that. Further, there are many macro examples countering Davidson's arguments as well: Almost never had more immigrants in the US in the last decade or so, yet the economy is still extraordinarily weak - check the bond-market yields?
Want access to large population economies' markets that do not have enough employment? Gain a little access by shipping jobs there, even if it *really* very expensive.
Don't like STEM folks (their just geeks, nerds, etc., so say neo-Luddites), then destabilize their job markets. Watch innovation crawl to a halt.
Want to invest in your career just to see a giant (lobbied) increase in immigration of weak competitors destabilize your opportunities by creating job market confusion?
Immigration in the US is driven by poor politics lobbied by greed and foolishness. This is compounded by disregard for personal investment in talent development, not to mention higher-education. Further, it is damaged by professions other nations choose to focus on while the US plods along with no direction.
So, Davidson's argument miss American's real experience with lobbied and foolish immigration policies. Fair and reasonable immigration may work fine, but ours if far from that. Further, there are many macro examples countering Davidson's arguments as well: Almost never had more immigrants in the US in the last decade or so, yet the economy is still extraordinarily weak - check the bond-market yields?
13
You're right. Immigrants aren't stealing the jobs from Americans. Employers are handing the jobs to immigrants--on a golden platter--for less pay.
21
From a purely "economic" perspective, Davidson's thesis is supportable, of course.
However, from a housing, water usage, sewerage overflow, crowded highways, level of public school education and population explosion point of view, Davidson
eschews the fact that the land mass of the USA can bear just so much.
However, from a housing, water usage, sewerage overflow, crowded highways, level of public school education and population explosion point of view, Davidson
eschews the fact that the land mass of the USA can bear just so much.
12
What unconvincing sophistry! Let's take care of our own massive extensive underclass with its teeming millions, many of whose ancestors were brought here in slave ships. Let's bring our lowest socioeconomic levels up to par before opening the floodgates to the billions of people who would love to move here, shall we?
19
It is so easy to point out the deficiencies of a system, but to find real solutions, that's another thing. That is the real challenge. For those people out there blaming undocumented people for all American problem, I suggest to take a moment and read this article. It may enlighten your close-minded and clogged minds and reasoning. Enjoy it!
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/
1
ALL the American people are interested in is illegals being removed from our country. We already have a VERY generous immigration policy. USE IT.
6
Well, I am an American and I am NOT interested in illegals being removed from our country. You are making the fallacy of thinking that everyone thinks like you do...they don't. Millions of us want a more generous immigration policy. I would suspect that most of us that want it are the ones that can see the benefits it brings because we live in areas with high immigration. We see it in our own communities, the little businesses that open because of immigrants. Little Fruiterias that lead to grocery stores, taco stands that lead to fully staffed restaurants.
Zapatero legalizing 1million illegals overnight in Spain didn't turn out so well...
12
Mr. Davidson analyzes immigration as if immigrants were potatoes or coal lumps. Cuban immigrants were largely professional level people, not fruit pickers. Immigrants from Europe and Russia were often Jewish with strong motivations, not primitive farm workers. We need immigrants who are controlled by a system that doesn't have them exploited by slaughter houses and corporate growers, but we need controls not a welcome mat for whomever wants to come and go over our borders.
22
Excellent
3
Seconded. The writer also ignores the same distinction on the American worker side. Illegal immigration per Borjas (the writer says critics of illegal immigration misuse his work without explaining how) hurts African-Americans as a group more than any other. Young African-American unemployment has skyrocketed to third world levels. If illegal immigration is so terrific, why hasn't a single successful western economy adopted our birthright-citizenship-quasi-open-borders system? Canada hasn't. Australia hasn't. Germany hasn't. Meanwhile how is Italy and France's economies doing in comparison?
9
Judging by the comments, it's clear that Americans continue to ignore their own mistakes and how those mistakes largely contribute to immigration. Articles like these, that pose a solid economic argument also ignore the fact that without the generous farm subsidies immigration as we know it from Mexico might not exist at all.
Now let's talk about the drug trade. You would have to be blind not to acknowledge how the insatiable appetite of Americans for drugs has affected Latin American countries. Currently Mexico find's itself in a war with drug cartels. Drug cartels, not flower cartels, not iPhone cartels, but drug cartels. Why do you think this is such a lucrative business to go to war for? It is clearly the demand for these illicit products, a demand that largely comes from the United States.
Now finally, let's talk about illegal bording crossings themselves. Not the illegal border crossings comming from Mexico into the U.S. but the illegal border crossings of Amercians with trunk loads of guns going into Mexico. Where do you think the drug cartels are getting their weapons? Especially since even simple shot guns are illegal in Mexico.
So to those of you that judge those that come North looking for a better life, maybe you should take a long look in the mirror of your country, and ask why is it so tough in Latin America.
Now let's talk about the drug trade. You would have to be blind not to acknowledge how the insatiable appetite of Americans for drugs has affected Latin American countries. Currently Mexico find's itself in a war with drug cartels. Drug cartels, not flower cartels, not iPhone cartels, but drug cartels. Why do you think this is such a lucrative business to go to war for? It is clearly the demand for these illicit products, a demand that largely comes from the United States.
Now finally, let's talk about illegal bording crossings themselves. Not the illegal border crossings comming from Mexico into the U.S. but the illegal border crossings of Amercians with trunk loads of guns going into Mexico. Where do you think the drug cartels are getting their weapons? Especially since even simple shot guns are illegal in Mexico.
So to those of you that judge those that come North looking for a better life, maybe you should take a long look in the mirror of your country, and ask why is it so tough in Latin America.
10
That's NOT the point of the article, at all. The point of the article is to make the argument (propaganda) that illegal immigrants don't really take jobs from workers here in the U.S. or hurt workers in any other way. And the fact is that anyone who lives here in California knows the truth. I see illegal immigrants (speak little or no English) working on construction jobs -- remodeling million dollar homes. In the high tech world, they hire recent immigrants because they work more hours (under pressure), for less pay (H1B visas are sponsored). I friend of mine applied for 60 jobs recently and just got ONE job offer. But they fired her after one day because the Spanish workers wanted someone who could speak Spanish. This whole article is a LIE .......LIE.......LIE....
7
Well said, Josue Azul. Let us hope that commentators, especially Raaya Churgin of New York as well as all others, accept your answers to a few of his "What about" questions.
A lot of supposition with little factual evidence - American consumption of drugs has very little to do with illegal alien invaders - except for the cross-border couriers who go back and forth. Yes - Mexico is in a vicious war with drug cartels - but American drug abuse is not the cause - it is rather the effect of the infamous "Narco Cultura" - without the generally accepted and widely applauded drug culture in Mexico there would be no drugs smuggled or consumed in America. As far as "trunk loads of guns" going into Mexico - seems like the only time that happened was Holder's attempt to fabricate an illegal gun availability scenario to embarrass legal gun dealers and the NRA, which failed miserably - I don'r know of anyone stupid enough to cross into Mexico with a single firearm let alone a "turnkful." Please provide facts and data or at least valid references to support your ridiculous assertions.
4
Excellent article! Reminds me a lot of the article "Immigration Equation" by Roger Lowenstein. It's a much longer, but more in depth read. Lowenstein also points out 15% of our workforce is made of immigrants. As of Feb 2015, unemployment is at 5.1%. The majority of jobs immigrants have, then, couldn't have been "taken," because they didn't exist before immigrants had them.
1
What sort of demand do low income immigrants create if most of their money is spent at Walmart and the like on goods manufactured in China? Seems like adding low income people to the US, in addition to being a net draw to the treasury, is also adding to the trade deficit.
17
The assertion that we need illegal immigrants to grow the economy fill job vacancies is wrong. We can import all of the legal immigrant we want simply by raising legal immigration quotas. There are millions standing in line. Legal immigrants come from a multitude of nations and couture, speaking a multitude of languages. Their diversity promotes assimilation and acculturation because they are less likely to settle in ethnic and racial enclaves than illegal immigrants who tend to come mostly from Latin American countries. Legal immigrants are not only more diverse, they are better education, higher skilled and better equipped to succeed in U.S. society than illegal immigrants..
16
People who are willing to work for less, whether they are from Mexico or China, reduce the wages of those already here, and lower their standard of living. They contribute demand to the economy, but not as much as those who earn more. When the US was expanding in the 19th century there was a general demand for labor and obviously immigration was a major part of economic growth. Now the US can hardly be regarded as underpopulated and the economics are different. Even despite the demand for labor in the 19th century workers were not fairly paid, and it took many, many years of labor organization and legislation to bring wages up to the levels of the 1960's. US employers use foreign labor basically to reverse these advantages, and especially to get around unions.
If immigrants were paid the same wages as natives there would be no problem, but lower pay is the reason that employers bring in foreigners, or move factories to China. Of course the immigrants themselves are better off, but that does not change the facts that the main winners are the capitalists who reduce their labor costs, and that native wage-earners are losers. Since around 1965 the US economy has been nearly zero-gain for native US workers, partly because of use of foreign workers.
If immigrants were paid the same wages as natives there would be no problem, but lower pay is the reason that employers bring in foreigners, or move factories to China. Of course the immigrants themselves are better off, but that does not change the facts that the main winners are the capitalists who reduce their labor costs, and that native wage-earners are losers. Since around 1965 the US economy has been nearly zero-gain for native US workers, partly because of use of foreign workers.
38
That comment does not respond to the article's point: that immigrants actually create more jobs because of the fact that they are living here and consume goods and services. That increase in demand has to be met, and it is met by companies hiring more people.
The article says that the number of jobs is not static when someone immigrates to the US. We can discuss that assertion, but the above post does not do so.
The article says that the number of jobs is not static when someone immigrates to the US. We can discuss that assertion, but the above post does not do so.
You are indeed correct that the supply of low-cost workers, both foreign and native, allows businesses of all kinds to be classic capitalist 'winners.' But as Davidson suggests, the better solution is not to deny immigrants, but to mandate that all workers receive a Living Wage, and thus increase the demand side of our economic life to everyone's benefit, in particular the currently lower wage-class natives.
You should read the article again, being attentive to the economic evidence Davidson presents.
You should read the article again, being attentive to the economic evidence Davidson presents.
2
10 immigrants Take 10 American's jobs. That creates 1 new job, probably also taken by another new immigrant. We get to flip burgers - they do the construction, roofing, welding, etc. Who can compete? They work for whatever the "Man" will pay (many times in cash), they will never complain about miss-treatment (fear of deportation) and all wages go down.
Boy we are real winners in this scam.
Boy we are real winners in this scam.
5
This is an interesting article with thoughtful arguments. Yet some years back, the late Garrett Hardin noted that the really big problem of mass immigration is that it relieves the population pressure in the country of origin while reducing the incentive to locally control that population. With the erasure of national boundaries local population growth becomes a global problem. In conjunction, the assumption everyone makes of perpetual economic growth is biophysically unsustainable on a finite planet!!!
The American lifestyle requires an ecological footprint of 8.00 hectares per year (2007 numbers, Global Footprint Network). Contrast this with Mexico at 3.00, China at 2.21, and the world average at 2.7. We are already a “debtor” nation unable to support ourselves on our native resources alone. The sustainable world average is 1.8 so our species as a whole is living on the principal in the bank of Nature and thus borrowed time.
The US has a population of 310 vs 1,300 million for China. Thus from a biophysical support point of view, the US has effectively the same population as China! Intelligent immigration control is essential. To help people abroad, we need to export our knowledge, not import too many people. Real education for all is the key. Start with the women. Empowered they have fewer babies.
The American lifestyle requires an ecological footprint of 8.00 hectares per year (2007 numbers, Global Footprint Network). Contrast this with Mexico at 3.00, China at 2.21, and the world average at 2.7. We are already a “debtor” nation unable to support ourselves on our native resources alone. The sustainable world average is 1.8 so our species as a whole is living on the principal in the bank of Nature and thus borrowed time.
The US has a population of 310 vs 1,300 million for China. Thus from a biophysical support point of view, the US has effectively the same population as China! Intelligent immigration control is essential. To help people abroad, we need to export our knowledge, not import too many people. Real education for all is the key. Start with the women. Empowered they have fewer babies.
22
"And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics."
That's right, let all of Mexico into our country and they will buy our way into an economic boom.
That's right, let all of Mexico into our country and they will buy our way into an economic boom.
17
Years ago, companies would provide on-the-job training: train new employees to work the "company" way and to give them the needed skills (while paying a bit less than skilled employees).
Now, instead, companies do not want to incur the cost of training (and college courses are too unspecific), so they troll for cheaper overseas workers who will accept a lower wage.
I suggest stopping the H1-b visas all together and force schools and companies to train or pay the going rate.
Now, instead, companies do not want to incur the cost of training (and college courses are too unspecific), so they troll for cheaper overseas workers who will accept a lower wage.
I suggest stopping the H1-b visas all together and force schools and companies to train or pay the going rate.
32
why should we pay illegal aliens anything?
3
Completely ridiculous. This guy is so far out of reality that it is hard to comprehend where he is coming from.
More people means more schools, more infrastructure, more crowding...it is a strain on resources and on quality of life.
Do they use some of the money they make to get their hair cut and buy food, sure...but the costs far outweigh the benefits.
You want to live in a place like India?
This is propaganda propagated by the large corporations of the world who want to further suppress wages...those companies who benefit from H1B visas and reduced labor costs.
The real research proves that wages are being suppressed for jobs like engineers that H1B visas are bring in workers to do. These jobs are becoming temporary and part-time...and many shipped overseas when the foreign worker leans what they need to know, the plant is closed in the US and jobs are shipped overseas.
This is particulary disturbing because this author is trying to make you believe that he is an "open-minded liberal" when in fact he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Don't fall for his impassioned pleas for "can't we all just get along"...because the truth of his underlying motive is wage suppression.
Oh, and regarding carpenters...the notion that they are doing only "gunt work" is insane. This gy has clearly not been on a jobsite. Immigrants are very capable and are doing all of the types of jobs on construction sites.
My husband is an out of work carpenter we see what is going on.
More people means more schools, more infrastructure, more crowding...it is a strain on resources and on quality of life.
Do they use some of the money they make to get their hair cut and buy food, sure...but the costs far outweigh the benefits.
You want to live in a place like India?
This is propaganda propagated by the large corporations of the world who want to further suppress wages...those companies who benefit from H1B visas and reduced labor costs.
The real research proves that wages are being suppressed for jobs like engineers that H1B visas are bring in workers to do. These jobs are becoming temporary and part-time...and many shipped overseas when the foreign worker leans what they need to know, the plant is closed in the US and jobs are shipped overseas.
This is particulary disturbing because this author is trying to make you believe that he is an "open-minded liberal" when in fact he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Don't fall for his impassioned pleas for "can't we all just get along"...because the truth of his underlying motive is wage suppression.
Oh, and regarding carpenters...the notion that they are doing only "gunt work" is insane. This gy has clearly not been on a jobsite. Immigrants are very capable and are doing all of the types of jobs on construction sites.
My husband is an out of work carpenter we see what is going on.
67
Great comment!
10
The need for more schools, more infrastructure, and more people leads to the need for more buildings to be built, more roads to be paved, and more houses to be built, which leads to the need for more architects, more surveyors, and more carpenters to work on those projects.
I hope you do understand that he is not talking about bringing immigrants in to the country, he is talking about legalizing the ones that are here and have been here for a while and seem to be here to 'stay'. You are talking about bringing people or at least your comment only makes contextual sense in the scenario of bringing people. we are talking about the people who already live here, have apartments, own homes, and with a legalized status can purchase a home and get the needed loans to do so, and no longer fear they system that continues to undermine and discriminate these individuals.
Meatpacking for big animals like cattle is the epitome of a job Americans won't do; very hard and unpleasant work, sometimes dangerous, often in refrigerators. It's all immigrants now, but decades ago those were high-paying much sought after union jobs.
But we didn't have as many billionaires then - and that's who is to blame, not the immigrants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/the-new-instability.html
'Between 1947 and 1979, the wages of the average meatpacking worker, adjusted for inflation, increased by around 80 percent, to just under $40,000 per year. But from 1979 to 2012, a meatpacker’s wages declined by nearly 30 percent, to about $27,000'
The ability of employers to replace their workers with a constant supply of cheap illegal workers broke the unions.
Construction work was high paying then and put many young men through college.
Cesar Chavez turned in illegals to the immigration service - in one union campaign he boasted of turning in 2200 in East Fresno alone - because he knew they would overwhelm his attempts to organize a farm workers union, and that's eventually what happened.
But we didn't have as many billionaires then - and that's who is to blame, not the immigrants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/the-new-instability.html
'Between 1947 and 1979, the wages of the average meatpacking worker, adjusted for inflation, increased by around 80 percent, to just under $40,000 per year. But from 1979 to 2012, a meatpacker’s wages declined by nearly 30 percent, to about $27,000'
The ability of employers to replace their workers with a constant supply of cheap illegal workers broke the unions.
Construction work was high paying then and put many young men through college.
Cesar Chavez turned in illegals to the immigration service - in one union campaign he boasted of turning in 2200 in East Fresno alone - because he knew they would overwhelm his attempts to organize a farm workers union, and that's eventually what happened.
30
This is a "joke article" right? A country of 315 million, benighted, divided, and hurtling toward its eventual national bankruptcy (based on unfunded obligations in the hundreds of trillions of dollars--to the tune of $275 trillion or so over the next 70 years or so), needs not ONE additional immigrant. "Joe, raise the bridge, and Katie, bar the door!" Nuff said.
30
The article says the immigrants take low-wage jobs, then help the American economy by spending all their wages. Wouldn't non-immigrant Americans who take those jobs ALSO spend their whole paychecks? And what happens with the money many immigrants send to their families back home? That doesn't get spent in America.
30
these are not immigrants, they are illegal aliens who have no right to be here
4
If illegal immigrant workers are such a great boon to our economy why are industries of every description trying to eliminate the jobs they can do by way of robotic automation? Fortunately for these folks, the robot engineers have failed to apply this approach to the job of rolling a burrito.
11
I think the answer is pretty clear: if a robot is cheaper than a worker, then it makes sense for the business to use the robot. That issue has nothing to do with immigration.
What is really fascinating is that out of 566 comments, most questioning the authors conclusions and many offering cogent reasons as to why his conclusions were flawed, the NYT couldn't pick one of those comments that it liked. The NYT has taken to writing these one sided arguments favoring immigration every so often, it makes me wonder about the editor who is review these articles for actual content. Let's see some real journalism, go out and visit a factory that uses illegal aliens, in say New Jersey, that uses third party contractors to package drugs for Wal-Mart say. They exist. I worked there. Go find them. Go find the contractors that use illegals they pick up at Home Depot for 50 bucks a day. That's journalism, not an article using 35 year old data and the opinions of the author.
42
First off, the Times is in desperate need of editors. No ESL illegals need apply, please. This article is so obviously a piece of left-wing propaganda that it borders on humor. And it would be funny, if this wasn't so similar to the fodder being fed to (and sadly believed by) mainstream America. Hey! All your neighbors, friends, and loved ones (unbeknownst to you) are on board with rewarding illegals with jobs and tax payer benefits-- why aren't You? Racist! The stats listed here alone are so far off that it became an unbearable read. Take this for what it is: A La Raza-originated piece of lying propaganda that should be printed and used as TP. Really, NY Times?? I know people are naive, but this is really insulting!
29
Instead of just ranting about the article, it might be helpful to provide cites showing that the author's stats are indeed wrong. But since there aren't any provided, I don't see why the author's claims should be doubted.
1
There is a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In physics this would be the perpetual motion machine, which somehow generates free power in defiance of the law of conservation of energy. Here the author is claiming that one of the most well-known laws of economics and markets has a hole in it - that increased supply of labor does not reduce its price. Somehow labor is different from any other product, service, or commodity? Really? The evidence presented by the author is minimal and small in scope, and as you can see from the comments, flies in the face of much personal on-the-ground experience, along with a variety of studies and data sets that have been posted.
1
I have to agree that illegal aliens do not simply steal American jobs. They are steeling our money, our education, our natural resources, our political clout, our education, our healthcare, and our public programs.
Like Mr. Davidson, many lump in the criminal illegal aliens, 11 to 15 million of them, and call them immigrants, which they are not. They are criminals of the lowest caliber.
Honest limited immigration, perhaps 100,000 per year permanent and another 100,000 per year on work visas, should not permanently damage our country, but millions and millions of illegal aliens will eventually put an end to what we have built in the United States.
Like Mr. Davidson, many lump in the criminal illegal aliens, 11 to 15 million of them, and call them immigrants, which they are not. They are criminals of the lowest caliber.
Honest limited immigration, perhaps 100,000 per year permanent and another 100,000 per year on work visas, should not permanently damage our country, but millions and millions of illegal aliens will eventually put an end to what we have built in the United States.
28
11 million legal immigrants a year? I think this guy needs his head examined.
That would double the US population in 20 years. Let that sink in, 300 million people added to the US in a single generation.
Social security, medicare, welfare, education, city governments, state governments, the highways, public transit, sewer systems, garbage collection, electrical systems, and more would utterly collapse with a population increase on this insane magnitude.
This is unquestionably the dumbest proposal for a US policy I've ever seen in my entire life. It is insane, and the only thing it will accomplishing is turning a world power into a third world nation in the fastest time in recorded history.
That would double the US population in 20 years. Let that sink in, 300 million people added to the US in a single generation.
Social security, medicare, welfare, education, city governments, state governments, the highways, public transit, sewer systems, garbage collection, electrical systems, and more would utterly collapse with a population increase on this insane magnitude.
This is unquestionably the dumbest proposal for a US policy I've ever seen in my entire life. It is insane, and the only thing it will accomplishing is turning a world power into a third world nation in the fastest time in recorded history.
35
Actually, Social Security and Medicare would be strengthened. They are pay as you go programs, with worker's payroll taxes paying for today's retirees benefits. These programs are having some trouble because the baby boom generation is retiring and so there are fewer workers to pay for the retirees' benefits. Having a younger population provided by immigration (and most immigrants would be younger) would mean that we'd have more workers to support the retired population, which makes these systems work better.
1
However SSI is NOT and that is a program already well abused by illegals and their numerous extended family members.
3
Actually not. If the premise is true that they are low wage workers, what are they contributing to Social Security as to sustainability? Liewise, they would get benefits for spouse and children. Isn't that the argument now with SS that people are talking out far more than they paid in
1
If somebody would do a study like this in the UK we wouldn't be facing an upsurge in right wing pseudo-fascist parties like UKIP who have terrified people in allegedly high-immigrant areas into believing their jobs are being stolen. Perception of immigration is that 20-25% of the locals are immigrants, when in fact it's barely 4%. The they are taking our jobs mantra rings out day in day out yet she we looked for part time (16 hours) per week permanent staff, out of 16 applicants, 11 never turned up for the interview, 3 were illiterate and the one who we took on lasted a week saying "it was too difficult to be nice to people". 50% of the applicants wee white and only 1 of them turned up - not getting the job.
Actions are decided unconsciously. The conscious mind exists for one reason only: to manipulate others. To do that, it must manipulate oneself first. AND groups, which people MUST adhere to if they are to survive, require some rough consensus on which total lie the group will agree is in fact its shared values.
We call this lie the One True Faith; American Ideals; GOD; Dialectical Materialism; Black Pride; The Rights of Man; or whatever the phrase was our group's founding genius decided upon as a Trademark. Dense of this Lie becomes the most fundamental of human instincts and social obligations.
All of this worked fairly well, from the beginning, when groups were small, much land lack humans, and folks could readily go off and start a new group, through 1945. All of a sudden what Lie was supreme could no longer be settled in the traditional manner: by murder. And, simultaneously, the possibility of abundance through global security and openness dawned.
Perhaps it’s time to look at whether the brand new glass of the second age of Homo Sapiens, 1945-present, is partly full or partly empty. Over this period - my lifetime - violence is down, and liberty is up. Disease is down, life prospects are up. Even political rhetoric is less about who can best kill our enemies/reward us with goodies stolen from others, and more about who can manage this new and frightening world, who can increase fairness and compassion.
Perhaps we will get open borders one day as well.
We call this lie the One True Faith; American Ideals; GOD; Dialectical Materialism; Black Pride; The Rights of Man; or whatever the phrase was our group's founding genius decided upon as a Trademark. Dense of this Lie becomes the most fundamental of human instincts and social obligations.
All of this worked fairly well, from the beginning, when groups were small, much land lack humans, and folks could readily go off and start a new group, through 1945. All of a sudden what Lie was supreme could no longer be settled in the traditional manner: by murder. And, simultaneously, the possibility of abundance through global security and openness dawned.
Perhaps it’s time to look at whether the brand new glass of the second age of Homo Sapiens, 1945-present, is partly full or partly empty. Over this period - my lifetime - violence is down, and liberty is up. Disease is down, life prospects are up. Even political rhetoric is less about who can best kill our enemies/reward us with goodies stolen from others, and more about who can manage this new and frightening world, who can increase fairness and compassion.
Perhaps we will get open borders one day as well.
Does this University of Chicago poll survey the same economists who completely missed seeing the great-recession coming?
9
I agree with Mr. Davidson that it is our immigration that kept our society efficient
1
That boomin' Miami economy of the early '80s was thanks mostly to the city's status as cocaine distribution center numero uno.
7
Sooo.. you start a preposterous story with a rather preposterous idea. Americans, in the 1980's, "..saw threats in people he didn't understand." And.. they carried guns in response to the really ludicrous suggestion of clinical paranoia.
It was really hard to get a gun permit in the 1980's, and the police constantly checked to make sure you were not carrying a pistole.
And where was this guy anyway? Walk a street in 1980 and usually Whites were a minority. The mall was the hang out for the kids from homes without air conditioning, and the streets were a piece of cake compared to the mall for clinical paranoia. He is a liar, or HE is a paranoiac.
And the process of allowing foreign workers in to take High Tech Jobs? We don't need them. Check the Department of Labor statistics, and we are graduating three times more than we need. Business isn't willing to train Americans and so they want cheap labor that is already trained. Then when they are finished with the foreign labor, they are released without unemployment, and the Society has to pay welfare to keep them alive.
What an article. The author is largely off base and very insulting.
It was really hard to get a gun permit in the 1980's, and the police constantly checked to make sure you were not carrying a pistole.
And where was this guy anyway? Walk a street in 1980 and usually Whites were a minority. The mall was the hang out for the kids from homes without air conditioning, and the streets were a piece of cake compared to the mall for clinical paranoia. He is a liar, or HE is a paranoiac.
And the process of allowing foreign workers in to take High Tech Jobs? We don't need them. Check the Department of Labor statistics, and we are graduating three times more than we need. Business isn't willing to train Americans and so they want cheap labor that is already trained. Then when they are finished with the foreign labor, they are released without unemployment, and the Society has to pay welfare to keep them alive.
What an article. The author is largely off base and very insulting.
14
Reality Check:
'Immigration reform' hurts American citizens' ability to find jobs!
Currently, our economy has more people out of the workforce than at any other time in recorded history, with some 93 million out of work. While the President and his fellow Fake Democrats and American Hating Republicans ignore these facts, we cannot.
No American is immune from feeling the effects of our massive H-1B/L1 scab visas and Illegal Aliens problem, but it’s the Poor Americans who are especially affected by an unsecure border that allows illegals to pour in and take entry-level jobs from hard working Americans
'Immigration reform' hurts American citizens' ability to find jobs!
Currently, our economy has more people out of the workforce than at any other time in recorded history, with some 93 million out of work. While the President and his fellow Fake Democrats and American Hating Republicans ignore these facts, we cannot.
No American is immune from feeling the effects of our massive H-1B/L1 scab visas and Illegal Aliens problem, but it’s the Poor Americans who are especially affected by an unsecure border that allows illegals to pour in and take entry-level jobs from hard working Americans
21
"Bloggers and pundits have said that 90 million Americans either aren’t working or aren’t looking for work. That’s a real number, but it includes high schoolers, college students and retirement-age Americans, leaving perhaps 20 million a better approximation. We rate the claim Mostly False."
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-post...
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/30/blog-post...
1
This is by far the most rational view on immigration i have read in a long while.
Congrats.
Congrats.
10
I agree with you, David! Yet, looking at the majority of comments seems to confirm that there are many who are "still jealous, nervous creatures, hoarding..." who just won't open up to the actual studies that have been done. I know from personal experience (daughter of an immigrant and married to an immigrant) that for someone to leave their native home, pack and move to the US takes a huge effort, and for the most part the immigrants coming in are more hard working and smarter.....they have to be to compete with the ignorance that greets them......than those who are loudly protesting them.
Rational? The man put the word "Americans" in quotes...as if there weren't such a thing.
3
Do you mean daughter of an illegal and married to an illegal? Because that is what we are really talking about here. Here is some food for thought. http://immigrationreform.com/2015/03/26/new-pew-report-profiling-illegal...
1
Mr. Davidson's article is woefully simplistic, and lacking in any advanced economic thought. The truth of the matter is that open borders would greatly increase the number of low-skilled and low-earning laborers. First, a larger population (particularly of the poor) costs more to the local, state and federal government in terms of providing schools, fire and police protection, medical care, etc. Take a look at what illegal immigration costs states like California. Second, while more laborers would in theory increase the amount of disposable income in the country, some of this income would undoubtedly flow back to the immigrants' countries of origin as opposed to being spent here. Additionally, the goods and services that are most likely to be consumed are highly automated and mass produced (e.g. eating canned goods and frozen meals rather than dining out or purchasing clothes at Wal Mart or a thrift shop rather than going on shopping sprees at Nordstrom, jamming an already crowded emergency room at taxpayer expense rather than flocking to high-paid medical specialists). Simply put, immigration is necessary from a long-term perspective and a moral/ethical standpoint, but it's anything but an economic panacea and it needs to be part of an orderly, well-thought-out process - not a global free-for-all.
20
The author seems confused. "the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States. According to David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, roughly 45,000 of them were of working age" Yet 125K people with only one third employable did not result in increased costs?
What the author seems to not understand is that there are currently 7,000,000,000 people in this world and a significant percentage would like to move here. Even if only .5 billion were to arrive in the US it may not be only the Archie Bunker types who would unhappy at the author implies. Yet he blithely states "growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside." Everybody, citizen or immigrant, eats and poops. Where does the infrastructure come from to accommodate them?
What the author seems to not understand is that there are currently 7,000,000,000 people in this world and a significant percentage would like to move here. Even if only .5 billion were to arrive in the US it may not be only the Archie Bunker types who would unhappy at the author implies. Yet he blithely states "growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside." Everybody, citizen or immigrant, eats and poops. Where does the infrastructure come from to accommodate them?
22
A significant percentatge? What is a significant percentage to you? Because immigiation is currently at net zero. So that significant percentage either can't get across the ocean, and/or isn't as eager as you think to get here.
Josure: It's not immigration that's at net zero. We currently allow more than 1 million people a year to immigrate legally to the US. It is illegal immigration that is at net zero, meaning as many people leave (voluntarily or deported) as come in.
4
Mr. Davidson it isn't about immigration it's about illegal immigration, you and the rest of the pro-illegal groups and organizations need to understand this. Are we a nation of laws? Or are we a nation of laws only some people need to obey? That is what you and intentionally overlook. And the expectation of entitlements also needs to be addressed, illegals aren't entitled to anything from our local, state or federal governments. Their arrogance is more than offensive, it breeds animosity and hate, not because of racism but because of the expectation of they can do whatever we want, break our laws, disrespect our culture and everyone has to accept and even overlook this criminal behavior and then allow you to stay and have access to the benefits of legal citizenship and residency. That is beyond galling. It is plain wrong. And you and they refuse to see it. Why? Because it is about legitimizing illegality.
Americans are for LEGAL immigration. Controlled by the federal government, not unlimited, not borderless, but controlled. And you haven't written about the other side of this immigrant tidal wave. The part that explains who pays for them? Who pays for health insurance, schools, hospitals, their children who can't speak our language or even theirs properly? Dumping low skilled, uneducated and people who do drive wages down and destroy middle class blue collar work is just too much to put on the middle class and even poorer classes in this country.
America first.
Americans are for LEGAL immigration. Controlled by the federal government, not unlimited, not borderless, but controlled. And you haven't written about the other side of this immigrant tidal wave. The part that explains who pays for them? Who pays for health insurance, schools, hospitals, their children who can't speak our language or even theirs properly? Dumping low skilled, uneducated and people who do drive wages down and destroy middle class blue collar work is just too much to put on the middle class and even poorer classes in this country.
America first.
37
It's all about replacing and overwhelming the current electorate with dependable Democrat voters.
20
Indeed and that train is going to crash. Look at the skyrocketing interest payments that must be paid every year out of the federal budget to keep the U.S. from defaulting on it's enormous and ever growing national debt which is the largest ever seen in human history. Well, more than 80 federal welfare programs now dominate the federal budget. This, of course, is separate from entitlement programs like social security and Medicare which people paid into their entire working years before applying for. No, I'm talking about WELFARE programs supported by DEFICIT SPENDING that are DOMINATING the federal budget RAISING the national debt REQUIRING huge and accelerating interest payments to be paid EVERY SINGLE YEAR from the federal budget. It's now over 400 billion a year of the federal budget. The point is that this isn't going to continue forever. When the interest payments reach about the $800 billion a year mark every year in a decade the welfare programs are going to crash and maybe via economic collapse. The entire Democratic Party model is unsustainable and headed toward collapse followed by social upheaval.
10
"REQUIRING huge and accelerating interest payments to be paid EVERY SINGLE YEAR from the federal budget."
You do know that the deficit has been dropping fast and is now below the 20 year average, right? And CBO has estimated that the debt to GDP ratio will be pretty stable for at least ten years.
Welfare programs simply do not dominate the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and interest on the debt are well more than half of federal spending. As for Medicaid, it might help to have an alternative suggestion as to what poor people should do to obtain health care. If they don't have insurance, they'll show up at the ER at taxpayer's expense, and that's a very expensive way to deal with the issue. Unless you think that ERs should be able to turn away people who can't pay, but I don't hear very many people advocating that position.
You do know that the deficit has been dropping fast and is now below the 20 year average, right? And CBO has estimated that the debt to GDP ratio will be pretty stable for at least ten years.
Welfare programs simply do not dominate the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and interest on the debt are well more than half of federal spending. As for Medicaid, it might help to have an alternative suggestion as to what poor people should do to obtain health care. If they don't have insurance, they'll show up at the ER at taxpayer's expense, and that's a very expensive way to deal with the issue. Unless you think that ERs should be able to turn away people who can't pay, but I don't hear very many people advocating that position.
How do you square your thinking with Thing 3 of Ha-Joon Chang's "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism"? Since your thrust runs head on into his most eloquent writing, why should I believe or trust your, possibly elitist, possibly naive, point of view?
10
I personally know a number of people who have lost jobs, particularly those involved in building houses. Carpenters, roofers, plumbers, electricians, cabinet makers -- all left unemployed by contractors seeking the cheapest labor they can find on the street corners near every Home Depot.
This belies the belief that illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs Americans won't do; it also implicates contractors trying to cut costs by not paying for the skills and education of legal workers.
This belies the belief that illegal immigrants aren't taking jobs Americans won't do; it also implicates contractors trying to cut costs by not paying for the skills and education of legal workers.
46
I realize that this is just an anecdote, but during the recession a few natives inquired about working at a family farm. Somehow they couldn't bring themselves to work in the fields or with animals. Immigrants would, although their children mostly don't. It seems to be a status issue--not wanting to be seen as working like a first-generation immigrant.
1
Well, why aren't we singing this news from the rooftops !
I believe it would benefit all of us, were we to eliminate all borders.
I don't see any "militias" at the Canadian border.
I would like to welcome all undocumented residents and refrain from labeling them "illegal aliens" ( media; are you listening ? ).
I believe it would benefit all of us, were we to eliminate all borders.
I don't see any "militias" at the Canadian border.
I would like to welcome all undocumented residents and refrain from labeling them "illegal aliens" ( media; are you listening ? ).
1. Mr. Davidson ignores the cost of educating the children of all these immigrants, who don't speak English, their parents are uneducated and can't help them, and since the parents are working several jobs just to survive, they can't oversee the children.
2. As I vaguely remember, the members of the Mariel boatlift got support from both the government and Cubans already living in Miami. This is not true of poor immigrants in general.
3. Yes, immigration certainly was a long-term gain for the US in the 1880s-90s, but I'm not sure that still works today. We were a very underpopulated country then, much less so now; plus we were much more in need of 'muscle' workers then compared with now.
4. Davidson argues that allowing these poor immigrants into the US creates good in that it doesn't increase world population, but if it provides a 'pressure valve' that allows poor nations to send their overflow here rather than lower their birthrate, then it does no real good.
All-in-all, the article strikes me as interesting but too narrow and theoretical. I'm not convinced that the benefits are all that obvious.
2. As I vaguely remember, the members of the Mariel boatlift got support from both the government and Cubans already living in Miami. This is not true of poor immigrants in general.
3. Yes, immigration certainly was a long-term gain for the US in the 1880s-90s, but I'm not sure that still works today. We were a very underpopulated country then, much less so now; plus we were much more in need of 'muscle' workers then compared with now.
4. Davidson argues that allowing these poor immigrants into the US creates good in that it doesn't increase world population, but if it provides a 'pressure valve' that allows poor nations to send their overflow here rather than lower their birthrate, then it does no real good.
All-in-all, the article strikes me as interesting but too narrow and theoretical. I'm not convinced that the benefits are all that obvious.
19
I knew that once the politically correct term, undocumented immigrant, had replaced the simply correct, illegal alien, we would get all kinds of jabberwocky language concerning prejudice against immigration.
Illegal aliens may take a job from a legal resident because many are willing to work for illegally lower wages. Such jobs are not well documented simply because they are paying illegally lower wages. Especially low paying jobs fly under the radar. Petty cash to any number of businesses.
It is no wonder some of the most liberal Western nations also have some of the most stringent immigration rules. It's not out of prejudice they do so, it's out of enlightened self interest on behalf of their their less well off citizens.
Illegal aliens may take a job from a legal resident because many are willing to work for illegally lower wages. Such jobs are not well documented simply because they are paying illegally lower wages. Especially low paying jobs fly under the radar. Petty cash to any number of businesses.
It is no wonder some of the most liberal Western nations also have some of the most stringent immigration rules. It's not out of prejudice they do so, it's out of enlightened self interest on behalf of their their less well off citizens.
30
Your comment implies that working illegally is a choice on the part of the immigrants in order to 'take a job from a legal resident'. Whose fault is it that they are working illegally? I believe it is their illegal status in the country which makes them take this decision. Working illegally is economically insecure, not well-paid and physically dangerous. Desperate people without many other options make these type of decisions.
Remove border controls and let them compete fairly in the job market. It will be better for them and it will be better for the citizens of the host country.
It is the tight border control that produces illegal immigrants. People will always strive for a better life and will find ways to get into countries. Tightening it more would rather increase immigrants with illegal status. Relax border control and you will get more legal immigrants who compete fairly in the job market, pay taxes and participate in social life.
Remove border controls and let them compete fairly in the job market. It will be better for them and it will be better for the citizens of the host country.
It is the tight border control that produces illegal immigrants. People will always strive for a better life and will find ways to get into countries. Tightening it more would rather increase immigrants with illegal status. Relax border control and you will get more legal immigrants who compete fairly in the job market, pay taxes and participate in social life.
1
"Most liberal Western nations also have some of the most stringent immigration rules." Um, you have heard of the European Union? And you are aware that it's members can travel and work freely within member countries?
Yes, but not those outside the union, not even Americans so what is your point??
1
Let's add a million immigrants per year more highly qualified than Mr. Davidson to run NPR’s “Planet Money” and then see what he thinks.
The US is very anti-STEM and there has been a great deal of damage in American's own investments in their careers in this field that Mr. Davidson should investigate.
The US is very anti-STEM and there has been a great deal of damage in American's own investments in their careers in this field that Mr. Davidson should investigate.
17
Fear isn't pushed onto citizens to protect jobs for them. That's the red herring. If immigrants get to be documented, that means businesses now have to pay them in a legal manner which means that their documented profits will fall.
It's just another way to make more money for a lot of people. Same way prisons are used for their cheap labour. It's never been about cleaning up the streets. It's been about putting people in jail for profit.
People aren't necessarily stupid, just no one has 100 hours a day to research every little bit of information that comes at them from sources that they've been taught to trust.
It's just another way to make more money for a lot of people. Same way prisons are used for their cheap labour. It's never been about cleaning up the streets. It's been about putting people in jail for profit.
People aren't necessarily stupid, just no one has 100 hours a day to research every little bit of information that comes at them from sources that they've been taught to trust.
2
"Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. "
What if, as many illegals do, they send a big chunk of their earnings back to [El Salvador/Guatemala/Honduras]? Then where do the apartments get rented and the cell phones bought? Same result as "outsourcing", isn't it?
What if, as many illegals do, they send a big chunk of their earnings back to [El Salvador/Guatemala/Honduras]? Then where do the apartments get rented and the cell phones bought? Same result as "outsourcing", isn't it?
17
I agree with a columnist I read who said "If you, who have had access to 12 years of free education, can't compete with an immigrant who had maybe 6 to 8 years of education, can barely speak English can't get a driver's license and might be picked up at his work for deportation at any time, you should be ashamed of yourself.
3
Read it again. He is advocating open borders.
1
Your comment is a non-sequitur. The issue is not qualifications but a question of reimbursement. Do you really think it is fair for the poor in this country to have to compete with illegal immigrants for low paying jobs? How about the increased demand for social service programs like Medicaid and food stamps leading to less resources for legal residents?
The columnist you refer to really needs to take a course in economics.
The columnist you refer to really needs to take a course in economics.
8
To Wilma Wolfe:
Many American adults did not take advantage of free public education when they were growing up because their families were highly dysfunctional. Now they are being forced to compete with too many people for too few jobs. Since there are so many job applicants, employers do not have to raise wages or improve working conditions. Obama would not have to be trying to raise the minimum wage if he would just require all employers (including private households) to use e-verify.
Wilma, what do you think happens to unemployed Americans? A large number of them end up on one welfare program or another. Many of them turn to the federal disability program, claiming they cannot work when, in reality, they just can't find work. The illegal immigrants are taking the jobs that these Americans would have gladly filled. Most Americans would rather be working than facing a life in which they and their families are dependent on welfare.
Many American adults did not take advantage of free public education when they were growing up because their families were highly dysfunctional. Now they are being forced to compete with too many people for too few jobs. Since there are so many job applicants, employers do not have to raise wages or improve working conditions. Obama would not have to be trying to raise the minimum wage if he would just require all employers (including private households) to use e-verify.
Wilma, what do you think happens to unemployed Americans? A large number of them end up on one welfare program or another. Many of them turn to the federal disability program, claiming they cannot work when, in reality, they just can't find work. The illegal immigrants are taking the jobs that these Americans would have gladly filled. Most Americans would rather be working than facing a life in which they and their families are dependent on welfare.
12
If this article were true, why is it that so many other countries as I understand have tougher rules about who gets to work there and in what jobs? I recently was talking to a physician friend in New Zealand and told her it might be an interesting place to work in temporarily, at which point she launched into a short speech about the restrictions facing foreign workers in New Zealand, yes even legal workers in the professional fields.
16
In response to some of the comments I have read so far: I feel that people start with cogent arguments and then all the sudden make broad generalizations: it's all about employers, or it's all about population growth, or a conspiracy to produce a glut of over-qualified workers. It's not all about any one thing. Issues are complex and inter-related.
We are talking about people who are risk-takers, trying to make a better life for themselves. I value that. I value that many immigrants are willing to do some of the hardest labor we can give them. I believe the author's statement that an increase in immigrants can lead to an increase in jobs that serve them. I believe that the way we treat immigrants raises (or lowers) our own status in the world, which is good (or bad) for our country. We should want respect for the right reasons.
It is NOT an immigrant's fault if an employer replaces IT workers with lower-paid H1Bs. That is an issue to be tackled in a different way. It is NOT an immigrant's fault that employers have gotten greedy and the middle-class is disappearing--that is due to technology and shift in corporate thinking. And in regard to population growth, education and available birth control are hugely effective if we would only take advantage. NOT an immigration problem.
Over time, immigrants become assimilated into the culture, and if our culture is one of compassion, of value in education and of flexibility (and a sense of humor), we will survive.
We are talking about people who are risk-takers, trying to make a better life for themselves. I value that. I value that many immigrants are willing to do some of the hardest labor we can give them. I believe the author's statement that an increase in immigrants can lead to an increase in jobs that serve them. I believe that the way we treat immigrants raises (or lowers) our own status in the world, which is good (or bad) for our country. We should want respect for the right reasons.
It is NOT an immigrant's fault if an employer replaces IT workers with lower-paid H1Bs. That is an issue to be tackled in a different way. It is NOT an immigrant's fault that employers have gotten greedy and the middle-class is disappearing--that is due to technology and shift in corporate thinking. And in regard to population growth, education and available birth control are hugely effective if we would only take advantage. NOT an immigration problem.
Over time, immigrants become assimilated into the culture, and if our culture is one of compassion, of value in education and of flexibility (and a sense of humor), we will survive.
3
This article makes a lot of sense. However America has its cultural and economic pride. It's our Constitution.So we get to set the rules. My suggestion is to make everyone in this country a citizen and reinforce our existing immigration laws. Our country will grow and prosper.
1
I work a lot in Marin County California as well as other comparable suburbs. I absolutely cannot recall the last time I saw a child of the suburbs being asked to lift a finger to do anything resembling work. All the work of maintaining the (pretty luxurious) lifestyles of these wealthy burbs is done by immigrants or the offspring of immigrants. If that's stealing jobs, it is stealing from the willing. Sadly, when the (almost universally) white suburban children come of age, they are pretty agitated at the idea of getting up before noon, and having to go forth and "do".
An international minimum wage, strictly enforced, would go a long way toward ending economic migration, and allow a great many economic migrants to stay home, where the many I work with, legal and otherwise, would prefer to be.
This argument is sort of like the one about police: White, affluent suburbanites almost never have any trouble with their ingratiating cops. That means they can't understand all the anger of those not affluent who do. Similarly, they have no knowledge of what it might be like to live in a country where the economic ladder "up" has no rungs for any but the already wealthy. OOps, that's here.
An international minimum wage, strictly enforced, would go a long way toward ending economic migration, and allow a great many economic migrants to stay home, where the many I work with, legal and otherwise, would prefer to be.
This argument is sort of like the one about police: White, affluent suburbanites almost never have any trouble with their ingratiating cops. That means they can't understand all the anger of those not affluent who do. Similarly, they have no knowledge of what it might be like to live in a country where the economic ladder "up" has no rungs for any but the already wealthy. OOps, that's here.
1
Most white people in this country earn less than $50,000 a year. Hope you were sitting down for that shocker to come ringing in.
13
I propose a massive increase in work visas for foreign journalists and economists to work in the United States. In fact, a massive refundable tax credit to their employers would help offset the costs of international recruitment and relocation.
29
I see many of the comments are concerning illegal immigration when the author, as far as I can tell, is talking about all immigrants here today and is also advocating for increasing future legal immigration to over 10 million more people or more every year.
We do indeed have obligations to legal immigrants who have a green card (permanent legal residency). They have almost all the rights of citizens and after five years or less of receiving their green card, are entitled to receive all the government benefits available to citizens.
However, I do not see how we owe anything to people here on temporary visas or to people who want to come to the US but are not here yet (with some few exceptions such as people who have or will marry an American).
There is nothing wrong with looking into the number of people we bring in and deciding we should lower our immigration levels. There is nothing wrong in saying "People on temporary work visas should not replace American workers in their jobs."
As long as people think they have no right to have an opinion on future legal immigration, we will continue to see a push from many groups to bring in more and more legal immigrants.
As long as people who think there should be fewer new immigrants but refuse to say so -- as long as all the focus is on illegal immigration -- the people who want cheap foreign workers will use their money to get their way. No matter what the facts are, they will claim there's no Americans for the job.
We do indeed have obligations to legal immigrants who have a green card (permanent legal residency). They have almost all the rights of citizens and after five years or less of receiving their green card, are entitled to receive all the government benefits available to citizens.
However, I do not see how we owe anything to people here on temporary visas or to people who want to come to the US but are not here yet (with some few exceptions such as people who have or will marry an American).
There is nothing wrong with looking into the number of people we bring in and deciding we should lower our immigration levels. There is nothing wrong in saying "People on temporary work visas should not replace American workers in their jobs."
As long as people think they have no right to have an opinion on future legal immigration, we will continue to see a push from many groups to bring in more and more legal immigrants.
As long as people who think there should be fewer new immigrants but refuse to say so -- as long as all the focus is on illegal immigration -- the people who want cheap foreign workers will use their money to get their way. No matter what the facts are, they will claim there's no Americans for the job.
8
Following up on a previous comment I made. The folks I end up competing with for business have a new tactic. Prices that Americans quote vs their prices. Or saying straight off a American would be more expensive. The kicker is these folks at one time would be less expensive for some jobs. I assure you this is no longer the case. We are portrayed as more expensive. I also don't see the attention to details that my peers exhibit in many cases. When the union folks get slow they flood the local tradespersons area with prices that are unrealistically low. They can afford this because often they are collecting unemployment from their union jobs. I do love working hard though.
1
To help US growth take off a very, very large influx of immigrants would be welcome. They would increase the job force as well as aggregate demand. Milton Friedman, the American Assoc. of Restauranteurs and US Chamber of Commerce understand this? Why do most liberals not?
Yes, you are correct in that everyone in the 1% understands that paying labor slave wages leaves more money for them.
9
I want to point out that although some of us may not realize the "positive" economic effects described in this article due lower labor costs for illegal immigrants, we are occasionally directly affected by the negative effects. For example, two weeks ago I went to the ER for a large cut on my arm from a hiking accident and I needed needed medical care and stitches ASAP. This was in Southern California, where there are a lot of illegal immigrants. The nearest hospital, recommended by the park rangers, was a community hospital which means people without insurance, a social security number, or legal documentation to be in this country are able to get free medical care. I do have insurance, and I paid my medical fees to be treated. But most of the patients there were non-English speakers, that did not have insurance or enough money to pay the medical bills, and they got free care (even faster than I was treated). This made me think of the many non-US citizens getting free healthcare while the rest of us, who are struggling with our own financial difficulties (especially Millenials like myself with higher education degrees but low-paying jobs) are required to pay for insurance and medical expenses.
I do not consider myself to be racist, in fact I am in an interracial relationship, but I would rather have illegal immigrants documented and have to pay taxes and pay for medical insurance, rather than the rest of us pick up the slack for them.
I do not consider myself to be racist, in fact I am in an interracial relationship, but I would rather have illegal immigrants documented and have to pay taxes and pay for medical insurance, rather than the rest of us pick up the slack for them.
12
Stephen, the president's executive order does allow illegal aliens to remain here for another 3 years. This means more of them will be filing income tax forms, but it does not mean the government will be collecting more taxes. In fact, the opposite will happen. The government will have to pay the vast majority of them the Earned Income Tax Credit.
If the people who have come here illegally ever qualify for Obamacare, the federal government will have to heavily subsidize them. It already pays for their children's health insurance. Allowing illegal aliens to remain means our government will have to spend even more than it does now to subsidize them.
We should ask Mexico to pay for its citizen's health care.
If the people who have come here illegally ever qualify for Obamacare, the federal government will have to heavily subsidize them. It already pays for their children's health insurance. Allowing illegal aliens to remain means our government will have to spend even more than it does now to subsidize them.
We should ask Mexico to pay for its citizen's health care.
8
Stephen, you'd do well to remember that the main reason illegal aliens are generally low wage workers isn't their lack of status, but their lack of skills and education, as well as the large number of them who are competing with each other and with American workers. Legalize them, and all you do is give them access to jobs they can't now get, say with employers who won't hire illegal aliens, and to benefits such as the EITC and maybe even Obamacare. You're going to be subsdizing them one way or the other. Problem is, once you start legalizing them and rewarding them for breaking the law, you get more and more.
7
I wouldn't agree with the "environmental friendliness" argument. Considering a person moves form a developing country (say India) to the US, his standard of living would be considered improved. This change in life style would come via higher direct energy consumption due to higher spending power, along with indirect increase in resource consumption like packaged food, vehicle ownership etc.
4
It all depends on whose "ox is gored". Please don't "gore my ox". (i.e. More people equal more pollution-- in the local environment.)
1
The economic arguments supporting immigration reform are similar to those supporting free trade agreements. Both immigration and free trade increase the size of the U.S. economic pie.
But what is only briefly mentioned in this article are the distributional consequences of immigration reform. Not everyone gets a bigger piece of the pie. George Borjas is not the only labor economist who asserts that the least skilled native born Americans--those who have already been hurt by decades of internationalization--will be made worse off by immigration reform.
Most of the economic gains in the U.S. over the past 20 years or so have gone to the wealthiest 0.5% of the population. We need to focus on poverty and income inequality in this country and tailor immigration policy so that it does not exacerbate these conditions.
But what is only briefly mentioned in this article are the distributional consequences of immigration reform. Not everyone gets a bigger piece of the pie. George Borjas is not the only labor economist who asserts that the least skilled native born Americans--those who have already been hurt by decades of internationalization--will be made worse off by immigration reform.
Most of the economic gains in the U.S. over the past 20 years or so have gone to the wealthiest 0.5% of the population. We need to focus on poverty and income inequality in this country and tailor immigration policy so that it does not exacerbate these conditions.
7
Most of the economic gains in the U.S. over the past 20 years or so have gone to the wealthiest 0.5% of the population...all of whom are for more immigration to drive down the wages of the 99%.
Interesting how that works out.
Interesting how that works out.
6
Excellent article,but,as you point out,many still hold the view that immigrants cause poverty in the US. Just read one of the comments to today's editorial: on Poverty by Edsall that "foreign Latinos taking jobs causes poverty,it's that simple." Hello!
"Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us: radically open borders." You're joking, right? Citation please? and not to a Times article. Readers are well aware of the Times' bias.
8
If illegal immigrants are good for the economy and the majority of them live in California... why does the State have a $100 Billion deficit?
12
I feel fairly certain that Giovanni Peri would not agree that open borders would be good for the economy. The economic benefits of immigration, as measured in his and other economists' work, are specific to immigration occurring under our meager immigration policies.
1
I think free and open borders as the writer suggests would go a long way to fulfilling the empty promises of NAFTA and CAFTA which did little to improve Central America.
1
I've never had a problem with immigrants coming here (I'm the child of one), and I've never believed that immigrants take jobs away from Americans. However, "we should welcome more immigrants than we currently do"?
Um, no.
Vast as the U.S. is, we still have limited resources - natural, social, governmental, etc. And I will say it burns me up when I see people in the grocery store, not speaking a lick of English, then using food stamps to pay for all their groceries. We're not the ATM to the world.
Um, no.
Vast as the U.S. is, we still have limited resources - natural, social, governmental, etc. And I will say it burns me up when I see people in the grocery store, not speaking a lick of English, then using food stamps to pay for all their groceries. We're not the ATM to the world.
6
It is more than just unemployment. States with more immigrants per capita also have dramatically higher wages- http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/foreign-born-population-median-income
Now, of course, that alone doesn't prove that immigration causes wages to rise (although there are plenty of economists who conclude that is exactly what we should expect to happen). It could also be partly or even completely that immigrants are just more likely to move to more prosperous states. But, what it does tell us for sure is that there is a path to prosperity that involves a whole lot more immigration than most states currently have.
Now, of course, that alone doesn't prove that immigration causes wages to rise (although there are plenty of economists who conclude that is exactly what we should expect to happen). It could also be partly or even completely that immigrants are just more likely to move to more prosperous states. But, what it does tell us for sure is that there is a path to prosperity that involves a whole lot more immigration than most states currently have.
Illegal immigrants move to more prosperous states for the same reason they move to more prosperous countries in Europe.
It is called 'welfare shopping'.
It is called 'welfare shopping'.
7
People who come to this country ILLEGALLY are the ones that are unwanted, NOT educated or non educated people who immigrate LEGALLY. I'm all for legal immigration. Illegals DO take jobs away from Americans and legal immigrants. If they weren't here, those jobs would be taken by people who are here legally or citizens. They were filled by legal immigrants and citizens before illegals took them. Now those jobs are filled by illegals, and many of the illegals are criminals, not all but many of them. I truly detest those people. They are draining our country of its jobs and financial resources. An llegal making 10K a year has more buying power than a legal person who makes 25K a year. It's time these people leave and the anchor baby law needs to be the first law changed. NO more anchor babies! Want to get rid of the illegals without paying for deportation, it's easy: first, fine every employer who is caught hiring illegals 10K the first time and 10K per person. The second time they are caught, 20K and 20K, and the third time they are caught, 50K and 50K and they loose their business and the right to own a business forever. Use the money collected to deport illegals who are not working and the criminals. Second, anyone collecting government benefits, work at something, a charity or jobs taken by illegals now, 40 hours a week and some other rules also. Result, more available jobs, less unemployment, less criminal element, fewer illegals and less people on government benefits.
3
All you have to do to see the reason for this "irrationality" is attend a few local planning meetings where the neighbors are all up at arms to stop any kind of "growth" in their vicinity.
That's not irrational. "Growth" destroys nature, destroys open space, creates traffic congestion -- all "growth" damages those who are grown upon.
The public is ready for zero growth, but our corporate scions and the rich are not.
Zero population growth + productivity growth = positive GDP growth of a few percent and divided among the same number of workers, that's progress.
Now, we have positive population growth + productivity growth = more positive GDP growth, but divided among more people, the average person here now is no better off than in Scenario 1, above. Meanwhile, he is tolerating more traffic, more development of farmland, worse smog, more pollution. This is pretending that there is no downward pressure on wages of the unksilled from more unskilled workers and several good studies have shown that when properly broken down into localities and specific jobs, such downward pressure does occur.
People will tolerate new jobs if those jobs go to someone they care about but just to tolerate more people for the sake of making the rich richer ... not an attractive idea.
We need fewer domestic births, so our native population is declining slightly, then allow in only the most qualified, so net population growth is zero.
That's not irrational. "Growth" destroys nature, destroys open space, creates traffic congestion -- all "growth" damages those who are grown upon.
The public is ready for zero growth, but our corporate scions and the rich are not.
Zero population growth + productivity growth = positive GDP growth of a few percent and divided among the same number of workers, that's progress.
Now, we have positive population growth + productivity growth = more positive GDP growth, but divided among more people, the average person here now is no better off than in Scenario 1, above. Meanwhile, he is tolerating more traffic, more development of farmland, worse smog, more pollution. This is pretending that there is no downward pressure on wages of the unksilled from more unskilled workers and several good studies have shown that when properly broken down into localities and specific jobs, such downward pressure does occur.
People will tolerate new jobs if those jobs go to someone they care about but just to tolerate more people for the sake of making the rich richer ... not an attractive idea.
We need fewer domestic births, so our native population is declining slightly, then allow in only the most qualified, so net population growth is zero.
4
Wait. The supply of labor has no effect on its price? Adam Davidson makes a couple of startling assertions here: 1) That immigrant labor defies the the laws of supply and demand which economists have carefully documented over the past couple of centuries. 2) That all economists now agree those laws no longer apply. . .at least not to immigration labor.
8
So, if I'm reading this correctly, the US should allow 11 million immigrants with questionable job skills into the country every year, while most estimates state that within 10 years automation will eliminate nearly half of low to mid-level jobs? Essentially, the US would be adding 11 million new "takers" each year to the Gov. roles. Not a sound plan from a jobs perspective.
9
The writer fails to mention the costs to school systems and other government support services that illegal immigration adds.
Those costs are felt in our taxes (which means less disposable income) and public school performance as resources are siphoned away to address children who don't speak English, or simply increase the number of students.
Anyone who sees their property taxes rising faster than inflation and their wages, as well as other taxes that are added and increased over time, knows that their take home pay, and therefore effective wages have been impacted.
It's easy to make a case for illegal immigration when you ignore the bigger picture.
Those costs are felt in our taxes (which means less disposable income) and public school performance as resources are siphoned away to address children who don't speak English, or simply increase the number of students.
Anyone who sees their property taxes rising faster than inflation and their wages, as well as other taxes that are added and increased over time, knows that their take home pay, and therefore effective wages have been impacted.
It's easy to make a case for illegal immigration when you ignore the bigger picture.
8
I think business has generally supported immigration because it keeps wages down and workers have generally opposed it because it keeps wages down. Didn't one of the Union Pacific gang say something rude about taking a Chinese worker over an Irishman anytime? I don't think someone who hires undocumented workers to build a building on Long Island pays them what he would pay native-born workers. A docile workforce very important--"little short this week, have to pay you next week." The Economy is a big abstraction. Stagnant wages good for people paying wages, bad for people earning them. Read Enrique's Journey to see how efforts to create a domestic workers union in LA were defeated by undocumented nannies and maids from Central America.
If memory serves, T.D. Allman's book on Miami says that special funding was made available to Cuban emigres through the State Department for anti-Castro political purposes. This money allowed people to open small businesses etc, things outside the usual purview of "welfare."
Still, there does seem to be something inevitable about this. No-one is going to pay anyone $17.50 an hour to make a refrigerator or nail roofing shingles if they can pay $7.50 an hour.
If memory serves, T.D. Allman's book on Miami says that special funding was made available to Cuban emigres through the State Department for anti-Castro political purposes. This money allowed people to open small businesses etc, things outside the usual purview of "welfare."
Still, there does seem to be something inevitable about this. No-one is going to pay anyone $17.50 an hour to make a refrigerator or nail roofing shingles if they can pay $7.50 an hour.
3
As a contractor on Long Island I hire many legal immigrants to work for me. Aside form the recession that still lingers in my business I have to deal with cut rate competition from them. Homeowners are constantly approaching them to work directly for the them, where I am cut out completely.
The recession, and the willingness of homeowners to get the lowest possible price for everything has ruined what used to be a pretty good living. It's "Walmartization" of everything.
I have never, ever, been asked by a homeowner if my workers are legal immigrants. All they want is the lowest price, and the job done. Immigration has a huge impact on construction, and construction employees the most people in the U.S.
The recession, and the willingness of homeowners to get the lowest possible price for everything has ruined what used to be a pretty good living. It's "Walmartization" of everything.
I have never, ever, been asked by a homeowner if my workers are legal immigrants. All they want is the lowest price, and the job done. Immigration has a huge impact on construction, and construction employees the most people in the U.S.
7
Without construction jobs for American male citizens, we make life very hard for a segment of American workers that should be doing well.
These are jobs that don't require education to start at an entry level spot. On the other hand, construction also offers jobs that pay lots more than entry level wages due to licensing requirements and the fact that with time can come increased skill and expertise and the possibility to supervise others.
We should be fighting like crazy to keep these jobs for the men who frankly don't have many options for good paying work.
It looks like you are trying. I am sorry you are so alone in that. How do these people with homes worth so much justify using cut rate labor to themselves?
These are jobs that don't require education to start at an entry level spot. On the other hand, construction also offers jobs that pay lots more than entry level wages due to licensing requirements and the fact that with time can come increased skill and expertise and the possibility to supervise others.
We should be fighting like crazy to keep these jobs for the men who frankly don't have many options for good paying work.
It looks like you are trying. I am sorry you are so alone in that. How do these people with homes worth so much justify using cut rate labor to themselves?
7
There are also vociferous arguments / conjectures / prejudices about the effect of immigration on health care costs. I would have appreciated including this aspect in the discussion.
This seems to be a topic that can play out on many levels. Vermont is a state characterized by low unemployment, yes, but predominantly small businesses who hang onto their employees; a huge service industry that caters to tourism; and a massive state government. We have low unemployment, just under 5 percent. But I and many others who have college degrees can't do better than get temporary, part-time or seasonal employment. Our governor wrings his hands over jobs to keep young people in the state, yet that same governor recently urged, as a policy, the hiring of employees from out of state. In addition, we now have a program that rewards foreign investors with special perks and we have ski areas--our biggest single recreational industry--that regularly hire young people from abroad to do what needs doing. As one who has been more or less continuously in the job market since moving back to my native state in 2002, I can't help observing that while out-of-state employees may add minimally to the economy here, they offset that benefit by definitely taking the jobs, particularly white-collar administrative jobs, especially with the state, that young Vermonters could and would take.
7
Very sensible, well thought-out article. I haven't seen this point of view expressed, although there are many who have quietly agreed.
1
As a recent immigrant myself, I also have ambiguous feelings about undocumented immigrants. Frankly, to grant them a path to citizenship seems unfair to those who went through the grueling process of LEGAL immigration, which often takes more than a decade of studying, working and paying taxes in the United States, in addition to the expensive and cumbersome process of application itself. My recent experiences also made me seriously doubt the claim that immigrants always take up the jobs Americans do not want. While I lived in Texas and California, I saw immigrants doing nearly all the low-end and poorly-paid jobs, but when I moved in a midwest state, I saw that native-born Americans do the same jobs, presumably for a higher salary. Sure, as a consumer, you pay more for services such as car washing and perhaps slightly higher taxes to get the road paved, but what's terribly wrong with that? Shouldn't the people who perform strenuous, dangerous or tedious tasks get properly compensated? The author of this article seems to believe that all Americans are better trained than immigrants and can move on to more technically-demanding jobs, but there are plenty of uneducated people--or people whose skills are somewhat outdated--in any country, and they deserve to work if they are willing to.
7
Not stealing jobs? Tell that to the construction guy that can't get a job because the so called American employer hires the illegal to do the work. If you know enough about the trades in many parts of this country you know that is true. But don't try to stop it because the "immigrant rights" people and some Hispanic politicians will scream racism. Ethnicity over country of is what counts to them. And of course God forbid an "immigrant" actually try to respect US laws or customs too. He just needs to know what are his US entitlements.
12
We have legal immigration that works. Just because some people decide to immigrate illegally across our open boarders does not mean we are racist, prejudice, homophobic, anti-immigration, shortsighted, jealous, or what ever, etc, etc, etc....
9
This logic is flawed if you think about the fact that in some fields like nursing and engineering, companies can go hire immigrants with H1-B visas at a lower wage and know that these workers won't stand up for their rights because then they will be out of a job and sent back to their own country. Indeed, the Phillippines continues to overproduce nurses, making many of their nurses desperate to find work and willing to be exploited in order to remain in the US (Gordon, "Nursing Against the Odds" p. 377)
9
This person takes no account of incorporating 11 million people into the country that have no respect for or intention of obeying the law.
That has to lead to an attitude of disregard for law not only among the illegal population but also among citizens who feel that the illegals break the law with no consequences so why shouldn't I do the same.
That has to lead to an attitude of disregard for law not only among the illegal population but also among citizens who feel that the illegals break the law with no consequences so why shouldn't I do the same.
7
This article is a poorly written piece. One thing that the author doesn't address is why the average American's working wages have fallen dramatically in the last 50 years. History shows us that after WWII America basically closed its doors and severely limited immigration. Any immigration that did happen was primarily high skilled positions. That changed in the 60's when Ted Kennedy and his cohorts changed the immigration policy to require 1 million 3rd world immigrants be admitted per year. This was basically at the behest of large corporations and farms that wanted cheap imported labor. This then created more supply for the job market, which lowered the overall wages. Mass immigration will simply turn this wonderful country into another Mexico or Columbia, which is to say a crime ridden 3rd world country run by corrupt businessmen where people cower in fear for their lives.
7
And Ronald Reagan put the final nail in the coffin of the American middle class with his first amnesty.
Kid yourself not, both parties are complicit in this.
Kid yourself not, both parties are complicit in this.
9
I am assuming this was an early April Fool's joke written by this person. I find it hard to believe anyone writing in a major (if declining) publication could write something so incredibly irrational with a straight face.
Ask California if we dont have enough people. That over populated wreck will be out of water in a year. Americans, per capita produce far more greenhouse gases than anyone else in the world. There are just too many good arguments to make against this nonsense so that leads me back to this being a joke. Even the straw men arguments are weak and irrelevant.
Ask California if we dont have enough people. That over populated wreck will be out of water in a year. Americans, per capita produce far more greenhouse gases than anyone else in the world. There are just too many good arguments to make against this nonsense so that leads me back to this being a joke. Even the straw men arguments are weak and irrelevant.
9
If low-wage workers were such as boon to the economy as Davidson suggests, one would wonder why Mexico's economy is not thriving.
The truth is replacing middle income consumers with low wage consumers does not boost the economy as the writer imagines. Low wage workers do not buy more phones, televisions, cars or eat out more. They are more likely to count every penny and purchase the cheapest goods and services. They are most likely to cut their own hair at home. Add to that, many illegals are sending money "home" which further lessens their buying power in the U.S.
The draw of the illegal labor force is that they work for less. That makes them weaker consumers with less disposable income which does not boost the economy.
We have a consumer-based economy and the continued flood of cheap labor will not help us any more than it has helped he countries many of these illegal immigrants have fled from.
The truth is replacing middle income consumers with low wage consumers does not boost the economy as the writer imagines. Low wage workers do not buy more phones, televisions, cars or eat out more. They are more likely to count every penny and purchase the cheapest goods and services. They are most likely to cut their own hair at home. Add to that, many illegals are sending money "home" which further lessens their buying power in the U.S.
The draw of the illegal labor force is that they work for less. That makes them weaker consumers with less disposable income which does not boost the economy.
We have a consumer-based economy and the continued flood of cheap labor will not help us any more than it has helped he countries many of these illegal immigrants have fled from.
8
"Immigrants don't just increase the supply of labor, they increase the demand for," poorly maintained, overcrowded housing, ratty old cars, and cheap clothes imported from third world sweat-shops. It's true we do end up with more opportunities for teachers, police officers, and emergency room nurses, but the low wages earned by illegal immigrants don't come close to generating the taxes to pay for them.
10
It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Anyone who thinks that an ever increasing supply of workers on the low end of the income level is not contributing to stagnant wage growth at these levels does not understand simple economics. The common statement is that these are jobs americans do not want to do. You need to ask yourself why would americans not want to do these jobs? The answer is simple it's the lousy pay! Limit the supply and the pay will rise. Spend a little less on houses and cars and more to gardeners and nannies!
5
Its not just Hispanic immigrants from Mexico and South American that pose a threat to American workers but also foreign workers from India, China and elsewhere. Some of these workers come here legally on special visas obtained for them by their employers who see this scam as a way to employ skilled workers worth paying wages that Americans need. Workers on special visas don't complain, they don't vote and can be shipped home when the corporations doesn't want them anymore. The result is a compliant work force with no voice, just like corporations like them.
Immigrants are great, my grand parents we are immigrants; legally here they worked hard, learned the language and prospered as did their children and their children's children. Unfortunately life isn't the same any more immigrants both legal and illegal don't have to learn the language and they get special benefits that my grandparents never dreamed of. I have no problem helping legal immigrants fit in but I do expect some effort to assimilate, not disappear or give up ones culture, but to recognize that you have chosen to come to this country and it and its culture deserve your respect.
Immigrants are great, my grand parents we are immigrants; legally here they worked hard, learned the language and prospered as did their children and their children's children. Unfortunately life isn't the same any more immigrants both legal and illegal don't have to learn the language and they get special benefits that my grandparents never dreamed of. I have no problem helping legal immigrants fit in but I do expect some effort to assimilate, not disappear or give up ones culture, but to recognize that you have chosen to come to this country and it and its culture deserve your respect.
5
Construction wages have actually dropped in purchasing power due to illegal immigration.
Go find someone today on a jobsite who does not appear to be central americian.
The Home Depot parking lots are a magnet with sometimes more than 100 seeking work. In D.C. fewer than 15% in the parking lot appear to be African-Americian. The pupusa and taco trucks abound.
Us old white and black guys know we are dinosaurs, doomed to be gone.
Go find someone today on a jobsite who does not appear to be central americian.
The Home Depot parking lots are a magnet with sometimes more than 100 seeking work. In D.C. fewer than 15% in the parking lot appear to be African-Americian. The pupusa and taco trucks abound.
Us old white and black guys know we are dinosaurs, doomed to be gone.
11
I have found this very puzzling attitude amongst Americans (I am not one). Any article on immigration would have near xenophobic (or some actually xenophobic) and racist comments. Clear enough.
However, when I meet up with ordinary Americans on visits to that country, they often ask me why I would not consider moving to the US, when so many of my own countrymen (Indian) have made that transition. There certainly is an element of curiosity in that seemingly counter-intuitive decision of mine. Often a nudge of encouragement, in the form of questioning the seriousness of my concerns on any potential move.
It may just be that once an individual is able to see beyond the stereotypes, peoples seem more similar than different.
However, when I meet up with ordinary Americans on visits to that country, they often ask me why I would not consider moving to the US, when so many of my own countrymen (Indian) have made that transition. There certainly is an element of curiosity in that seemingly counter-intuitive decision of mine. Often a nudge of encouragement, in the form of questioning the seriousness of my concerns on any potential move.
It may just be that once an individual is able to see beyond the stereotypes, peoples seem more similar than different.
Advisor,
You are a very smart guy.
The people of India have no fears that any of the demographic changes and offshoring that have occurred in the First World over the past 40 years will happen there.
If the people of India thought that what is happening to us could happen to them, do you really think they would react any differently than we do?
And by the way, if Americans were all such racists, how could all of these changes occurred?
You are a very smart guy.
The people of India have no fears that any of the demographic changes and offshoring that have occurred in the First World over the past 40 years will happen there.
If the people of India thought that what is happening to us could happen to them, do you really think they would react any differently than we do?
And by the way, if Americans were all such racists, how could all of these changes occurred?
4
We have plenty of those same fears, mostly related to large scale religious changes in demography (rather than race). That's one reason why I am able to understand the anxiety of westerners over immigration.
Articulating ones' own anxieties and fears is very human and very normal, What I do object to is unwarranted vilification of the "other".
Articulating ones' own anxieties and fears is very human and very normal, What I do object to is unwarranted vilification of the "other".
As a skilled wallboard installer and finisher I was making 15 dollars an hour in 1996. Today in Richmond Va the going rate for a skilled wallboard guy is . . . 15 dollars an hour. I wonder if the commentators and experts secure in their ivy league campuses and public radio offices know about this wide spread degradation of skilled trade wages. And for the record I am not a redneck xenophobe, but an Obama voting New York Times reading liberal. I respect the immigrants and enjoy the diversity they have brought to my provincial southern town, but these optimistic articles about the impact of immigration just seem out of touch with reality.
16
Myth? The writer must be hiding his head in the sand. Look around. What I see are cab drivers of Middle Eastern persuasion that barely speak English, but yet, somehow they've learned how to manuever through the crazy maze of traffic congestion; Spanish speaking cooks in our restaurants unable to communicate except with other spanish-speaking co-workers, landscapers employed by small and large companies don't speaka-the-English and need an interpreter to answer a simple question. Call centers for every business across the nation are staffed with reps across the world, extremely difficult to understand, particularly when you need answers STAT for solutions to computer problems. Went into a local phone store just yesterday and couldn't understand one word the guy said, and had to wait until the English-speaking rep got off his cellphone. Used to be we could do business with Americans on the other end of the phone - no need to press 2 for Spanish.
6
This piece is a ridiculously slanted, like most media coverage, which is not so much news coverage as a love blanket.
Maybe for balance you could run one by Prof. Norm Matloff, perhaps the leading expert on high tech visas like H1-B for 20 years. He's a liberal Democrat with deep personal ties to the immigrant community, but his critical views don't seem to please the megabillionaires who outright own many of the top media outlets today. Those billionaires support a thriving community of immigration supporters in 'This Town' and the whole American elite.
Davidson claims that most Americans support immigration 'reform' - meaning legalization and increased immigration, hmm...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/dissatisfied-immigration-levels.aspx
"The share of Americans who are dissatisfied and want more immigration (7%) was unchanged from 2014."
Polls that show great support for immigration reform skillfully use corporate PR techniques to elicit the desired answer.
The only chance American voters had to express themselves directly on illegal immigration was in liberal Oregon, where they voted 2-1 against giving driver's licenses to the undocumented. They were overturning a bill signed by the governor, and they were outspent by 10-1.
Peri is prominent, but his work is funded by pro-immigration groups like PNAE and Microsoft.
And yes, I'm an angry old man; angry at seeing my planet and my country needlessly destroyed by blind greed.
Maybe for balance you could run one by Prof. Norm Matloff, perhaps the leading expert on high tech visas like H1-B for 20 years. He's a liberal Democrat with deep personal ties to the immigrant community, but his critical views don't seem to please the megabillionaires who outright own many of the top media outlets today. Those billionaires support a thriving community of immigration supporters in 'This Town' and the whole American elite.
Davidson claims that most Americans support immigration 'reform' - meaning legalization and increased immigration, hmm...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/dissatisfied-immigration-levels.aspx
"The share of Americans who are dissatisfied and want more immigration (7%) was unchanged from 2014."
Polls that show great support for immigration reform skillfully use corporate PR techniques to elicit the desired answer.
The only chance American voters had to express themselves directly on illegal immigration was in liberal Oregon, where they voted 2-1 against giving driver's licenses to the undocumented. They were overturning a bill signed by the governor, and they were outspent by 10-1.
Peri is prominent, but his work is funded by pro-immigration groups like PNAE and Microsoft.
And yes, I'm an angry old man; angry at seeing my planet and my country needlessly destroyed by blind greed.
11
"Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. "
I've read some of Peri's papers. They are almost entirely based on theoretical models.
And being from Southern California, I can tell you point blank that Peri is wrong. It may have been true 30 years ago that Mexicans do support work on construction sites, but now they are dominant in many of the higher skilled construction trades. Further, they use ethnic networks to monopolize the jobs.
Peri's idea that English-language ability is somehow an advantage is ridiculous on the face of it, because
1) immigrants can learn English
2) when an area has enough immigrants from one linguistic group (as is the case in Southern California and elsewhere, there is no need to speak English even for higher level positions and, in fact, bilingual ability becomes a necessity (benefitting immigrants and/or their children).
What we know is that wages have been stagnant over the last 30-40 years, and the workforce participation is dropping (esp. among younger workers and older workers). This all coincides with the new era of mass immigration.
I've read some of Peri's papers. They are almost entirely based on theoretical models.
And being from Southern California, I can tell you point blank that Peri is wrong. It may have been true 30 years ago that Mexicans do support work on construction sites, but now they are dominant in many of the higher skilled construction trades. Further, they use ethnic networks to monopolize the jobs.
Peri's idea that English-language ability is somehow an advantage is ridiculous on the face of it, because
1) immigrants can learn English
2) when an area has enough immigrants from one linguistic group (as is the case in Southern California and elsewhere, there is no need to speak English even for higher level positions and, in fact, bilingual ability becomes a necessity (benefitting immigrants and/or their children).
What we know is that wages have been stagnant over the last 30-40 years, and the workforce participation is dropping (esp. among younger workers and older workers). This all coincides with the new era of mass immigration.
11
Who is 'legal' in this country? Does entering on Ellis Island in the late 1800s with minimal interrogation because you're white mean you're legal? Are native Americans from south of an arbitrary border make them illegal? The hubris of whites in the country knows no end. I'm ashamed of this viewpoint espoused by some of my race.
It isn't hubris if your ancestors are the ones who built the country practically from scratch. Moreover, the founding fathers created this country for their own posterity and European cousins, not for the whole world. Do you consider it hubris for the Japanese to want to remain ethnically and cultural Japanese? Is it really hubris for the French to want to keep their country French? Is it hubris for Israel to want to remain a Jewish state? Don't you find it interesting that those who want Israel to remain Jewish so often push for high third world immigration, multiculturalism and a multi-ethnic society in America? It is only those who are brainwashed and have drunk the globalist media Kool-Aid who think it is somehow virtuous to sell out our nation to all comers.
6
First of all, immigration tends to be a political problem not an economic problem. Labor mobility is a net plus just like trade. It is one of the US has maintained it lead over the advanced nations in the world, most of the time.
The problem comes down to semi-skilled workers threatened by immigrants from Latin America. They are most vocal in the Republican Party. The Ds see it as way to increase their clientele base. Let be honest though, the reason the Ds do not mind more immigration is because those immigrants are not entering their most important base's employment sectors. I will guarantee if we let Indian's compete openly, and freely with government workers, or Chinese challenging upper middle class professions, so beholden to the Ds. You would immediately see a coalition of Ds and Rs restricting that perceived competition.
The problem comes down to semi-skilled workers threatened by immigrants from Latin America. They are most vocal in the Republican Party. The Ds see it as way to increase their clientele base. Let be honest though, the reason the Ds do not mind more immigration is because those immigrants are not entering their most important base's employment sectors. I will guarantee if we let Indian's compete openly, and freely with government workers, or Chinese challenging upper middle class professions, so beholden to the Ds. You would immediately see a coalition of Ds and Rs restricting that perceived competition.
When illegals become eligible for the same government programs that Walmart workers are getting because of low pay, no adequate Healthcare, and part time hours, just how does that better us? I'd say your Grandfather was right. Sometimes the old ways of thinking were done by SMARTER thinkers. A shame he went to war to defend something that today you find irrelevant.
9
In the 1990s Israel took in 1.5 million post-Soviet immigrants, an influx of some 20% of its total population. Despite some short term issues, the economy surged, jobs were made, and today, few remember it as a problem. Since then, many tens of thousands of illegal Somalis and Sudanese entered the country, obviously greeted much less, and, nonetheless, support themselves in a legally challenging environment, and still, there is practically zero unemployement in Israel.
If economies and gov’ts could react instantaneously to the influx of new immigrants, Davidson might be correct. But, economies and gov’ts are systems that have “bottlenecks” which induce lag times, some very substantial. E.g., a typical illegal immigrant comes here to the US with very little money, yet, they have immediate needs [shelter, clothing, food, etc]. How do they fulfill these needs? Well, they might stay with family and friends until they can “get on their feet” financially. But this temporarily lowers the per capita disposable income. Imagine this happening in an entire neighborhood with a massive influx of 100k “Franistanians” in a large dense city, since immigrants from the same country generally live in close proximity to one another. Since there is a massive immediate need, with almost no increase in dollars to pay for it, the govt will have to subsidize them in terms of education, health, food stamps, etc. But that takes time to implement - a bottleneck; one like trying to shove toothpaste through a needle. Meanwhile, this rapid influx causes shortages/bottlenecks of goods, services, and infrastructure [e.g., traffic]. This is true even AFTER these immigrants start to work, b/c infrastructure takes time to develop. Shortages causes prices to rise, resulting in greater poverty, etc., etc.
Davidson hasn’t thought of any of this, which shows he doesn’t understand how economies work. What works for 11k immigrants, rapidly breaks down for 11m yearly newcomers.
Davidson hasn’t thought of any of this, which shows he doesn’t understand how economies work. What works for 11k immigrants, rapidly breaks down for 11m yearly newcomers.
3
if this is true why isnt calif booming--instead of last in everything
8
This is absurd in a multitude of ways. This country is already overcrowded and thus putting a major strain on natural resources. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen to those precious resources with several million more people draining them.
This idea of "abracadraba" you are a citizen is right out of a horrid fairy tale!
Yes this country was founded by immigrants. But times change. People used to travel by horse and buggy too.
This has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with common sense. Something the writer, who claims to be part of a "more mature, rational generation" is apparently sadly lacking in.
This idea of "abracadraba" you are a citizen is right out of a horrid fairy tale!
Yes this country was founded by immigrants. But times change. People used to travel by horse and buggy too.
This has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with common sense. Something the writer, who claims to be part of a "more mature, rational generation" is apparently sadly lacking in.
5
Saw some typical ranting against immigration in comments. Decided to add few things i know.
1) Hiring a legal employee, as it always happens in a high skill jobs like technology, costs the company a lot more than an native employee in lawyer fees and application fees. With the extra uncertainty that his visa may not get approved.
2) With regards to IT outsourcing, the employer pays almost the same amount of money to the outsourcing firm , who in turn takes a cut before paying the immigrant employee.
3) There is an extra middle man here, and US company pays almost the same to the outsourcing firm. But the US company don't have to worry about keeping a IT (information technology) department who needs constant training. Believe me, in IT you need constant training to keep updated.
1) Hiring a legal employee, as it always happens in a high skill jobs like technology, costs the company a lot more than an native employee in lawyer fees and application fees. With the extra uncertainty that his visa may not get approved.
2) With regards to IT outsourcing, the employer pays almost the same amount of money to the outsourcing firm , who in turn takes a cut before paying the immigrant employee.
3) There is an extra middle man here, and US company pays almost the same to the outsourcing firm. But the US company don't have to worry about keeping a IT (information technology) department who needs constant training. Believe me, in IT you need constant training to keep updated.
Which came first, the competition chicken or the racism egg?
1
I'm disappointed that so many comments don't focus on the logic of the column. They fall directly into the "lump of labor" idea that the author starts the column by dismantling.
I'm no expert on immigration but I'm familiar with appeals to models that are not true but seem convincing. I'm thinking above all of the federal government as "like a household economy that shouldn't spend more than it earns". As we know, the federal government is not like a family; it can print money.
I'm no expert on immigration but I'm familiar with appeals to models that are not true but seem convincing. I'm thinking above all of the federal government as "like a household economy that shouldn't spend more than it earns". As we know, the federal government is not like a family; it can print money.
3
Until American politicians accept responsibility for creating the desperation that results in waves of immigration, little is likely to change in terms of US immigration policy. NAFTA drove Mexican immigrants to the United States as cheap, heavily subsidized US imports undermined that country's agriculture economy creating a level of economic desperation that has made the Drug Cartels possible (along with US illegal drug consumption). The recent waves of immigration from El Salvador and Guatemala are also driven by the desperation that has lingered for so long in those countries wrecked by the U.S. foreign policy (often illegal) in the region in the 80's and 9o's. We reap what we sow, and if we sow war and desperation in nearby lands we will inevitably inherit their peoples.
This is not the explanation given to our workers here by their politicians, unions and the media. And as long as we lie to ourselves about the reasons people are forced to immigrant, we will never accept immigrants. One only has to look at the levels of immigration by children from Central America to understand the despair their parents must endure - and what is our country's response? Shamelessness where there should be blame!
This is not the explanation given to our workers here by their politicians, unions and the media. And as long as we lie to ourselves about the reasons people are forced to immigrant, we will never accept immigrants. One only has to look at the levels of immigration by children from Central America to understand the despair their parents must endure - and what is our country's response? Shamelessness where there should be blame!
2
The NYTs complains about wage stagnation and underemployment, but then claims immigrants have nothing to do with the problem.
If you bring in millions of undereducated people to an economy where only educated people can make a decent living, wages at the lower end decrease.
It's that simple.
Canada has a smart immigration policy. Canadian immigration policy favors admitting admits educated people who have financial resources.
It you add water to a drink, it waters down the substance of whatever you are drinking. You combat that by adding more substance to he mix.
If you bring in millions of undereducated people to an economy where only educated people can make a decent living, wages at the lower end decrease.
It's that simple.
Canada has a smart immigration policy. Canadian immigration policy favors admitting admits educated people who have financial resources.
It you add water to a drink, it waters down the substance of whatever you are drinking. You combat that by adding more substance to he mix.
7
We live in a country with limited natural resources. I have no desire for US to have the population density of many of the other nations and the rationing of those resources that follows. There is no problem with increasing the number of H1Bs, L1s, or other legal work permits, legal residency permits, etc but in a controlled manner, not the system we have in place where anyone who makes it across the border feels they have the right to stay here. Which countries in the world have such a policy? Uncontrolled immigration no doubt increase our total GDP, but not our GDP per person, which is the measure that counts.
3
Do you mean to say that severely cutting back on illegal aliens and preventing them from getting jobs here would not strengthen the wage markets for native born blue-collar and unskilled labor? And would not perhaps lure some of the people who each month drop out of the job market to get back in? I'd like to give it a chance. The liberals, who keep complaining about the big divide in our country's income, might have to pay more tor their kitchen renovations, new roofs, and lattes. Which I guess is what prevents us from taking action to curb illegal immigration.
7
Someone had better start thinking about the changes in our weather such as the drought that is drying up California. NASA has reported that California has enough water to last only for one year along with the end of the rainy season that just ended with very little rain. What is going to happen to millions of people when there isn't enough water to go around? Several million of the illegal population coming from Mexico lives in California also people are leaving the state at the rate of more that a thousand a week. This drought has spread all across the Southwest and its going to get worse as time goes on. With what's happening in numerous states along with California is the fact that farmers can't raise the food such as vegetables and numerous other food items because of needing the water that is available for households and businesses only. You can find all of this information on Google. This is one of the main reasons that legal immigration needs be stopped for at least ten years and illegal immigration needs to be stopped permanently. The larger the population in the US grows it is a drain on the states resources such as water. This is just the beginning of what may be down the road. I was raised in California but I have never see weather like this in that state. I'm glad I moved from there years ago.
3
Surprised to see the NYTimes Comment Section be just as ignorant and uneducated about immigration as the Tea Party. Davidson's argument is logical and well-explained; apparently too much so for a hyper-populist comment section that is now approaching the fringes of the far left.
P.S. I've voted on the Working Families Party ticket many times; I'm no conservative.
P.S. I've voted on the Working Families Party ticket many times; I'm no conservative.
1
The author of this piece is exhibiting what child psychologists call "magical thinking". It's obvious to anyone who's lived in California for more than a year that immigrants ARE taking away low-end jobs. Many of them are jobs that, in early times, young Americans took while they were in college or while they were deciding what to do with their lives. Unskilled and semi-skilled jobs like construction, house cleaning, babysitting, gardening. Cheap immigrant labor has also given a lot of middle-class people the belief that they cannot or should not clean their own homes or take care of their own yards. They want to live lives prevously reserved for the wealthy. But all that cheap labor comes at a price. The people doing that labor are doing it cheaply PRECISELY BECAUSE they are illegal. Bring those people out of the shadows and now who's going to clean my house? Well of course a whole new wave of illegals will be allowed to sneak over the border and live substandard lives so that the average middle class American can feel like a rich person. Thus we become a country with a permanent under class. And what's next? No kidding I'm pretty sure we will have children begging in the streets because that is what having a permanent underclass leads to.
9
Wow, what a wonderful piece. The last paragraph is an excellent conclusion. Fear blinds us to think people will take what isn't ours to begin with. What do we take with us when we die? Our hatred and ignorance? Many other races were considered "other" for decades until the dominant group accepted them, people forget where they come from tending to deny others opportunity. No one wants the doors shut on them, but we surely are swift when it comes to shutting the doors in the face of others.
1
'... but we surely are swift when it comes to shutting the doors in the face of others...'
But we did not open the door.
See the difference?
But we did not open the door.
See the difference?
6
No, I don't. There's people who come here legally, but do a lot of illegal things to get here. But who are we to judge, right?
If this isn't satire, then it's the most willfully ignorant article ever published by the NYT. The unemployment and underemployment among uneducated, unskilled Americans, who are disproportionately black, is depressingly high in a supposedly recovering economy. Legalizing 11 million more uneducated, unskilled illegals would be a disaster for those already at the bottom, who would then have to compete for the available work. (Currently, the illegals can only work for employers willing to flout the law.) And unrestricted immigration would be an environmental disaster. Endless growth, with concomitant degradation of land, air, and water, hardly constitutes a benefit.
9
Recently, the Indian government has stepped to increase the number of IIT(Indian Institue of Technology) which are setup to compete with world class universities. in a sole aim to improve our country India.
But the problem is the number of students graduating from these IIT's are moving aboard, well a big chunk of them. some cite as infrastructure problems, lack of research funds in India, but its the luxury life that they are after in reality.
The major percentage of these destination are towards USA.
For India, its a loss, so is for US citzens' job aspirant has to compete with the world for a job in US soil !!
But the problem is the number of students graduating from these IIT's are moving aboard, well a big chunk of them. some cite as infrastructure problems, lack of research funds in India, but its the luxury life that they are after in reality.
The major percentage of these destination are towards USA.
For India, its a loss, so is for US citzens' job aspirant has to compete with the world for a job in US soil !!
2
Is it just me or is this guy talking about immigration when the problem is illegal immigration? Speaking of oranges, we are talking apples buddy. There is a difference.
3
I agree there needs to be a more detailed analysis that distinguishes documented immigrants and undocumented workers. To those who are foaming at the mouth and just flat out against immigration entirely regardless of legality, how did your ancestors get here? What was the magic number when there too many immigrants have arrived (right after you family got off the boat?) When was the magic year when lady liberty, instead of raising the torch, raised her finger to gesture incoming huddled masses to turn back (right after your family got off the boat?)
This is the load of manure they fed British citizens when they started allowing millions into their country. Anyone who opposed mass immigration was labeled racist. Now, some 15 years later, there are daily stories about how socially fractured the country has become, with the most recent immigrants refusing to learn the language or adopt the customs of the U.S. Now there are workplaces that advertise specifically for, for example, Polish speakers and parts of some cities that essentially operate under Muslim laws. They have created a nightmare country and it is too late to turn back the clock...
6
Without fully reading your article I can see that you do not understand illegal immigration. These illegals do not take jobs away, when they are here illegally, but once you give these illegals Amnesty, they no longer have to hide in the shadows. That is when they start taking jobs away from legal residents and Americans Citizens. Then you have to replenish the field workers again. If America wants someone to pick the crops and tend the fields, then we will need to create a Workers Program, if not every 10 years we will have to give Amnesty to millions of illegals again. Take it from a retired Border Patrol Agent.
2
I believe the proper term is "undocumented workers."
The argument made here is only valid when applied at a population level. At an individual level, the effect of immigration is quite different from what the author suggests.
Consider a recently qualified professional, say a young orthopaedic surgeon from New York City. Jobs in prestigious hospitals in New York City are highly competitive, and openings are scarce. If such a job went to a foreigner instead, and the locally trained surgeon was unable to secure a job and had to relocate, it would be quite valid for him to feel that his job has been stolen by a foreigner. Knowing the fact the foreigner will contribute to local economy, and perhaps one day will even require a joint replacement surgery, would not make any difference to the locally trained surgeon.
Similar argument can be made for lower skilled jobs. The authors argued that often immigrants perform support tasks, and thus free up native workers to higher paying skilled work. The problem here is that 2 assumptions are made - there is enough demand for skilled work to absorb all the support workers being displaced by immigrants (often not), and there is a way for the native support workers being displaced to acquire the skills to become a skilled worker while maintaining their livelihood (i.e. doing apprenticeship, no job, and trying to raise a family).
As an immigrant myself, I felt the suggestion that the entire immigration discussion is the result of faulty thinking is somewhat naive.
Consider a recently qualified professional, say a young orthopaedic surgeon from New York City. Jobs in prestigious hospitals in New York City are highly competitive, and openings are scarce. If such a job went to a foreigner instead, and the locally trained surgeon was unable to secure a job and had to relocate, it would be quite valid for him to feel that his job has been stolen by a foreigner. Knowing the fact the foreigner will contribute to local economy, and perhaps one day will even require a joint replacement surgery, would not make any difference to the locally trained surgeon.
Similar argument can be made for lower skilled jobs. The authors argued that often immigrants perform support tasks, and thus free up native workers to higher paying skilled work. The problem here is that 2 assumptions are made - there is enough demand for skilled work to absorb all the support workers being displaced by immigrants (often not), and there is a way for the native support workers being displaced to acquire the skills to become a skilled worker while maintaining their livelihood (i.e. doing apprenticeship, no job, and trying to raise a family).
As an immigrant myself, I felt the suggestion that the entire immigration discussion is the result of faulty thinking is somewhat naive.
1
Is that so? So why is it that on the West Coast where I live, entire industries once populated by local working men--roofing and indeed construction come to mind right off the bat--are now exclusively occupied by Mexicans, and you betcha most of them are illegal. During the recession that began in 2008, it was an especially sore point locally: Americans out of work, but Mexicans busy as all get-out. It's never gotten back to where it was: and why would it, when illegals are willing and eager to work for much lower wages, off the books, and without paying SS tax. Dream on, NYT. You must not leave the office much.
9
It's impossible to take a this so called academic's premise seriously. He demonsrates his liberal bias mediately by the use of the intellectually dishonest term "immigrant" when what he really means is "illegal alien".
4
I wonder what the 500 American citizen and Green Card holders forced to train their cheaper H1B immigrant replacements at SoCal Edison think of this article. Or would this article ring true with a black teenager looking for a part-time job where employers legally prefer full-time, bilingual workers? It's become a race to the bottom in the real world for many Americans either not visible or not important to NPR "journalists".
7
It's no myth. There are only so many jobs and immigrants work for less.
7
I don't worry about illegal immigrants taking our jobs but why reward bad behavior (entering our country illegally)?
1
If you should happen to walk past a construction site check out who's doing the work. Very likely its 99% latinos.
Tech jobs have been commoditized. Big Indian body shops now dominate. Minorities get to hire all minorities without any blowback so guess how that works out.
Tech jobs have been commoditized. Big Indian body shops now dominate. Minorities get to hire all minorities without any blowback so guess how that works out.
3
The problem I have with immigration debates like these is, no one in either camp ever addresses each other's issues; the ones in the middle I can understand, but It's exasperating to hear people casually throw around the word "steal". You can steal an identity or a passport, but how exactly does one 'steal' a job? Is it like 'stealing' a boyfriend or girlfriend? Was the job yours to begin with? If it was stolen, can you report it stolen or sue to claim said job? Blame whatever greedy corporation or employer is offering the job to a lesser qualified/undocumented worker, but to say someone "stole" a job makes no sense.
Immigrants have far less chance of being hired, than American born citizens.
Language, different culture, different values, lack of references, lack of knowledge of the place, lack of vehicle etc.
So maybe Americans, who are familiar with all of the above and could provide plenty of preferences should stop using the excuse, that employers hire immigrants instead of Americans. It's another myth.
I'm sure there are jobs, where immigrants outnumber the born-in citizens, but it has nothing to do with some sort of conspiracy against Americans. They are all legally bound to hire people without preferences based ethnicity, sex, religion etc. The real reason, why those said companies hire more immigrants, because their applicants are immigrants, usually outnumber Americans 10 out of 9.
Language, different culture, different values, lack of references, lack of knowledge of the place, lack of vehicle etc.
So maybe Americans, who are familiar with all of the above and could provide plenty of preferences should stop using the excuse, that employers hire immigrants instead of Americans. It's another myth.
I'm sure there are jobs, where immigrants outnumber the born-in citizens, but it has nothing to do with some sort of conspiracy against Americans. They are all legally bound to hire people without preferences based ethnicity, sex, religion etc. The real reason, why those said companies hire more immigrants, because their applicants are immigrants, usually outnumber Americans 10 out of 9.
I am generally pro-immigrant, but I think you paint too rosy a picture. Even if, for example, an influx of Cuban immigrants to Miami had no effect on the employment or wages of natives, it still could have had other negative effects. Did rents go up because of the sudden increase in demand for housing? Were schools scrambling to accommodate students who spoke English as a second language, in the process diverting resources from native students?
I am not saying that this is a good public policy argument, especially because, in the long run, more houses can be built and more teachers can be hired, but I do think that many people have rational, self-interested reasons to oppose more immigration.
I am not saying that this is a good public policy argument, especially because, in the long run, more houses can be built and more teachers can be hired, but I do think that many people have rational, self-interested reasons to oppose more immigration.
1
After reading this "debunking", I can only conclude that the author's job is secure. And that there will never come a time when he could be replaced by a willing-to-do-his-job-for-less-pay immigrant. Legal or illegal.
5
What is wrong with the anti immigration proponents? They do not realize that such policies have a great adverse impact on the employment of some 5-6 thousand immigration lawyers in this country, notwithstanding the fraud committed by the so called "notaries or notario." You see, the author is correct. Restricting immigration brings about unemployment of highly qualified professionals here in the U.S. Immigration law is very complex " man made" law but it generates low fees. So, why not let them all in.
1
There are a couple of weaknesses in this article. First, not every working immigrant is completely investing in America, but are sendng earned income out of te country thus they are not using that income to consume Second, not every immigrant is going to stay in America for the rest of their lies thus passing their accumulated wealth on to their American descendants. I knew one Filipino man, who left the US to return to the Phillipines because he had left hs family there. Third, economists are always right. That's a fallacy in itself which we see reflected in how our government handles money. Fourth, a little known fact is that if you spend a significant amount of time outside of the US, when you return then you are an immigrant, a differnt kind of immigrant, even though you may be an American citizen by birth. You have fallen out of wherever you were in the economic system in the US and you are staring all over again--with all the political and economic immigrants mentioned in this article. Statistics may not lie, but they also do not tell the whole story. That's the probem with relying upon economics.
1
The same people who complain about the under-the-table wages that illegal immigrants get, are the same ones who cheer the decline of unions.
Illegal immigration is a wage issue. The reason why illegal labor can suppress wages is because it is illegal. We should have a permit process for the 11 mil who are already here. We will quickly find out those immigrants who want to work legally and those who do not. We should prosecute employers more vigorously as well and set new regulations for hiring household, construction, textile, restaurant labor, etc. Deep fines would be a good deterrent.
Unions should be reinvigorated to demand that employers commit to only hiring legal labor. Unions should also be training their members to meet the demands of the company.
We should rebuild or infrastructure, especially our borders and ports. Instead of levying a gas tax, the taxes we levy from a new pool of 11 million legal workers can contribute to our national security.
The solutions to curbing illegal immigration and reaping the natural benefits of immigration are on the left. How do you speak rationally with someone screaming "AMNESTY!!!1!!!"?
Illegal immigration is a wage issue. The reason why illegal labor can suppress wages is because it is illegal. We should have a permit process for the 11 mil who are already here. We will quickly find out those immigrants who want to work legally and those who do not. We should prosecute employers more vigorously as well and set new regulations for hiring household, construction, textile, restaurant labor, etc. Deep fines would be a good deterrent.
Unions should be reinvigorated to demand that employers commit to only hiring legal labor. Unions should also be training their members to meet the demands of the company.
We should rebuild or infrastructure, especially our borders and ports. Instead of levying a gas tax, the taxes we levy from a new pool of 11 million legal workers can contribute to our national security.
The solutions to curbing illegal immigration and reaping the natural benefits of immigration are on the left. How do you speak rationally with someone screaming "AMNESTY!!!1!!!"?
2
If people are advocating open borders, then say so. For myself as a life long democrat, this issues is very important. But I absolutely think they need to turn off the job magnet first. To infer that people that are against illegal-undocumented immigration are racist and homophobic does not help.
"Nor do we mind highly educated professionals coming in — unless, that is, we are in the same profession ourselves"
This I feel is untrue also, I'm not for raising the cap on H1b visa, the (outsourcing visa), I'm not in the high tech field, but have friends who are.
They will tell you that the H1B were not highly skilled, less skilled then themselves, but much cheaper. Their stories are sad ones, 90k jobs lost replaced by foreigners who earn much less. Now my friends settle for much less, gone through a lot of their life savings and may never be able to retire, never mind keep the life style they once had. I wonder if you can watch this (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/immigration-reforms-needed-to-p... )and still write this article in same way.
Maybe I can debunk some of your myths also.
"Nor do we mind highly educated professionals coming in — unless, that is, we are in the same profession ourselves"
This I feel is untrue also, I'm not for raising the cap on H1b visa, the (outsourcing visa), I'm not in the high tech field, but have friends who are.
They will tell you that the H1B were not highly skilled, less skilled then themselves, but much cheaper. Their stories are sad ones, 90k jobs lost replaced by foreigners who earn much less. Now my friends settle for much less, gone through a lot of their life savings and may never be able to retire, never mind keep the life style they once had. I wonder if you can watch this (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/immigration-reforms-needed-to-p... )and still write this article in same way.
Maybe I can debunk some of your myths also.
7
It bugs me the way a lot of articles, and even polls state "immigrates" when what they are clearly mean is "illegal immigrants". It's like they want to sterilize the word out of any immigration debate. But we are NOT talking about legal immigration here.
If you want open borders, then say so, and poll on that.
"People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country."
I live in a up scaled neighbor of Boston, I know that most of the Illegal here , are cash under the table workers. Working as nannies, housecleaners, lawn cleaners, building trades, snow plow, etc etc. There is a huge underground economy here. I don't totally blame the immigrates, but the people that employ them. So of course the upper class don't mind them as much, they employ them at cheaper rates then an American worker would command. So Upper - middle class benefit from it, instead of get hurt by it.
As Brazil continues with it economic struggle, I bet my area will see our illegal population grow.
But a hour west of here, is a large population of Puerto Ricans with huge unemployment numbers, mostly newly arrived, as the economy there is awful. I feel we should help them , but feel so much energy and resources go to people who come illegally. I can think of many ways to help, but we are a people with limited resources.
If you want open borders, then say so, and poll on that.
"People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country."
I live in a up scaled neighbor of Boston, I know that most of the Illegal here , are cash under the table workers. Working as nannies, housecleaners, lawn cleaners, building trades, snow plow, etc etc. There is a huge underground economy here. I don't totally blame the immigrates, but the people that employ them. So of course the upper class don't mind them as much, they employ them at cheaper rates then an American worker would command. So Upper - middle class benefit from it, instead of get hurt by it.
As Brazil continues with it economic struggle, I bet my area will see our illegal population grow.
But a hour west of here, is a large population of Puerto Ricans with huge unemployment numbers, mostly newly arrived, as the economy there is awful. I feel we should help them , but feel so much energy and resources go to people who come illegally. I can think of many ways to help, but we are a people with limited resources.
6
And to add on to your comment, Puerto Ricans are U.S. Citizens NOT immigrants.
1
My gardener is from Mexico, who became a citizen and married a schoolteacher whose parents were also from Mexico. He doesn't like the way the undocumented peoples compete with him and drive down his income to the minimum level they are willing to accept. This is a trade where there's no union, no standard, it's just what are you willing to accept.
1
immigration for unskilled labor = importing poverty
7
Yes, more immigrants usually means a bigger economy and more jobs. But I will never forget losing my job while the immigrants who sat to my right and left, kept theirs. Why? They were paid less, didn't have children, etc, etc.
4
I'm an astrophysicist, not an economist, Jim! But yesterday the director of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto asked me why the US dollar was doing so well. I replied that perhaps that's the wrong question, the real one being: Why is the rest of the world doing do poorly?
Compare the US and Japan. Both have advanced economies and highly-trained workforces. What gives the US economy its edge? Many people would say it's natural resources, and perhaps that's true. But I submit that one of the US's key natural resources is its long and porous borders, which allow undocumented immigrants into the country. Add those folks to the above-ground immigrants and you have a big plus for the US. Japan, in contrast, controls immigration very strictly; if they opened up, maybe they'd find a use for all those empty buildings dotting the landscape...
Compare the US and Japan. Both have advanced economies and highly-trained workforces. What gives the US economy its edge? Many people would say it's natural resources, and perhaps that's true. But I submit that one of the US's key natural resources is its long and porous borders, which allow undocumented immigrants into the country. Add those folks to the above-ground immigrants and you have a big plus for the US. Japan, in contrast, controls immigration very strictly; if they opened up, maybe they'd find a use for all those empty buildings dotting the landscape...
Your cogent argument for more expansive immigration policies impresses me. As the daughter of immigrants (now citizens). I have struggled. But mostly, I have lived a relatively charmed life of safety, good schools, and a wealth opportunity right here in the Bronx. My life is dedicated to making the lives of the people I serve better. Partly, perhaps, in a subconscious way to say thank you to this great country. Most recent immigrants I'be met think the same. Not to get too sentimental, but those who struggle to get here have a well-spring of gratitude and grit. To me, there's nothing more American.
1
I invite you to visit our public schools and emergency rooms in Southern California. Mass influx is not sustainable on these key public services. Parents bring kids to ER with only ear infections. Families leave local schools because the learning bar is set too low to accommodate ESL students. We live it and pay the taxes to pay for it. Glad to be leaving the public school system soon.
7
"Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer..."
Really, so why is the middle class disappearing and losing ground every year as virtually all current studies indicate? Using a 35 year data set, on a small population, when the country had a smaller population and using that data to reach the author's conclusion is ridiculous. A country has a right to control it's borders legally and only allow those persons whose skills are needed to enter the country legally. Unfettered immigration harms low wage American workers, by supplying unskilled workers, often illegal, at less than minimum wage. This study also doesn't take into account the vast technological changes, that will eliminate many of these jobs in the future. The only people that benefit from illegal immigrants are businesses who contract out work at lower wages and those who choose cheap childcare, lawn care and construction labor at less than minimum wage, with no benefits for the workers. These jobs are often paid under the table and in order to survive workers double up in illegal housing. Many corporations also took advantage of the economic downturn, to eliminate more expensive older professionals, with H1-B visa workers who work for less and don't get benefits. The US should start following other countries that use point systems and base legal entry on needs of the job market. This article doesn't even try to examine the social costs, in health and education.
Really, so why is the middle class disappearing and losing ground every year as virtually all current studies indicate? Using a 35 year data set, on a small population, when the country had a smaller population and using that data to reach the author's conclusion is ridiculous. A country has a right to control it's borders legally and only allow those persons whose skills are needed to enter the country legally. Unfettered immigration harms low wage American workers, by supplying unskilled workers, often illegal, at less than minimum wage. This study also doesn't take into account the vast technological changes, that will eliminate many of these jobs in the future. The only people that benefit from illegal immigrants are businesses who contract out work at lower wages and those who choose cheap childcare, lawn care and construction labor at less than minimum wage, with no benefits for the workers. These jobs are often paid under the table and in order to survive workers double up in illegal housing. Many corporations also took advantage of the economic downturn, to eliminate more expensive older professionals, with H1-B visa workers who work for less and don't get benefits. The US should start following other countries that use point systems and base legal entry on needs of the job market. This article doesn't even try to examine the social costs, in health and education.
12
Given the way it was founded, the US will never be in the position to complain about people who come here from elsewhere and the associated effects. Indeed, it is disturbing to see how ignorant people are of the nation's history and the immeasurable damage caused by western European colonists. There is no crime in wanting a better life, particularly when people face real threats of, for example, having their daughters sold into the sex slave trade. Besides, for all the whining about the toll undocumented people have on the nation's purse strings, we never see data suggesting that the toll is statistically significant. If you're going to complain, at least be smart about it, and produce credible, verifiable data showing causation or correlation between those people's presence and your complaint.
{Every other group — Republicans in general, independents and especially Democrats — is largely pro-immigrant. According to Pew, }-
WRONG. Polling going back decades from Gallop show the majority of American people oppose and want drastically reduced our insanely high rate of 1,100,000 LEGAL immigrants, 700,000+ "guest" workers, and well over 500,000+ illegal aliens we let into our depressed economy every year. The average American knows that INCREASING the supply of labor DECREASES the wage and employment rate- BASIC economic law of the supply and demand determining the price (wage rate) of labor.
The American people comprehend this BASIC law of economics, why can't YOU?
WRONG. Polling going back decades from Gallop show the majority of American people oppose and want drastically reduced our insanely high rate of 1,100,000 LEGAL immigrants, 700,000+ "guest" workers, and well over 500,000+ illegal aliens we let into our depressed economy every year. The average American knows that INCREASING the supply of labor DECREASES the wage and employment rate- BASIC economic law of the supply and demand determining the price (wage rate) of labor.
The American people comprehend this BASIC law of economics, why can't YOU?
10
Because the Masters of the Universe have an agenda that runs counter to the interests and wishes of the American people.
7
I know people who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants! Who am I going to believe? This article or my own lying eyes!
7
So, not only will there be fewer blue collar jobs, but the cost of housing will increase. If the rich favor immigration, it's to keep labor costs DOWN, and keep workers insecure and quiet.
9
illegals should not be allowed to become citizens, they should have documents and be required to go home at some point. highly educated and wealthy entrepreneur immigration should be increased a lot., english speaking is a required ability to stay. the southern border should be mechanically closed. we should have a greater representation of the rest of the world in our immigrants, not just those who can walk here from the south. the rule that being born in the us makes you a citizen should be modified so that illegal babies or babies of people who come strictly for their children to be born here do not receive citizenship (chinese maternity visitors). a hi percentage (38 to 45%) of the us market should be required to be made here and tariffs should be erected to equalize pollution differentials, human, legal and worker rights. it's not safe to have everything made overseas. especially not by hostile, communist controlled human rights abusing kleptodictatorhsips or unfairly subsidized centrally directed economies (japan's miti, korea?) renewable energy is homeland security, a goal should be no more funds sent to the middle east. i'll bet there's a lot of dems, repub and indies that wouldn't disagree with a lot of what i have said. question is why don't the politicians say this obvious stuff? don't they want votes?
Maybe add a grammar and punctuation requirement, too? Gotta make sure they can write English as well as speak it.
There is the fairness or moral argument - which granted, doesn't mean much anymore, but we have a plaque on the statue of liberty that should mean something. Too bad for many of you it doesn't. Wonder how many of you are descendants of the irish and italians who flooded in at the turn of the last century. I bet there were many americans who would have been better off had those groups not been let in.
After reading the comments to this excellent article I fear the author's last sentence is true and unlikely to change.
When I lost a job I had after the crash of 1987, I answered a number of ads for jobs in my field which set out a demand for skills identical to my own. However, every one of those jobs was already filled by a planned immigrant the employer was sponsoring. It was explained to me that the immigration laws required they give to me am interview. When I offered to work for less than the immigrant, the informed me that at that price I wouldn't stay, while the immigrant, who was dependent on them to stay in the country, could be forced to continue to work for lower wages.
When working with economists from the University of Chicago I discovered a willingness to falsify finding to the end of their great god of cutting taxes and deregulation. Limits on immigration are regulations. I'm confident that wealthy interests benefit from open immigration. I'm much less certain of the rest of what is claimed here.
I generally do support immigration reform, but when I read an article like this that is clearly reaching for the baloney to support that argument, I'm left to wonder if I might be on the wrong side of the issue.
When working with economists from the University of Chicago I discovered a willingness to falsify finding to the end of their great god of cutting taxes and deregulation. Limits on immigration are regulations. I'm confident that wealthy interests benefit from open immigration. I'm much less certain of the rest of what is claimed here.
I generally do support immigration reform, but when I read an article like this that is clearly reaching for the baloney to support that argument, I'm left to wonder if I might be on the wrong side of the issue.
8
A poorly developed thesis based on limited research. The writer should leave his grandfather out of it.
7
When I was in the restaurant business I spent a lot of money advertising for kitchen help. In five years not one white person or black person responded to my ads. My great hard-working friends in the kitchen were from Mexico and South America.
1
In the 1920s a systematic effort (which was successful) to keep out "Yellow" people (Chinese, Japanese and, to a lesser extent, Koreans) was made by our Congress. Laws, popularly known as the "Yellow" laws were passed which made it virtually impossible for current Asian citizens to return to visit their homelands or for their children or spouses to come here, and which created - for the FIRST TIME - the visa system. Unlike in the first 150 years of our country's existence, people could not just show up in America - as, for example, the parents or grandparents of most of our Congress people - and be allowed to enter and fit into our society. People had to apply through the visa system, and Asians were routinely refused permission to come or, if already here, to bring family here.
The Great Depression occurred just four years later. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Immigrants built this country, and we cut off that flow of new life which all countries need. The Second World War, when Asian-Americans fought valiantly alongside other ethnic groups, showed us how wrong we had been.
Our country is the third largest in land size in the world. We have empty spaces all over our country which immigrants can transform into farms, factories, businesses, etc., and hire more Americans in the process. What are we afraid of?
The Great Depression occurred just four years later. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Immigrants built this country, and we cut off that flow of new life which all countries need. The Second World War, when Asian-Americans fought valiantly alongside other ethnic groups, showed us how wrong we had been.
Our country is the third largest in land size in the world. We have empty spaces all over our country which immigrants can transform into farms, factories, businesses, etc., and hire more Americans in the process. What are we afraid of?
This comment demonstrates why immigration from Asia and other third world areas should be sharply curtailed. The writer of the comment is advocating in favor of his own ethnic group -- a form of ethno-nationalism or soft tribal warfare and the source of much discord in our society and national life.
5
Running out of water
1
If these immigrants are so potentially beneficial to our economy, why didn't they benefit the economies they came from?
8
@JackieO,
Because there were no jobs in their native countries, just war, drug or gang violence, poverty, etc.
If there wasn't a thriving market economy in the US, those immigrants would have stayed - or died - in their native countries.
Because there were no jobs in their native countries, just war, drug or gang violence, poverty, etc.
If there wasn't a thriving market economy in the US, those immigrants would have stayed - or died - in their native countries.
Davidson is not keeping up. Next he will be telling us that robots/automation/productivity gains are not eliminating jobs.
Current economic research, yes, even at MIT, shows that productivity gains, welcome as they are for other reasons, eliminate jobs.
Just as immigrants are welcome for other reasons, they do take jobs.
Davidson has been wrong about a lot of things and here he is again.
Current economic research, yes, even at MIT, shows that productivity gains, welcome as they are for other reasons, eliminate jobs.
Just as immigrants are welcome for other reasons, they do take jobs.
Davidson has been wrong about a lot of things and here he is again.
4
There's yet another important contribution that wasn't mentioned: immigrants who work make contributions to social service programs like Social Security and Medicare. The birth rate in the US has hit its all time low. Lower birth rates auger poorly for future generations because the revenue needed to pay for the elderly isn't being produced. Long term projections here show that countries like Japan are at the greatest risk -- they have low birth rates combined with restrictive immigration policies. Nations with more liberal immigration policies like Canada have the best long-term prospects despite a low birth rate.
1
Low wage workers will never contribute more to Social Security and Medicare than they take out. And that is assuming they contribute anything at all, as they mostly work for cash.
If we need more workers, we can import young educated English-speaking adults at any time.
If we need more workers, we can import young educated English-speaking adults at any time.
2
Look at the service people who are working on lawns, bussing tables, sweeping floors, daycare, any other unsavory jobs that most will not do + immigrants. Remember you cannot outsource mowing lawns and daycare.
"The single greatest bit of evidence disproving the Lump of Labor idea comes from research about the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States."
That would be a fine natural experiment if conditions in Miami in 1980-1984 were otherwise the same as in the control cities. But Miami in those 4 years was "enjoying" a world famous Cocaine Smuggling boom immortalized in "Scarface" (1983) and "Miami Vice" (1984), so ceteris wasn't paribus. For details, see:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/george-borjas-vs-david-cards-unworldly-phi...
That would be a fine natural experiment if conditions in Miami in 1980-1984 were otherwise the same as in the control cities. But Miami in those 4 years was "enjoying" a world famous Cocaine Smuggling boom immortalized in "Scarface" (1983) and "Miami Vice" (1984), so ceteris wasn't paribus. For details, see:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/george-borjas-vs-david-cards-unworldly-phi...
4
If we are indeed selfish, nervous creatures, that is all the more remarkable given that human society involves such extensive interdependence. Just look around the room and ask yourself how many people were involved in manufacturing, installing and maintaining all that you see. Unless of course your house was build by hewing lumber by hand using a stone axe that you fabricated yourself etc.
1
Just one question of author Adam Davidson: how much water are your mythic job creating, economy expanding, benefit producing immigrants bringing with them to California?
Perhaps Davidson enjoys squatting in traffic; perhaps he celebrates overcrowded schools requiring costly bilingual education; and perhaps he thinks we don't yet have enough poverty in the country. If so, and since 125,000 Cubans brought such bounty to Miami, just think what 10 million Haitians can accomplish or the 120 million remaining in Mexico or the 180 million in Pakistan. All no doubt are eager to lift us to new economic heights. After all, we are just an economy, not a nation anymore.
Perhaps Davidson enjoys squatting in traffic; perhaps he celebrates overcrowded schools requiring costly bilingual education; and perhaps he thinks we don't yet have enough poverty in the country. If so, and since 125,000 Cubans brought such bounty to Miami, just think what 10 million Haitians can accomplish or the 120 million remaining in Mexico or the 180 million in Pakistan. All no doubt are eager to lift us to new economic heights. After all, we are just an economy, not a nation anymore.
7
Don't forget the several billion Chinese and Indians! We must be inclusive!
4
The study of economics is a social science for a reason. Just like sociology it's inundated with left wing ideologues. The right wingers tend to be free market zealots so the concerns of the domestic working class are often an after thought. It boggles the mind that the laws of supply and demand applies to everything but labor.
5
Most comments have been largely negative and, in many cases, well argued. But, these are all arguments that I've heard before with reference to every ethnic immigration wave.
My grandparents came over on the boat for Italy at the end of the 1890s. The were uneducated, spoke no english, and (in one case) couldn't read or write. In Italy, there was only war, poverty and repression. My grandparents lived in NYC tenements, making a living by taking any job they could get.
Fast forward 100 years. Their children - my parents, their sisters and brothers - survived the Great Depression, WW II and, using the GI Bill, got occupational training or went to college. Four went to work on Wall Street, one to Philadelphia to become a commodies trader. Others went into skilled trades (my father was a carpenter, my mother was a LPN).
My brother got a PhD in history and taught, my older sister spent her entire career teaching at-risk children (eventually becoming a Master Teacher), and I was a computer startup owner and, later, an attorney. My younger sister and her husband ran several companies that operated in 7 Southern states employing 120 with annual gross revenues exceeding $35 million.
Why the story? Immigration has never been a smooth, issue-free process; there are flaws and abuses.
However, in the long run everyone - immigrant, native, employers and government - benefited from the unrestricted immigration that was policy for the first 120 years of the US.
My grandparents came over on the boat for Italy at the end of the 1890s. The were uneducated, spoke no english, and (in one case) couldn't read or write. In Italy, there was only war, poverty and repression. My grandparents lived in NYC tenements, making a living by taking any job they could get.
Fast forward 100 years. Their children - my parents, their sisters and brothers - survived the Great Depression, WW II and, using the GI Bill, got occupational training or went to college. Four went to work on Wall Street, one to Philadelphia to become a commodies trader. Others went into skilled trades (my father was a carpenter, my mother was a LPN).
My brother got a PhD in history and taught, my older sister spent her entire career teaching at-risk children (eventually becoming a Master Teacher), and I was a computer startup owner and, later, an attorney. My younger sister and her husband ran several companies that operated in 7 Southern states employing 120 with annual gross revenues exceeding $35 million.
Why the story? Immigration has never been a smooth, issue-free process; there are flaws and abuses.
However, in the long run everyone - immigrant, native, employers and government - benefited from the unrestricted immigration that was policy for the first 120 years of the US.
1
That was then and this is now. We are full up.
4
Another fallacy of this analysis is the conflation of the current wave of immigration to the US and that which occurred in the early 20th century.
Some of the differences:
(1) Most of today's immigrants to the US do not intend to live there. They are working to send money back to their impoverished relatives. Thus, there is little incentive to integrate with US culture or learn English.
(2) A majority of immigrants doing the lowest wage jobs are illegal. This is almost a tautology. This fact also inhibits them from integrating into US culture and communities.
(3) Because of the lengthy shared border and income disparity between Mexico and the US, most of the illegal immigrants are Mexican or Central American. If you are pro-immigration (as the author) then you should give equal opportunity to any needy person around the world who wants to immigrate to the US, and not just Mexicans.
Historically, immigration to the US enriched the culture and economy because the immigrants wanted to start a new life and become citizens. I argue that this is not the case for the majority of the low-wage immigrants, most of whom are illegal. That is why the current pattern of immigration is will not enrich society; it will simply create an underground sub-culture and economy for and by illegals.
Some of the differences:
(1) Most of today's immigrants to the US do not intend to live there. They are working to send money back to their impoverished relatives. Thus, there is little incentive to integrate with US culture or learn English.
(2) A majority of immigrants doing the lowest wage jobs are illegal. This is almost a tautology. This fact also inhibits them from integrating into US culture and communities.
(3) Because of the lengthy shared border and income disparity between Mexico and the US, most of the illegal immigrants are Mexican or Central American. If you are pro-immigration (as the author) then you should give equal opportunity to any needy person around the world who wants to immigrate to the US, and not just Mexicans.
Historically, immigration to the US enriched the culture and economy because the immigrants wanted to start a new life and become citizens. I argue that this is not the case for the majority of the low-wage immigrants, most of whom are illegal. That is why the current pattern of immigration is will not enrich society; it will simply create an underground sub-culture and economy for and by illegals.
9
I am an admirer of Adam's Planet Money podcasts and love their discussions on economics. But this article has several arguments that from a pure economic point of view may be sound but does not help real life situations. For instance economists tend to only think of long term benefits as if short term does not matter. In real life situations, short term matters much more than long term. Because if you don't get through the short term, it does not matter what happens in the long term. When Adam says that the benefits of adding immigrants to Miami was a no-brainer, he is not realizing the turmoil that it created in the community with the sudden influx in terms of culture, the short term displacement of workers and the competition for resources. It takes time before the resources and available jobs expand to accommodate the new population. But people on the ground feel the immediate pain. The original workers who were displaced are going to take time to find the "higher paying" jobs that he touts because they are at that moment not skilled enough to take them. Many may never even be capable of re-skilling themselves which will result in permanent job loss. I agree that there is a long term benefit to immigration as it will allow the US to remain the youngest among advanced nations thus allowing continued GDP growth well into 2050 due to immigration. But the short term pain is real and is what is expressed as angst.
2
Typical illogical argument by a pro illegal advocate. Better to look at the facts, despite the oft quoted PEW estimate of 11 million illegals, we are closer to 30 million if you actually look at the math and the birth rates.
Second, there is no dispute that an excess labor supply reduces wages, it's just a simple fact of econonomics. Sure, immigration has value in a growing economy; but it spells economic disaster in a mature economy.
Second, there is no dispute that an excess labor supply reduces wages, it's just a simple fact of econonomics. Sure, immigration has value in a growing economy; but it spells economic disaster in a mature economy.
8
One of the problems this country has with immigrants is that in its history or in the way it talks about it, it does not mention that mexicans natives and hispanics had settled in most of the west and south of what is now the US many years before the "white man arriving" to settle the continent. We are talking of over 100 years, yet there is seldom any mention of it. Having lived here for over thirty-five years one would think that the US was settled by British, Dutch and other northern europeans, when in reality it was the Spanish that were the first europeans to arrive and have settlements in what is now the US.
Spanish as a language has been spoken in America for far longer than english, so you can start by having students study history as it happened and not as you would like it to have happened.
Do you really think that places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Durango, Sierra Nevada, Valdez and Cordoba (in Alaska) etc..were named so because somebody like the way they sounded in spanish language? Perhaps admitting that the "white man" was an ilegal immigrant, just like the first spanish were would be a good start towards how we view immigrants today.
Or at least you would feel like I am sure the original natives of this great continent felt when they saw the first europeans, africans and asians arrive.
Spanish as a language has been spoken in America for far longer than english, so you can start by having students study history as it happened and not as you would like it to have happened.
Do you really think that places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Durango, Sierra Nevada, Valdez and Cordoba (in Alaska) etc..were named so because somebody like the way they sounded in spanish language? Perhaps admitting that the "white man" was an ilegal immigrant, just like the first spanish were would be a good start towards how we view immigrants today.
Or at least you would feel like I am sure the original natives of this great continent felt when they saw the first europeans, africans and asians arrive.
Hmm...
Perhaps this is a skewed perception on my part, but I think that the most important people "mired in zero-sum thinking" are those who determine financial (CEO/CFO) and hiring (HR) policies and practices for major corporations, especially in the high-technology sector. Small wonder then, that many in the American workforce feel inclined to internalize the "zero-sum" view.
I certainty do not blame the seekers/holders of H1-B visas for trying to make a better life here for their families and children, but until the educational playing field is leveled for all American citizens (a work still very much in progress), it will be difficult to watch people from abroad, some of whom are subsidized by their governments, hired in such a manner as to make it even more difficult for disadvantaged sectors of the American workforce.
Perhaps this is a skewed perception on my part, but I think that the most important people "mired in zero-sum thinking" are those who determine financial (CEO/CFO) and hiring (HR) policies and practices for major corporations, especially in the high-technology sector. Small wonder then, that many in the American workforce feel inclined to internalize the "zero-sum" view.
I certainty do not blame the seekers/holders of H1-B visas for trying to make a better life here for their families and children, but until the educational playing field is leveled for all American citizens (a work still very much in progress), it will be difficult to watch people from abroad, some of whom are subsidized by their governments, hired in such a manner as to make it even more difficult for disadvantaged sectors of the American workforce.
3
Ah, xenophobia: Truly the one topic that is bipartisan in this country. "Oh, they steal our jobs," or "there isn't enough room on this planet!" from the left. From the right, it's "they're breaking our laws!", or "they won't learn English!"
Yep, nothing like a little xenophobia/nativism to bring together the left and the right.
Yep, nothing like a little xenophobia/nativism to bring together the left and the right.
It is almost always people who live in parts of the country unaffected by the influx of millions of illegal immigrants who climb on their high horse.
Interesting that.
Interesting that.
4
[Hey, gatekeepers, what does it take to have a comment accepted? This is my third and best try.]
The fundamental contention in Mr. Davidson's analysis is that the law of supply and demand does not operate in the U.S. labor market, and that concerns about the steady decrease in labor participation rates, especially among low-skilled African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans with no more than a high school degree, are misguided. Apparently the decline of labor participation rates and record increases in immigration are a matter of correlation, not causation.
If that is so, why do countries with relatively tight labor markets score best on both objective and subjective quality of life measures, and why is the United States, which in times of moderate immigration scored the highest on such measures, no longer even in the global top 20?
The fundamental contention in Mr. Davidson's analysis is that the law of supply and demand does not operate in the U.S. labor market, and that concerns about the steady decrease in labor participation rates, especially among low-skilled African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans with no more than a high school degree, are misguided. Apparently the decline of labor participation rates and record increases in immigration are a matter of correlation, not causation.
If that is so, why do countries with relatively tight labor markets score best on both objective and subjective quality of life measures, and why is the United States, which in times of moderate immigration scored the highest on such measures, no longer even in the global top 20?
7
This article is so bad it's hard to know where to start.
It appears that immigration financially helps the immigrants themselves by allowing them to work for much better wages than they could in their own countries and the people who hire them by depressing the wages of US workers. Isn't this exactly what we've seen over the last 20+ years? Any benefit to the average US citizen is minor and far less than a good job at decent wages. (Link below). It helps immigrants themselves and the top 1-10%.
We don't need to be told this - we've seen it with our own eyes.
http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-liter...
PS From the above:
• Of the $1.6 trillion increase in GDP, 97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits; the remainder constitutes the “immigration surplus” — the benefit accruing to the native-born population, including both workers, owners of firms, and other users of the services provided by immigrants.
• The standard textbook model of a competitive labor market yields an estimate of the immigration surplus equal to $35 billion a year — or about 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration.
• The immigration surplus of $35 billion comes from reducing the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion.
It appears that immigration financially helps the immigrants themselves by allowing them to work for much better wages than they could in their own countries and the people who hire them by depressing the wages of US workers. Isn't this exactly what we've seen over the last 20+ years? Any benefit to the average US citizen is minor and far less than a good job at decent wages. (Link below). It helps immigrants themselves and the top 1-10%.
We don't need to be told this - we've seen it with our own eyes.
http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-liter...
PS From the above:
• Of the $1.6 trillion increase in GDP, 97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits; the remainder constitutes the “immigration surplus” — the benefit accruing to the native-born population, including both workers, owners of firms, and other users of the services provided by immigrants.
• The standard textbook model of a competitive labor market yields an estimate of the immigration surplus equal to $35 billion a year — or about 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration.
• The immigration surplus of $35 billion comes from reducing the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion.
8
This is an interesting theoretical article, and the author makes good points. Unfortunately, we live in a real, not virtual country, and as many of the comments point out, the twin issues of employment and immigration are focused on *illegal* immigrants.
As long as we have any immigration policy at all, there will always be people desperate enough to take sub minimum wage, and employers immoral enough to offer that.
And the class war continues ....
As long as we have any immigration policy at all, there will always be people desperate enough to take sub minimum wage, and employers immoral enough to offer that.
And the class war continues ....
6
Whose country is this anyway?
I always thought that our country belonged to us.
I guess not. Apparently it belongs to the world and whoever walks in once we open up our borders and our jobs to all.
What country will take me in when I seek asylum on the basis of being an American whose citizenship was, in essence, revoked?
I always thought that our country belonged to us.
I guess not. Apparently it belongs to the world and whoever walks in once we open up our borders and our jobs to all.
What country will take me in when I seek asylum on the basis of being an American whose citizenship was, in essence, revoked?
7
Don't urinate on my leg and tell me it's raining.
I have been in the "high tech" industry most of my adult life; I can tell you for a fact that immigration has held wages down and continues to do so by dint of labor oversupply.
I have no argument against any immigrant, but I would tie immigration to the ability of the host nation (that's us BTW) to gainfully employ and house said immigrant. Simply opening up the floodgates and declaring amnesty has not worked well - and neither has the destructive H1B program.
I have been in the "high tech" industry most of my adult life; I can tell you for a fact that immigration has held wages down and continues to do so by dint of labor oversupply.
I have no argument against any immigrant, but I would tie immigration to the ability of the host nation (that's us BTW) to gainfully employ and house said immigrant. Simply opening up the floodgates and declaring amnesty has not worked well - and neither has the destructive H1B program.
7
The US Chamber of Commerce disagrees with you.
1
Yoda: Shocking that the corporate elite does not think that flooding the market with labor drives down wages.
3
Really? Another myth producer trying to keep curtain closed from how corporations and the GOP are constantly changing the factors that effect americans. Between importing labor, exporting factories, automation, and corporation socialism, capitalism is simply a word used to say that corporations win and americans lose. This article perpetuates the myth of capitalism.
4
"Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us: radically open borders."
"it’s possible that we could absorb as many as 11 million immigrants annually."
The US Census Bureau is already predicting that we will have 400 million people somewhere around 2050; that's 85 million added to today's population of around 315 million. Most of those extra people will be immigrants or the descendants of recent immigrants.
None of us asked to participate in a big experiment about how many jobs we can lose that won't be replaced with equivalent jobs or how many people can we add without forcing up housing costs beyond the reach of many people's ability to pay. Nevertheless, that is what is happening in many places throughout the First World.
Before we know what will happen based on today's current experiment, Mr. Davidson wants us abandon all caution and go for "maximum immigration." He's thinks the best thing we could do for ourselves would be to 100 million people in just 10 years.
But what if he is wrong?
What then?
"it’s possible that we could absorb as many as 11 million immigrants annually."
The US Census Bureau is already predicting that we will have 400 million people somewhere around 2050; that's 85 million added to today's population of around 315 million. Most of those extra people will be immigrants or the descendants of recent immigrants.
None of us asked to participate in a big experiment about how many jobs we can lose that won't be replaced with equivalent jobs or how many people can we add without forcing up housing costs beyond the reach of many people's ability to pay. Nevertheless, that is what is happening in many places throughout the First World.
Before we know what will happen based on today's current experiment, Mr. Davidson wants us abandon all caution and go for "maximum immigration." He's thinks the best thing we could do for ourselves would be to 100 million people in just 10 years.
But what if he is wrong?
What then?
3
don't worry. Decreased wages increases profits which in turn increases investment. More immigrants also increase aggregage demand. Milton Friedman, the US Chamber of Commerce and teh GOP understand this? Why do most liberals?
1
I wonder if intellectuals like Professor Peri have ever been to ground zero.
I've competed directly against immigrants for day labor work when I was a desperate youth. There are many unskilled natives, like myself and other youth who are looking for quick legal money and the first rung up the skill ladder, where we can use on the job experience to move up. I would have been happy with one of those support tasks. The problem is, the undocumented do push people like myself out.
From experience, it is less because of price, but rather they tend to be better workers. Often they are adults who are tougher, stronger, and more experienced than us, who survived deep poverty and war in El Salvador, before figuring a way over here. As late teens, we have very little to go against them. On top of that, if we are injured on the job, we can sue. It is a totally unfair competition. And without that beginning, it's almost impossible to move up.
I understand you don't need to pay Rodin to bondo a rust hole in your truck, or a Monet to whitewash a fence. But, I doubt talented artists learn their skill overnight. They spend countless hours perfecting it and working up to art pieces that require more skill. What about our skilled workers?
I've competed directly against immigrants for day labor work when I was a desperate youth. There are many unskilled natives, like myself and other youth who are looking for quick legal money and the first rung up the skill ladder, where we can use on the job experience to move up. I would have been happy with one of those support tasks. The problem is, the undocumented do push people like myself out.
From experience, it is less because of price, but rather they tend to be better workers. Often they are adults who are tougher, stronger, and more experienced than us, who survived deep poverty and war in El Salvador, before figuring a way over here. As late teens, we have very little to go against them. On top of that, if we are injured on the job, we can sue. It is a totally unfair competition. And without that beginning, it's almost impossible to move up.
I understand you don't need to pay Rodin to bondo a rust hole in your truck, or a Monet to whitewash a fence. But, I doubt talented artists learn their skill overnight. They spend countless hours perfecting it and working up to art pieces that require more skill. What about our skilled workers?
7
Nice sentiments in this article but not one word about birthrates of Hispanic populations. Perhaps when Latino people (and all Catholics) start realizing that the world is a crowded place and begin limiting their family sizes they will get more respect from the population at large for their need to come to the USA because their home countries are overpopulated.
But of course if over-population is a taboo subject, then ignore this message.
But of course if over-population is a taboo subject, then ignore this message.
6
What state do you live in and where did you buy your armchair?
2
Once again the ny times publishes an article in favor of open borders. And, once again, the comments section is full of comments AGAINST open borders. And many of those comments are from self-described liberal/Democrat readers. Makes my day. We simply MUST start enforcing existing immigration law.
5
Milton Friedman (as well as all Austrian economists) and the US Chamber of Commerce and Mitt Romney (a very successful businesman) all in favor of increasing US GDP through large scale immigration. Why are you so anti-business? Why do you not understand their logic?
Yoda:
Because they are in the .01%?
Because they are in the .01%?
1
" If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. "
It seems to me that Puerto Rico would be a good case study to confirm this. But fully open borders would have some unintended consequences--the entry of criminals instead of economic migrants might be one.
Another might be that our overly-restrictive immigration system (too few visas, long quotas, risky journeys and difficult lives for those who come illegally) actually serves as a kind of filter. It is so hard to get here that only the hardest working and most committed come. The new arrivals have spent so much and risked so much to be here that they have great incentive to work hard, stay away from trouble, and assimilate. Most Americans appreciate immigrants who do those three things.
It seems to me that Puerto Rico would be a good case study to confirm this. But fully open borders would have some unintended consequences--the entry of criminals instead of economic migrants might be one.
Another might be that our overly-restrictive immigration system (too few visas, long quotas, risky journeys and difficult lives for those who come illegally) actually serves as a kind of filter. It is so hard to get here that only the hardest working and most committed come. The new arrivals have spent so much and risked so much to be here that they have great incentive to work hard, stay away from trouble, and assimilate. Most Americans appreciate immigrants who do those three things.
2
'...It seems to me that Puerto Rico would be a good case study to confirm this... '
Puerto Ricans are American citizens and while they pay no federal taxes, they receive all social services that every US citizen qualifies for...and yet 50% of the population receives food stamps.
Puerto Ricans are American citizens and while they pay no federal taxes, they receive all social services that every US citizen qualifies for...and yet 50% of the population receives food stamps.
I wonder why the author even wrote this drivel. Go to any roofing crew, tree planting crew, vineyard crew or private construction site in Oregon and you will find an illegal immigrant crew with a legal Mexican supervising. No summer jobs for college kids or entry level trade jobs are even advertised anymore. That is the reality. Think about it, if 5 million illegals are working in the USA then those employed can only be filling jobs Americans need. This nonsense about illegals taking the jobs we don't want to do is just that nonsense. Require all jobs to be posted and their will be no jobs left for the illegals. California farmers can't get farmworkers because it is hard work and the pay for illegals is so much better in the trades. Heck, the NYT ran an article recently that showed many were ensconced in jobs paying 56k a year. If we can check every crossing at our borders we can issue Bracero cards to the workers we need and send the rest packing. The only paradox is the author's effort to paint this pig with camouflage paint so it can't be seen for the rip-off of American citizens that it is.
9
According to Adam Davidson's analysis, the most basic economic law, that of supply and demand, does not hold in the labor market and there is nothing to worry about when the supply of workers vastly outstrips the supply of jobs. So there is apparently no reason to be concerned with falling labor participation rates and stagnant wages in America over the past thirty years, as immigration has increased around five-fold.
This is an interesting idea. But Mr. Davidson has only shown that a larger population generally means a larger economy. George Borjas, the economist he mentions only to marginalize him, has shown that nearly all the economic gains from increased immigration go to the rich and to the immigrants' own wages.
So the pie gets bigger, and the rich take more and more of the pie. I'm trying to figure out why I'm supposed to be happy about that.
This is an interesting idea. But Mr. Davidson has only shown that a larger population generally means a larger economy. George Borjas, the economist he mentions only to marginalize him, has shown that nearly all the economic gains from increased immigration go to the rich and to the immigrants' own wages.
So the pie gets bigger, and the rich take more and more of the pie. I'm trying to figure out why I'm supposed to be happy about that.
5
The logic behind this article is deeply flawed (if it were ever the intention of the author to make this more than a rationale for illegal immigration). There are several issues here - primary is the difference between legal immigration (small number of people, relatively speaking) and illegal entry (huge numbers of people). The latter work for pretty much anything they can get, live in inexpensive crowded rooms and, as a result, drive down the wages of everyone else who could be doing this work. This is Economics 101. And the "everyone else" are typically minority American citizens, black, hispanic, asian and native American. And notice that the economy isn't expanding too much, so this is also very nearly a zero sum game. To give apologists such as this the benefit of a pulpit in the NYT is nauseating.
5
No, the legal immigration flow is not small compared to the illegal immigration flow. We are now issuing over a million new green cards a year. This is more than five times what legal immigration was in the 1950s, when the middle class American dream became a temporary reality, and when we had lots of innovation, productivity, and wealth production that was shared with a growing middle class. Record levels of legal immigration provide the networks of housing and job referrals for increasing illegal immigration. We need to moderate both legal and illegal immigration in the interest of economic justice for our own poor and to regrow our middle class.
4
Here's an inconvenient little survey for you, Adam, which shows that employment among native-born Hispanics increased during the recession. You read that correctly: increased. Significantly.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/06/19/latino-jobs-growth-driven-by-u-s-b...
Guess what dropped concomitantly? The number of illegal aliens in the US: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/number-of-illegal-immigrants-drop...
Yup, the law of supply and demand also apply to labor.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/06/19/latino-jobs-growth-driven-by-u-s-b...
Guess what dropped concomitantly? The number of illegal aliens in the US: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/number-of-illegal-immigrants-drop...
Yup, the law of supply and demand also apply to labor.
4
I live on a farm outside of an upscale farming town of 400. I began life in So. Calif. and have since relocated four times. As I moved into successively smaller communities, I discovered that my behavior changed as I went from the carefulness and distancing myself from strangers that I began life with to life now where I can walk on a road without fear and wave at strangers. This brings me to the problem of increasing populations of Mexican citizens coupled with your premise of increasing jobs.
Far more important to me -- and most humans? -- is a good life in a peaceful and quiet but connected community.
As towns become cities and cities become metropolitan areas, crime increases and impoverished areas appear. I question the benefit of increasing jobs at the price of increasing populations in order to respond to the needs of those who walked in without asking.
I have heard first-hand how important it is for US-based Mexican citizens to send large percentages of their paychecks to their families in Mexico. I wonder how many are doing this? If it's significant, shouldn't we be concerned about this outflow of dollars?
And last, here there are two areas where Mexican citizens live. They have not assimilated. They fly their country's flag. They speak Spanish. They do not participate civically. That compares with my town's German immigrants who have told me many times that when they came to the US they became American & acted American. I ponder that.
Far more important to me -- and most humans? -- is a good life in a peaceful and quiet but connected community.
As towns become cities and cities become metropolitan areas, crime increases and impoverished areas appear. I question the benefit of increasing jobs at the price of increasing populations in order to respond to the needs of those who walked in without asking.
I have heard first-hand how important it is for US-based Mexican citizens to send large percentages of their paychecks to their families in Mexico. I wonder how many are doing this? If it's significant, shouldn't we be concerned about this outflow of dollars?
And last, here there are two areas where Mexican citizens live. They have not assimilated. They fly their country's flag. They speak Spanish. They do not participate civically. That compares with my town's German immigrants who have told me many times that when they came to the US they became American & acted American. I ponder that.
7
With increasing automation, there will be less and less demand for unskilled workers, yet the NYTs call for more illegal aliens and at the same time more jobs for high school dropout ex-convicts. There are not enough low-skill jobs to go around and American citizens should get first pick.
6
I have deep respect for immigrants. The courage that it takes to leave your native country to start anew in America is a story shared by almost every American family. However, our immigration policies have changed to discourage citizenship and encourage guest workers with limited rights that are easily exploited by employers.
The H1-B visa is probably the biggest sham ever sold in this country. While it claims to bring in desperately needed tech workers, what it actually does is displace native born, high earning employees with new immigrants that cannot quit their sponsored positions. They take whatever wage is offered and cannot advance by moving to another company.
I have worked with hundreds of H1-B holders. I like most of them. They are somewhat proficient but they are not better qualified than their American counterparts in any way. Their sole purpose for being here is to supress labor's power and lower wages. It has worked incredibly well.
I support immigration with an immediate and full path to citizenship. I abhor the concept of guest workers. It diminishes everything that America's tradition represents.
The H1-B visa is probably the biggest sham ever sold in this country. While it claims to bring in desperately needed tech workers, what it actually does is displace native born, high earning employees with new immigrants that cannot quit their sponsored positions. They take whatever wage is offered and cannot advance by moving to another company.
I have worked with hundreds of H1-B holders. I like most of them. They are somewhat proficient but they are not better qualified than their American counterparts in any way. Their sole purpose for being here is to supress labor's power and lower wages. It has worked incredibly well.
I support immigration with an immediate and full path to citizenship. I abhor the concept of guest workers. It diminishes everything that America's tradition represents.
4
Only the blind cannot see the grocery stores, the farms, the high rise construction sites and the small factories overrun with illegal immigrants who do not speak English. Only a fool doesn't think that these people depress wages and take jobs from citizens and people here legally. These people have gamed the system. They now have children here which makes them virtually impossible to deport. One has to wonder why our leaders both Democrat and Republican allow these people whose very first act on US soil was to break the law to stay in this country? Deport them all. Deport the children born of these illegal immigrants as well. Round them up and send them back over the border to Mexico. It is possible to do and it is the right thing to do. Change our citizenship laws. You no longer have automatic US citizenship if you are born here. Like most countries you must be born of citizens as well. That act alone will stop much of the illegal immigration. So my tomatoes cost a bit more. Its a small price to pay.
10
The author is largely correct. Those who argue against him are generally taking a simplistic view that increasing the supply of labor is a bad thing. That is only true if the demand for labor is fixed, which of course it isn't. Immigrants don't just take jobs, they also consume goods and services, thus creating jobs. They live in houses and apartments, buy cars and food and consumer products, thus creating jobs both for native-born Americans and other immigrants.
Proof can be seen very simply by looking north of the border. In Canada, over 20% of the population are immigrants vs. only 12% in the US. Yet, unemployment in Canada has generally been lower than in the US; only in recent months has it become slightly higher, because of the fall in the prices of oil and other commodities on which Canada is very dependent. So the facts support Mr Davidson. In fact, none of his critics have cited much in the way of data.
Proof can be seen very simply by looking north of the border. In Canada, over 20% of the population are immigrants vs. only 12% in the US. Yet, unemployment in Canada has generally been lower than in the US; only in recent months has it become slightly higher, because of the fall in the prices of oil and other commodities on which Canada is very dependent. So the facts support Mr Davidson. In fact, none of his critics have cited much in the way of data.
2
"In Canada, over 20% of the population are immigrants vs. only 12% in the US."
In Canada most if not all of the immigrants are well educated, even well to do. In the US, most of the immigrants are uneducated, illiterate, non-English speaking third world peasants quite a difference.
In Canada most if not all of the immigrants are well educated, even well to do. In the US, most of the immigrants are uneducated, illiterate, non-English speaking third world peasants quite a difference.
5
As a Canadian, I can tell you that most of the immigrants in Canada, come on a point basis or with plenty of money. This has led to a huge housing boom and a complete transformation of demographics. Vancouver is now a largely a colony of Hong Kong and many of these communities do not integrate. There is currently an argument under way about whether signs can be only in Chinese, or must also include English. There is a massive problem with affordable housing and this has led to homelessness, especially among white, less educated Canadians and First Nations people. Housing has been bought up by foreign interests, driving costs up and leaving average Canadians to move further and further out and increasing commuting time without the requisite mass transit system. Downtown apartments remain owned, but empty, which has impacted local businesses. Prices are now comparable to Manhattan, the population has quadrupled in the last 30 years and the infrastructure hasn't kept up. Canada used to be a largely resource based economy, meaning you could get a good paying job out of high school, that is still somewhat true, but without diversification, a drop in oil prices has lead to a 20 % drop in the dollar in a matter of months. Canada faces less of the problems that illegal immigration brings, because there are pretty tight restrictions and these are tightening all the time. Also, Canada has a single payer health system, which does not cost as much as the US.
1
I'm an American expat living in France. Here there are sensible import restrictions and tariffs. Things cost more, but not that much more, and they're oftentimes made in the European Union. There are far fewer Chinese imports than in the US.
"Free" trade -- especially with countries that do not reciprocate, like China -- are anything but free. They are a way to increase management profitability at the expense of both workers and the macroeconomy. Similarly, low-cost immigrants do nothing but drive down the wages of lower skilled workers. Even "highly trained" immigrants are questionable: here in France holders of the equivalent of an H1B have job portability: since they're so valuable they can quit and find a new job without any effect on their visas. In the US they're tied to one employer who knows how much power they yield.
This piece is nonsense. Low cost immigration is about transferring wealth from workers to management and nothing else. Some employers do need high-skilled workers and can't find them but they pay them the same and treat them the same, but they're a small minority (I'm looking at you Apple and Google; not so much you Microsoft or IBM and definitely not you Wipro or anybody that hires your "consultants").
"Free" trade -- especially with countries that do not reciprocate, like China -- are anything but free. They are a way to increase management profitability at the expense of both workers and the macroeconomy. Similarly, low-cost immigrants do nothing but drive down the wages of lower skilled workers. Even "highly trained" immigrants are questionable: here in France holders of the equivalent of an H1B have job portability: since they're so valuable they can quit and find a new job without any effect on their visas. In the US they're tied to one employer who knows how much power they yield.
This piece is nonsense. Low cost immigration is about transferring wealth from workers to management and nothing else. Some employers do need high-skilled workers and can't find them but they pay them the same and treat them the same, but they're a small minority (I'm looking at you Apple and Google; not so much you Microsoft or IBM and definitely not you Wipro or anybody that hires your "consultants").
18
The problem is also our immigration system that allows foreign temp staffing agencies to set up offices in the U.S. and then "transfer" temps into the U.S. using L-1 visas. The bulk of these are Engineers and technology workers and they are paid a small fraction of comparable U.S. workers. They pay no U.S. taxes and we have no limits on the number of these L-1 visas. Companies are outsourcing their entire I.T. and/or engineering departments, replacing U.S. workers with low-paid temps. For example, TATA consultancy from Mumbai has over 50% of their global workforce working in the U.S., displacing U.S. workers. Those temps can stay here for up to 7 years and they can bring their spouse who will be given an L-2 visa so that they can also legally work in the U.S.
17
Every time we turn around, we find the Feds and our Congress People have cheated us again.. manipulated and lied to us.
1
'...and they can bring their spouse...'
Who will immediately have a baby, who is an American citizen and qualifies for all taxpayer funded social services for the next 18 years.
Who will immediately have a baby, who is an American citizen and qualifies for all taxpayer funded social services for the next 18 years.
2
Excellent article. Finally a rational voice in a sea of intolerance, born out of ignorance and prejudice. Of course, immigrants contribute keeping the U.S. young and productive, and keeping at bay the conflict of aging populations' ratio of workers to retired folks (i.e. Japan). And as immigrants start with menial jobs, natives (unfortunately we are bypassing the true native americans) are able to move up the ladder for better paying jobs. The U.S. will remain hypocritical as long as it does not reform its restrictive immigration policies, where people are stopped at the border...while capital flows uninterruptedly across frontiers, no questions asked. I would concur that our elders, with a dogmatic stance demonizing undocumented immigrants (and racial epithets are not unheard of), are dying off, giving a younger and more open generation the chance to accept and welcome diversity, recognizing, finally, its true value. Now, if only we could convince republicans to set its rigid ideology aside, in favor of reality as is, accept facts rather than fiction, and control the 'tedcruzes' in their midst, a minimum of education and civics, their willful ignorance would dissolve like ice in summer.
12
Mr. Davidson seems to be unaware that almost all the economic gain from immigration goes to (1) increased profit from cheaper labor and (2) the immigrants' own wages.
If high levels of immigration do not degrade wages and working conditions, why did migrant agricultural laborers in the 1950s, a time of moderate immigration that still made America the most open society in the world, earn more than twice what such laborers make today in inflation-adjusted dollars? Does a similar degradation of pay in, say, meatpacking, have nothing to do with the availability of cheap immigrant labor?
Mr. Davidson also seems blind to the profoundly racist impact of high levels of immigration. His analysis ignores the possibility of a significant relationship between high immigration rates and low labor participation rates, especially for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans with no more than a high school degree.
It is also interesting that Mr. Davidson seems to think that population growth from opening the borders to all comers will have no downside in terms of the environment, urban sprawl, or other aspects of our quality of life.
Last but not least, in Mr. Davidson's analysis, citizenship is apparently valueless, and a nation's own people deserve no consideration in the labor market.
If high levels of immigration do not degrade wages and working conditions, why did migrant agricultural laborers in the 1950s, a time of moderate immigration that still made America the most open society in the world, earn more than twice what such laborers make today in inflation-adjusted dollars? Does a similar degradation of pay in, say, meatpacking, have nothing to do with the availability of cheap immigrant labor?
Mr. Davidson also seems blind to the profoundly racist impact of high levels of immigration. His analysis ignores the possibility of a significant relationship between high immigration rates and low labor participation rates, especially for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans with no more than a high school degree.
It is also interesting that Mr. Davidson seems to think that population growth from opening the borders to all comers will have no downside in terms of the environment, urban sprawl, or other aspects of our quality of life.
Last but not least, in Mr. Davidson's analysis, citizenship is apparently valueless, and a nation's own people deserve no consideration in the labor market.
43
Well-stated. Davidson misses the main point that you emphasized: Cheap (illegal) immigrant labor degrades wages and working conditions for all unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the labor market.
3
Liberalvoice:
Did you actually read Mr. Davidson's article?
He explained how economic gains from immigration are widespread, not limited to benefits for only immigrants.
Your assertion wages have decreased is true for all workers' wages since 1981--except those of the top 1%--you know, the people who don't actually have to work.
Your assertion that immigration may be responsible for low labor-participation rates among minority groups is a ridiculous stretch with no foundation in facts--or if you have some facts, how about sharing them with us?
The world's population is not being effected by immigration, nor is the world's environment. Immigration is, by definition, change of population location, not population growth.
Finally, our nation's own people do deserve consideration in the labor market. Mr. Davidson's entire article is about how, after giving consideration to all the straw-man arguments, our nation's own citizens can rest easy with regard to immigration; it doesn't negatively impact the economy or our nation's citizens' ability to find decent work.
P.S. In all fairness, when the jobs are doled out, shouldn't our nation's citizens stand in line behind Native Americans until all of them have decent jobs?
Did you actually read Mr. Davidson's article?
He explained how economic gains from immigration are widespread, not limited to benefits for only immigrants.
Your assertion wages have decreased is true for all workers' wages since 1981--except those of the top 1%--you know, the people who don't actually have to work.
Your assertion that immigration may be responsible for low labor-participation rates among minority groups is a ridiculous stretch with no foundation in facts--or if you have some facts, how about sharing them with us?
The world's population is not being effected by immigration, nor is the world's environment. Immigration is, by definition, change of population location, not population growth.
Finally, our nation's own people do deserve consideration in the labor market. Mr. Davidson's entire article is about how, after giving consideration to all the straw-man arguments, our nation's own citizens can rest easy with regard to immigration; it doesn't negatively impact the economy or our nation's citizens' ability to find decent work.
P.S. In all fairness, when the jobs are doled out, shouldn't our nation's citizens stand in line behind Native Americans until all of them have decent jobs?
liberalvoice, in counter point:
1. Economic gain from immigration goes into profit and immigrant's wages.
a)profits which are either reinvested or consumed, hence increasing the size of the economy; immigrant wages used to support household and thus increasing size of overall economy.
2. Relative labor rates were higher for agricultural migrants in the 1950s, a period with low immigration, than today.
b) What lower or middle class labor rates in the 1950s, inflation adjusted, are not higher than similar labor categories today?
3.Possibility of a significant relationship between high immigration rates and low labor participation rates.
c) Why, because you say so? There is no current literature supporting this position; hence nothing more than a projection of faulty logic and personal bias.
4. Population growth from opening borders to all comers.
d) Seriously misreading the article; again projecting personal bias.
5. Citizenship is apparently valueless.
e) Demagoguery in the most vile form.
1. Economic gain from immigration goes into profit and immigrant's wages.
a)profits which are either reinvested or consumed, hence increasing the size of the economy; immigrant wages used to support household and thus increasing size of overall economy.
2. Relative labor rates were higher for agricultural migrants in the 1950s, a period with low immigration, than today.
b) What lower or middle class labor rates in the 1950s, inflation adjusted, are not higher than similar labor categories today?
3.Possibility of a significant relationship between high immigration rates and low labor participation rates.
c) Why, because you say so? There is no current literature supporting this position; hence nothing more than a projection of faulty logic and personal bias.
4. Population growth from opening borders to all comers.
d) Seriously misreading the article; again projecting personal bias.
5. Citizenship is apparently valueless.
e) Demagoguery in the most vile form.
The world is changing quickly. Areas which once were prosperous and could support life will one day no longer be. Areas which were once barren and cold, could become verdant and good farmland. In this world we must open the borders. If we do not move, globally, to a system of free migration, then we will end up with famine and war on a huge scale. This is obvious to any who spend more than a minute thinking about it. The artificial limit on our global freedom of movement will, necessarily, end up with countries with low resources and high populations.
Global open borders would be a huge change, but it is the only possible route if we want long term peace as a species.
Global open borders would be a huge change, but it is the only possible route if we want long term peace as a species.
1
Paul Krugman wrote: "Immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That's just supply and demand: We're talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it's inevitable that this means a fall in wages."
“many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans.”
Now who are you going to believe Adam Davidson or Paul Krugman?
“many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans.”
Now who are you going to believe Adam Davidson or Paul Krugman?
44
Immigrants often improve the level of workers and compete for jobs. Illegal immigrants contaminate the worker pool and should be deported
12
HOw's this for faulty logic from Mr. Davidson: "Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy."
The problem here is that illegal immigrants are low wage workers. That is their appeal to the labor market. Replacing higher wage consumers with lower wage consumers does not improve the economy. For example, who is more likely to buy a new car and who is more likely to buy a used one and fix it with junk parts? Who is more likely to go out to eat and who is more likely to cook at home? Who is more likely to get a professional haircut and who is more likely to cut their own kids hair? ANd of course, who is more likely to spend their disposable income in the U.S. and who is more likely to "send money home"?
Davidson could have summed up his article in two paragraphs but first he sends us on a guilt trip talking about his racist uncle.
And consider this, if low wage labor was so great at building an economy, then Mexico would have a better economy than the U.S. But it does not. Now Mr. Davison, why doesn't your economic point-of-view work there.
The truth is illegal immigration destroys the middle class.
The problem here is that illegal immigrants are low wage workers. That is their appeal to the labor market. Replacing higher wage consumers with lower wage consumers does not improve the economy. For example, who is more likely to buy a new car and who is more likely to buy a used one and fix it with junk parts? Who is more likely to go out to eat and who is more likely to cook at home? Who is more likely to get a professional haircut and who is more likely to cut their own kids hair? ANd of course, who is more likely to spend their disposable income in the U.S. and who is more likely to "send money home"?
Davidson could have summed up his article in two paragraphs but first he sends us on a guilt trip talking about his racist uncle.
And consider this, if low wage labor was so great at building an economy, then Mexico would have a better economy than the U.S. But it does not. Now Mr. Davison, why doesn't your economic point-of-view work there.
The truth is illegal immigration destroys the middle class.
29
He's actually proposing more LEGAL immigration, "documented" immigrants who would be able to fully participate in the consumer economy as well as the worker economy.
1
When the wrong people with the wrong kind of ideas are running the government and deciding how many and what kind of legal immigrants will be permitted to enter the country, legal immigration, too, becomes extremely destructive.
2
If these new immigrants were six foot tall Scandinavian women, with blond hair and blue eyes, then Americans would bend over backwards to accommodate these people by the tens of millions annually. However, they are not. They are the other 95% of the world’s population that don’t look like that.
9
Many, if not most people who oppose illegal immigration, welcome legal immigrants, including me. And from 2011-2013, the top country providing legal permanent residence to the US was Mexico, with 13.6% of the total. The next highest, at 7%, was China. These were followed by India, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Vietnam, South Korea, Haiti, Jamaica, El Salvador, Nigeria, and Pakistan.
Hardly a source for blue-eyed blondes. This isn't about racism.
Hardly a source for blue-eyed blondes. This isn't about racism.
8
Ridiculous and irrelevant. (1) Not all of us are men. (2) Not all men love Scandinavian amazons. Maybe YOU would be made happy by such a migration. As a woman, I am more "meh."
1
If these new immigrants were six foot tall Scandinavian women, with blond hair and blue eyes with no education and no skills, they would not be welcome, no matter your sexist fantasy.
2
Immigration won't work without a guaranteed right to vote. Otherwise, immigrants will be exploited. This country will greatly benefit from open borders and the immediate right to vote.
2
Fred,
While I personally think immigrants should be granted a path to citizenship, I disagree with your assertion. If immigrants' status were to be re-characterized as legal, the illegal exploitation would cease. The main reason illegal immigrants allow themselves to be exploited is because they fear deportation, not due to their lack of franchise. Furthermore, if the path-to-citizenship element of this argument were removed, some Republicans would drop their resistance to amnesty. Then currently illegal immigrants would stay and have children who would be citizens. That's actually not a bad deal, don't you think?
While I personally think immigrants should be granted a path to citizenship, I disagree with your assertion. If immigrants' status were to be re-characterized as legal, the illegal exploitation would cease. The main reason illegal immigrants allow themselves to be exploited is because they fear deportation, not due to their lack of franchise. Furthermore, if the path-to-citizenship element of this argument were removed, some Republicans would drop their resistance to amnesty. Then currently illegal immigrants would stay and have children who would be citizens. That's actually not a bad deal, don't you think?
1
What is the impact of illegal immigration/habitation on low/middle income rental housing stock? What is the impact of illegal immigration/habitation on public school student populations? If there is any impact at all -- and I'd wager dollars to churros that the impact is substantial -- this amounts to a regressive "tax" on those here legally that can only afford rental housing and/or to send their children to public schools.
13
I am yet to meet an American, poor or rich, who has lost a job to an immigrant. That's just me. More accurately, one of my friends has always woefully lamented how immigrants have hurt his chances of advancing in this world. He's utterly believable unless you happen to know him well. Simply, he will not keep a job but will create an imaginary immigrant for a scapegoat on whom to blame.
10
Clearly, Umba, you do not have a teen college-age son or daughter who is looking for summer work in the lawn care business. This was the job I did as a boy to earn tuition money for college. Those jobs do not exist anymore. It's not because of technology. It's because of illegal immigrants doing them.
2
They have destroyed most of the union construction jobs in those jobs that legal immigrants and citizens did at a higher wage! Those men and women have been replaced by the shape-ups outside of Home Depot of dozens upon dozens of illegals working off the books and sending that money home! Low skilled, low educated and a drain on the taxpaying public. They will only take more than they receive ever.
2
I'm guessing you don't know many roofers?
2
It is a shame that we exploit and treat all the illegal immigrants in this country - they should all have a path to citizenship.
Having, said that I am not sure I buy the argument in this article. If it were true, then if we increase our population by people having more babies then we should see a similar effect. But the examples we have for overpopulated countries around the world shows that we can't just increase prosperity by increasing the population.
Having, said that I am not sure I buy the argument in this article. If it were true, then if we increase our population by people having more babies then we should see a similar effect. But the examples we have for overpopulated countries around the world shows that we can't just increase prosperity by increasing the population.
I think the real resistance here isn't to immigration per se, but to change. Yes, immigrants will change society as they move into it. Those that are against immigration (or same-sex marriage or whatever) are really uncomfortable with change. They prefer no change even though that will be a worse outcome: a static society is a dead one.
4
To equate illegal immigration with same sex marriage is ludicrous.
3
So the Laws of Supply and Demand don't apply to Labor?
22
An immigrant arrives on these shores and there is nothing that prevents them from achieving what ever they can possibly want or do in life, the the American way - no question. Our immigrants go out and do just that - they pull up their bootstraps and in some cases we lend them a helping hand to do that. Immigration is vital for the constant renewal of America, it's what makes us great and grateful to be here and most are indeed. Criminals who come here illegally without waiting or applying for legal entry is wrong and we should not be encouraging another 12 million from stealing minimum wage jobs from our students or downtrodden by under cutting that minimum pay, not paying taxes and deliberately birthing here to gain a green card. For those legal immigrants - most of us are or were generations past are welcomed and invited to be citizens.
6
Again DEAD Wrong!
All H-1B/L1 Visa holder steal more American Jobs than all Illegals Aliens from the South. They all STEAL American Jobs! They DO! You know it!
All H-1B/L1 Visa holder steal more American Jobs than all Illegals Aliens from the South. They all STEAL American Jobs! They DO! You know it!
2
I question whether the author adequately distinguishes between the discrete economic effects of:
A) Legal immigrants.
B) Legal non-immigrants (work visas)
C) Illegal immigrants.
Clearly, if the immigrants in question have diminished wage-negotiating power, like categories B) and C), they are very harmful to the American wage-earner.
A) Legal immigrants.
B) Legal non-immigrants (work visas)
C) Illegal immigrants.
Clearly, if the immigrants in question have diminished wage-negotiating power, like categories B) and C), they are very harmful to the American wage-earner.
14
Adam Davidson for President.
of what?
1
This essay too easily dismisses the rule of "supply and demand" in the labor market. History has shown many times that too many available bodies looking for too few jobs drives down the value of labor. We are often told that "immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do" without the caveat that Americans would do these jobs if the pay was higher. Americans USED to hang drywall, landscape, clean hotel rooms and such, but pay levels for these jobs have fallen relative to the cost of living -- and there has been an increasing pool of cheap immigrant labor available in recent decades to keep those wages low. Shut off the flood of immigration, and in a few years wages will rise to a new equilibrium.
18
And you know what else rises? The costs of homes, hotel rooms, the fruits and vegetables that you eat.
This is so true, but (as I know from experience) it is so impossible to convince anyone of it! Just mention that you'd prefer open borders and people look at you like you're insane.
The other side of this equation, of course, is the assumption that everybody in the world wants to come to the US, and that we would be overflooded with immigrants if we had open borders. Not true, either; the vast majority of people prefer living right where they are. It is only the venturesome few who take the risk of migration.
The other side of this equation, of course, is the assumption that everybody in the world wants to come to the US, and that we would be overflooded with immigrants if we had open borders. Not true, either; the vast majority of people prefer living right where they are. It is only the venturesome few who take the risk of migration.
2
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153992/150-Million-Adults-Worldwide-Migrate.aspx?
Not so, according to this Gallup study that shows:
"About 13% of the world's adults -- or more than 640 million people -- say they would like to leave their country permanently. Roughly 150 million of them say they would like to move to the U.S. -- giving it the undisputed title as the world's most desired destination for potential migrants."
Not so, according to this Gallup study that shows:
"About 13% of the world's adults -- or more than 640 million people -- say they would like to leave their country permanently. Roughly 150 million of them say they would like to move to the U.S. -- giving it the undisputed title as the world's most desired destination for potential migrants."
2
The REAL problem is the people who write these articles don't live in neighborhoods overrun with Mexicans who loot US resources that are meant to feed America's poor. Why not interview the countless Black Americans who can't find jobs and actually get turned down from work because the Mexicans at a potential job site refuse to work alongside them. This is the reality of life on the streets of America that PBS refuses to show. I live in a town where Martin Luther King marched because the White population here in the 60's refuse to rent to them or sell them home. It is now 2015, and the Black population here is almost non-existent but there are very few White living here so who is refusing to rent or sell homes to them? MEXICANS who don't want them living in THEIR AMERICA. Do you ever think MEXICO will elect a Black president? Don't hold your breath but continue to close your eyes to the truth about racism and Latinos.
18
Low-skilled illegal aliens are bad for both the economy and the country, regardless of what the author claims. There are already people with low skills in our country, whether due to their own inherent limitations or due to other factors. Unless you can repeal the law of supply and demand, the price for low-skilled labor goes down as the supply of it goes up, thanks to the illegal aliens. This reduces the incomes of those least able to afford that income loss. In addition, these illegal aliens send much of their earnings back to their home countries to support their families, withdrawing money from the American economy.
Other societal factors are at play as well. Illegal aliens cause damage to the communities in which they live. I have seen with my own eyes the damage done to the town of Beardstown, Illinois by illegal aliens hired to work in the meatpacking plant there, resulting in over 60 arrests. That town now has a Hispanic street gang problem thanks to the illegal aliens.
I cannot help but think that if illegal aliens voted Republican that the New York Times would be opposed to amnesty.
Other societal factors are at play as well. Illegal aliens cause damage to the communities in which they live. I have seen with my own eyes the damage done to the town of Beardstown, Illinois by illegal aliens hired to work in the meatpacking plant there, resulting in over 60 arrests. That town now has a Hispanic street gang problem thanks to the illegal aliens.
I cannot help but think that if illegal aliens voted Republican that the New York Times would be opposed to amnesty.
14
One of the things that upsets and gets me fired up the most is when people refer immigrants as "aliens". Immigrants are not "aliens". Aliens are those green weird looking things that some people believe in. Last time I checked, we all have the same body parts, we all are HUMAN. H-U-M-A-N. I prefer when people say immigrant than alien. Sorry but I just had to burst that out there.
Beverly, I use the term illegal alien because that is the historical term used to describe such persons; a resident alien is one who is here legally. In my opinion, liberals who have attempted to remove the term illegal alien from the language are using the language tactics that George Orwell described in Nineteen Eighty Four. There is more than one meaning to the word alien, and when people try to remove it from the language, it is almost always because they are amnesty supporters. I will guarantee you that the corrupt Chicago president of the Illinois state senate who introduced a sanctuary bill today for the state didn't use the word illegal. If the word alien offends, use the phrase illegal immigrant.
I am guessing, though, that your issue is really with the word illegal, which is what they are.
I am guessing, though, that your issue is really with the word illegal, which is what they are.
1
Forgive me for adding this, but in my dictionary the first definition of the word alien is a noun used to define a person from another country.
1
It's so interesting, that most of the comments, so far, cling to the Lump of Labor Fallacy. Most still see immigrants as taking jobs or depressing wages levels.
That tells me that this logical analysis is too complicated to enjoy any potential for influencing public opinion and policy. Sad to say.
That tells me that this logical analysis is too complicated to enjoy any potential for influencing public opinion and policy. Sad to say.
4
The Lump of Labor Fallacy is a fallacy itself! Don't believe it. Where is the analysis of what all of these unskilled, non-English speaking, no-education individuals will do to communities they live in. And paying sales tax isn't paying income tax which the overwhelming majority will never pay. Tourists pay sales tax. The US government GAO says they will be a drain on the social services of this country, both local and national. But hey why should facts get in the way.
1
Gosh, Mike, I guess you then include Professor Krugman, Nobel Laureate in economics, among those who "cling to the Lump of Labor Fallacy."
1
one of the biggest downsides to immigration is that the immigrants take up space. Do we really want to see our country overcrowded as the UK is.? how about the free space for woods, lawns, water supply etc. All these would be endangered by excessive immigrations. No one thinks of the large impact immigrants have on our environment - they degrade it. We are a country of wide open spaces - immigrations stands to end that.
The concept of Open Borders will do for the use what Open Borders and Schengen have done for Europe - take a look at how Open borders have allowed terrorist into the country, have degraded living standards in many area, created massive ghettoes, excessive terrorist activity etc. Do we want a Charlie Hebdo in the US courtesy of an Open Border system.
What this author fails to mention is that immigrants, especially poor illiterate ones, do take jobs from US citizens who may not have graduated from High School.
The author's view is of someone in the upper class sitting in an Ivory Tower with a theoretical view of immigration. He totally lacks practical experience and obviously does not do much reading of the foreign press or he would understand the cost of Open Borders in Europe.
The concept of Open Borders will do for the use what Open Borders and Schengen have done for Europe - take a look at how Open borders have allowed terrorist into the country, have degraded living standards in many area, created massive ghettoes, excessive terrorist activity etc. Do we want a Charlie Hebdo in the US courtesy of an Open Border system.
What this author fails to mention is that immigrants, especially poor illiterate ones, do take jobs from US citizens who may not have graduated from High School.
The author's view is of someone in the upper class sitting in an Ivory Tower with a theoretical view of immigration. He totally lacks practical experience and obviously does not do much reading of the foreign press or he would understand the cost of Open Borders in Europe.
16
Open borders are making the US increasingly resemble the immigrants' own home countries, i.e. mass immigration is making the US into a Third World country. Our founding fathers never intended the US to be a haven for the whole world but for their own posterity. Political usurpers and other operatives have distorted and undermined our nation and should be held accountable. The damage must be reversed.
2
Why would Mark Zuckerberg be lobbying to get Immigration Reform (as it is currently formulated) if it wouldn't substantially reduce his operating costs (software developer salaries)? He's a shrewd businessman. He's not going to invest in something if it won't pay off form him.
If he suddenly gets to pay a cadre of H1B1 developers a fraction of what he is currently paying his developers, how is that good for everyone except Mark Zuckerberg and the H1B1 developers he brings over?
As far as I can tell, it worsens state tax revenue (less income tax), it weakens local economies (less money to spend), and it lowers the wage ceiling for all developers. Sure, Mark Zuckerberg and some H1B1 developers are net winners. I'm not saying that's necessarily good or bad, but if this is your intent for Immigration Reform, why not just be honest about it so we can debate it honestly.
If he suddenly gets to pay a cadre of H1B1 developers a fraction of what he is currently paying his developers, how is that good for everyone except Mark Zuckerberg and the H1B1 developers he brings over?
As far as I can tell, it worsens state tax revenue (less income tax), it weakens local economies (less money to spend), and it lowers the wage ceiling for all developers. Sure, Mark Zuckerberg and some H1B1 developers are net winners. I'm not saying that's necessarily good or bad, but if this is your intent for Immigration Reform, why not just be honest about it so we can debate it honestly.
17
It is illegal to pay H1B visa holders "a fraction" of what US nationals are paid. They are paid the prevailing wage of their industry and location.
Honestly is not how the likes of Zuck operate.
1
Laura, H1B1 holders are often hired on as 'salaried' (or the like) meaning they don't get paid overtime. And their Visa hinges on them keeping their job. So now their employer can suggest that to get the all-important deadline met, they work 80 hour weeks for a few weeks. And once that deadline is met, oddly enough there is another such all-important deadline just around the corner. This can go on for years. Many such visa holders are willing to put up with this because they are young, inexperienced, and see it as hard dues to pay with the potential upside of going back to their country with some money and a ton of experience to perhaps start their life in earnest.
They might start at 4/5 of a 'baseline' salary under the pretense that they are lacking experience (many are indeed straight out of engineering school). Then in order to not get fired and deported, they find that they have to work twice as much as the 'prevailing' hours. So now they are magically are down to 2/5 of the baseline. Now that's a real fraction if there ever was one. A fraction Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk dream about at night.
But see now that said company can demonstrate it can fill bullpens full of engineers who will 'bear' this situation, it lowers the wages and working conditions for everyone. And those who won't tolerate working at this company are now flooding the industry in general. And guess what that does to wages and unemployment numbers and tax receipts and family quality of life issues?
They might start at 4/5 of a 'baseline' salary under the pretense that they are lacking experience (many are indeed straight out of engineering school). Then in order to not get fired and deported, they find that they have to work twice as much as the 'prevailing' hours. So now they are magically are down to 2/5 of the baseline. Now that's a real fraction if there ever was one. A fraction Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk dream about at night.
But see now that said company can demonstrate it can fill bullpens full of engineers who will 'bear' this situation, it lowers the wages and working conditions for everyone. And those who won't tolerate working at this company are now flooding the industry in general. And guess what that does to wages and unemployment numbers and tax receipts and family quality of life issues?
1
I agree that there are plenty of jobs to be filled, which in turn will create even more jobs. However, wages will still be lowered for a much longer time than Davidson suggests. One study in Miami that says otherwise? Study the effects on the whole country – including the the South and the Rust Belt.
As much as we'd like to think we live in a modern economy where money is theoretically unlimited, for the vast majority of people money is a scarce resource. They don't have the funds or bandwidth to do leveraged takeovers, invest in app startups, sell their remodeled 4th home for a profit, or do other things that the 1% does to create wealth for themselves. They have to rely on someone else giving them money for their hard work, and that someone else will only give them exactly what they need to live, not to further invest in their future – our future.
On the upside, at least guys like me can now have my lawn mowed for $5.
As much as we'd like to think we live in a modern economy where money is theoretically unlimited, for the vast majority of people money is a scarce resource. They don't have the funds or bandwidth to do leveraged takeovers, invest in app startups, sell their remodeled 4th home for a profit, or do other things that the 1% does to create wealth for themselves. They have to rely on someone else giving them money for their hard work, and that someone else will only give them exactly what they need to live, not to further invest in their future – our future.
On the upside, at least guys like me can now have my lawn mowed for $5.
9
Why hire somebody only to deprive yourself of $5 and the pleasure of mowing your own lawn, including a little fresh air and exercise?
So i've been wrong all along... Obviously I should have based my world view on a one time event that happened in Miami in 1980... Other than that this argument doesn't sound much different than reasons given for lower taxes on the rich, which as everyone knows results in more jobs and economic growth.
11
For the millionth time.....the argument is NOT about Immigration, it's about ILLEGAL immigration. You're article is a red herring. Purposefully, as many Liberals continue to have this phantom debate on immigration but REFUSE to have a honest conversation about Illegal Immigration.
11
The argument is about both.
Adam Davidson wants to open borders. The Senate immigration bill that passed in 2013 would have greatly increased legal immigration. It would have made the number of legal immigrants we bring in approximately equal that number of illegal and legal immigrants we were bringing in before the recession.
Legal immigration can be a force for good or bad for native born workers. It is something that we should consider carefully and not just assume that the politicians who set the numbers look after our interests.
While we have an obligation to the legal permanent residents already here, we have absolutely no obligations to bringing in any certain set number of people in the future.
Adam Davidson wants to open borders. The Senate immigration bill that passed in 2013 would have greatly increased legal immigration. It would have made the number of legal immigrants we bring in approximately equal that number of illegal and legal immigrants we were bringing in before the recession.
Legal immigration can be a force for good or bad for native born workers. It is something that we should consider carefully and not just assume that the politicians who set the numbers look after our interests.
While we have an obligation to the legal permanent residents already here, we have absolutely no obligations to bringing in any certain set number of people in the future.
1
No, actually, it is about both illegal and legal mass immigration. Legal immigration is also much, much too high. And the legal loophole of birthright citizenship for the children of foreigners who happen to be born on US soil is an utter anathema that perverts the intent of 14th Amendment.
3
if one understands microeconomics, one understands that immigrant labor both "steals jobs" and lowers wages. Unskilled immigrants immigrants affect unskilled US labor and skilled immigrants do the same for skilled US labor (eg, importing computer programmers). See Financial Times columnist Tim Harford's book about microeconomics which sold 1 million copies, "The Undercover Economist" (p. 29). This book is highly recommended by Freakonomics economist U. Chicago Professor Steve Levitt.
Mr. Harford has an BA Oxford degree and Masters Oxford degree in Economics. Sadly, Mr Davidson has no degree in economics, but rather in religion. Perhaps the NY Times should approach Mr. Harford who is *both* a well-trained economist and who has a track record of several books as well as his columns for communicating economics thought to non-economists.
Mr. Harford has an BA Oxford degree and Masters Oxford degree in Economics. Sadly, Mr Davidson has no degree in economics, but rather in religion. Perhaps the NY Times should approach Mr. Harford who is *both* a well-trained economist and who has a track record of several books as well as his columns for communicating economics thought to non-economists.
14
Amen on the "religion" bit. And on your whole comment.
1
What about the visas that have brought over highly skilled tech workers and drove down the wages and opportunities for tech people who were born here? That has been happening, but is not discussed in this article.
15
Speaking as someone affected by this, I would argue that it's a different issue. The problem with H1B and similar visas is the the visa is tied to the job. This means that someone on one of these visas can be required to leave the country on two weeks notice with (almost literally) just what he (and is family) can carry on to an airplane. The possible necessity to sell car, furniture and other belongings at a loss and uproot the visa holders family make that person more likely to accept substandard pay AND when asked to jump, is more likely to ask "how high". Management likes people who don't complain when abused.
1
THR: It is the same issue when it comes to the law of supply and demand as it applies to IT labor.
What do you think would happen to IT unemployment and wages if the 650,000 H1B visa workers were no longer in the country?
Want to guess?
What do you think would happen to IT unemployment and wages if the 650,000 H1B visa workers were no longer in the country?
Want to guess?
1
It's not a myth when most construction sites are filled with barely speaking English immigrant workers (that's why there are thousands of union workers out of work) and I'm tired of seeing "we accept SNAP", "we accept NYS Benefit Cards", "We accept WIC", etc. everywhere! My grandparents came here when there were no social programs and if you didn't have a job or a place to live, they sent you back! I've worked too hard and too long to be supporting people who think the U.S. and every State government is their permanent bank!
12
As a black man who has been voting Democrat for a long time now, I think this is a big slap in the face to us. Our community has record low unemployment and never benefited from the so called recovery. Unfettered immigration will seal the coffin of the marginalized, low-income and the rest of the black community.
20
The successful historic influx(es) of immigrants to the U.S. is often cited as reason to embrace limitless immigration. This is a romantic notion that no longer applies to the current global enconomic model.
In America, the number of jobs for illiterate, unskilled labor is finite and shrinking. The job pool is smaller still for those who reject assimilation and do not speak English. These negative characteristics apply to the bulk of the recent immigrants crossing our southern border.
Mechanization of farming and industry is expanding. Jobs that remain are below minimum wage, e.g. lawn services, food services, off-the-books labor, etc.
This creates a "race to the bottom" in wages due to the excess supply of labor, and the competition for menial jobs. These folks exist only by tapping into the social safety net, that subsidizes their food, housing, medical care and education. Even if they were taxed ( which is rare ), it would not offset their drain upon social services and infrasructure. They are defacto "wards of the state". Their dropout rate suggests that the majority will remain in economic margins for multiple generations.
This is no myth. It is an inconvenient truth for immigration adherents.
Spare us the the tired old adage, " who will pick out fruit ?" Is ridiculous. We do not need 12 million immigrants to pick our fruit.
Pity our lower and middle class citizens who must contend with the economic legacy of our defacto open border policies.......
In America, the number of jobs for illiterate, unskilled labor is finite and shrinking. The job pool is smaller still for those who reject assimilation and do not speak English. These negative characteristics apply to the bulk of the recent immigrants crossing our southern border.
Mechanization of farming and industry is expanding. Jobs that remain are below minimum wage, e.g. lawn services, food services, off-the-books labor, etc.
This creates a "race to the bottom" in wages due to the excess supply of labor, and the competition for menial jobs. These folks exist only by tapping into the social safety net, that subsidizes their food, housing, medical care and education. Even if they were taxed ( which is rare ), it would not offset their drain upon social services and infrasructure. They are defacto "wards of the state". Their dropout rate suggests that the majority will remain in economic margins for multiple generations.
This is no myth. It is an inconvenient truth for immigration adherents.
Spare us the the tired old adage, " who will pick out fruit ?" Is ridiculous. We do not need 12 million immigrants to pick our fruit.
Pity our lower and middle class citizens who must contend with the economic legacy of our defacto open border policies.......
14
Legal immigrants are, indeed, taking jobs that should go to Americans. The problem is that business wants employees to come down the tube fully formed, without input from, or expense to, them. Our businesses, who whine miserably about the lack of properly trained employees, have done nothing to solve their own problem, except by importing talent from abroad, who obviously displace our own citizens. There's no putting lipstick on this pig.
13
There is one job-related problem caused by immigration, but it is easily fixable. In almost every other place in the world, college education is much cheaper than it is here. Consequently, Native-born American engineers and doctors, for example, have to compete with people from China or India who got their degrees there for a tenth the cost, and who can thus work for lower salaries because they don't have massive school debts. The solution: replace the subsidies to college education that existed in the 50-70s, so that tuition will be small enough to once again produce an insignificant debt.
4
About half of my co-workers are immigrants, mostly from South and Central America. I like them, and I support immigration, but I am well aware that if my Employer ( UPS ) could find 90,000 people to replace their drivers with for 9 dollars an hour, they would do it tomorrow.
13
I was under the impression that UPS had a unionized workforce. There was a strike in 1997 - I remember the year because my brother and I had a moral dilemma about how to ship a particular item. Did I miss something? Has that changed? A proper union contract should preclude the action you cite as a possibility.
carol,
but what about non-unionized industries?
but what about non-unionized industries?
Great article. In spite of the evidence, a number of people will still be anti-immigrant as the author suggests.
4
Yes, we will. And for very, very good reasons.
2
Being a foreign born, and now a US citizen, I have a question for Adam Davidson & other gurus. USA has now been importing hi-tech (cheap) labor from India, or off-shoring white collar jobs there, on the pretext that technically qualified manpower is unavailable in USA. My own experience is that such a process initiated by the Wall Street and supported by the US lawmakers is the apple of discord in this whole narrative. The software programmer (traditionally from India) who comes to USA on a H-1B or L-1 visa makes a lot of money (by Indian standards) but either has come to an empty/vacant job position or must have displaced an American. Otherwise he or she cannot be here in USA. (Doesn't make any sense otherwise.)
The problem is that in the case an American has lost out to this Indian techie in San Jose, the anger swells with legitimate reasons.
First, these human imports - largely from India -are unlike their predecessors who came here on a F-1 (student) visa obtained MS and PhD degrees (like me), and found a job in a free and open job market - eventually settled down.
Nothing wrong here, grandpa Davidson.
However, if a H-1B visa holder agrees to low wage salary, he/she most likely be displacing an American or that position will not be filled by a local American having the same skills. That person who settles here may have never paid any taxes in USA but is actually displacing an American who has paid fair share of taxes. Grandpa Davidson, I am with you.
The problem is that in the case an American has lost out to this Indian techie in San Jose, the anger swells with legitimate reasons.
First, these human imports - largely from India -are unlike their predecessors who came here on a F-1 (student) visa obtained MS and PhD degrees (like me), and found a job in a free and open job market - eventually settled down.
Nothing wrong here, grandpa Davidson.
However, if a H-1B visa holder agrees to low wage salary, he/she most likely be displacing an American or that position will not be filled by a local American having the same skills. That person who settles here may have never paid any taxes in USA but is actually displacing an American who has paid fair share of taxes. Grandpa Davidson, I am with you.
13
The problem with economic theory as sprouted here is that it is, well just theory. If illegal immigration had the beneficial impacts stated, wages for lower-skilled workers would have gone up over the past 2 decades rather than meandering down. Low skilled immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) compete favorably (thru lower wages) with low-skilled Americans driving down wages in this sector. If this did not occur, then explain to my why Apple makes all its products in China?
12
It's very easy for an educated professional writer to declare his openness to immigration. NPR does not have a record of discrimination against English speakers.
I have, however, heard of many builders and landscaping contractors who refuse to hire anyone other than Spanish speaking immigrants. If you happen to be a young black man looking for work, this completely cuts you out of a wide category of entry level jobs.
The author rightly points out that skilled carpenters probably benefit when wages are depressed for unskilled construction labor. That's fine for them, but I don't see how that helps unskilled American laborers find jobs.
I have, however, heard of many builders and landscaping contractors who refuse to hire anyone other than Spanish speaking immigrants. If you happen to be a young black man looking for work, this completely cuts you out of a wide category of entry level jobs.
The author rightly points out that skilled carpenters probably benefit when wages are depressed for unskilled construction labor. That's fine for them, but I don't see how that helps unskilled American laborers find jobs.
11
Reading this article gives me the same feeling of queasiness that I imagine residents of Boston must feel as they read about global warming while they shovel snow. Do you believe your own experience or what you are told by distant experts? I look around me and I see immigrants working. I see Americans out of jobs, including those in hi-tech. I see housing shortages, because no connection has been made between millions of immigrants and a need for millions of new housing units. I see crumbling infrastructure and a lack of future planning for the needs of these new people. Immigrants aren't going to drink water, flush the toilet, drive their kids to school? Oh, please. I see teachers, government employees, and retail workers struggling to cope in multiple languages, where nobody speaks English as a first language but it's the only one they have in common. And yet we are brightly told how wonderful this all is. Kool-Aid, anyone?
17
Immigration has gone much, much too far and has become profoundly offensive.
2
It's not about immigrants, who are strivers worthy of respect. It's about employers. Cheap labor is immensely profitable, and having something on workers keeps them from agitating for better pay or benefits, whether it's the threat of deportation at the lower end or the association of VISA and job higher up the scale (they can't switch jobs). It is a myth that when workers are displaced by cheaper labor they move on to better jobs requiring higher levels of skill. There is an incentive to upgrade and some succeed but unskilled workers often don't have the option and workers higher up the scale are in an even tighter job market as better jobs are replaced with lesser jobs. I worked as a Computer Programmer and can attest that workers were simply displaced and that young workers clutching a shiny new degree and staggering under a mountain of debt were simply not hired. Far too many are still looking for a job that pays enough to retire their debt while working below their skill level.
The author cites research on a political exodus from Cuba of people probably distributed along the scale of workers, This occurred in 1980, before the Great Exodus of manufacturing and jobs, the war on Unions and the Hollowing of the Middle Class. Cheap foreign labor is a business model today.
The author cites research on a political exodus from Cuba of people probably distributed along the scale of workers, This occurred in 1980, before the Great Exodus of manufacturing and jobs, the war on Unions and the Hollowing of the Middle Class. Cheap foreign labor is a business model today.
11
...because American businessmen have become unpatriotic, venal and perfidious underminers of our society. They would take slave labor if they could get away with it. They are throwing their fellow Americans under the bus and should be held accountable and forced by law to do the right thing since they cannot manage that simply by listening to their own deficient conscience.
1
Thanks for the excellent coverage.
It is also mind-boggling that many people seem to think they can stop climate change by closing the border.
I wish geography was a bigger part of education, and that it included the fabulous satellite imagery now available.
Our sense of place has become narrow, and time as well, as we substitute politics and facility with the shallow consumption of information that confirms our bias.
Returning to my point, it should be noted that our atmosphere cannot be contained by borders. In this and other arenas, a sense that we are a community of humankind and need to work together if we are to survive would be a great asset to us in the present, and a necessity for the future.
It is also mind-boggling that many people seem to think they can stop climate change by closing the border.
I wish geography was a bigger part of education, and that it included the fabulous satellite imagery now available.
Our sense of place has become narrow, and time as well, as we substitute politics and facility with the shallow consumption of information that confirms our bias.
Returning to my point, it should be noted that our atmosphere cannot be contained by borders. In this and other arenas, a sense that we are a community of humankind and need to work together if we are to survive would be a great asset to us in the present, and a necessity for the future.
3
I don't agree with the writer's assertion that there is an emerging political consensus about taking action on immigration but his economic argument is sound. When the nationality act of 1924 (an infamous measure passed by the Coolidge administration in another period of anti immigrant hysteria) was over turned in the late 1960's by a new immigration act there were widespread claims (mainly by Republicans) that this would cause mass unemployment, contamination of the bodily essences, etc. but of course it
didn't. The one bright spot in the maintenance of our future status as a superpower is population growth achieved both organically (including by the 11 illegals already here) and future immigration.
didn't. The one bright spot in the maintenance of our future status as a superpower is population growth achieved both organically (including by the 11 illegals already here) and future immigration.
2
... I'll bet your grandfather would be proud to know that you published his private conversations.
1
Er...books are published every day of the week recording private conversations with the dead (and the living for that matter) and their private correspondence.
4
The last time Adam Davidson wrote this article, for the magazine back in Feb. 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actuall...), he at least admitted that "Labor economists have concluded that undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to 7.4 percent." Back then Davidson was willing to admit that economists agree that people without HS diplomas, like his grandfather, were probably right to oppose immigration. Have these economists really changed their mind so much in the last 2 years?
70
No, but everyone graduates high school now since George Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program is now a generation old. (two decades)
We need articles of this type. But at the same time, it is frustrating that they are needed.
Sadly, immigrants are time-tested political scapegoats. There is always an unscrupulous demagogue to stir public hatred against them for personal gain. And there are always angry and frustrated people who give into the hatred and blame their woes on immigrants.
These people forget we are all children of immigants. Or they rationalize their hatred by formulatng bogus reasons why things are different now than when their ancestors came here. They puff with patriotism at the Statue of Liberty and forget the words written on it.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Sadly, immigrants are time-tested political scapegoats. There is always an unscrupulous demagogue to stir public hatred against them for personal gain. And there are always angry and frustrated people who give into the hatred and blame their woes on immigrants.
These people forget we are all children of immigants. Or they rationalize their hatred by formulatng bogus reasons why things are different now than when their ancestors came here. They puff with patriotism at the Statue of Liberty and forget the words written on it.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
11
Written in 1883 when the population was around 50 M. We were still using horses and buggies and didn't have roads. Most of Mexico still doesn't have running water, sewage treatment plants or roads.
2
Actually, those words aren't written on the statue, they were placed inside the pedestal, two decades after the statue was erected.
It's time to stop using some 19th century doggerel as the basis of policy.
It's time to stop using some 19th century doggerel as the basis of policy.
3
The truth about the 11 million people here illegally is that they are not paying taxes. They don't pay taxes because we don't make them. And that's quite simply because the existing laws are not being enforced by our government. So, let the IRS start auditing payrolls. They have statistics that predict the size a payroll should be for any class of business, based on total sales. Start identifying and fining business's that aren't paying taxes. That dries up the illegal jobs. Then our "attractive nuisance" isn't there and people stop coming. Then we can increase the number of green cards based on actual demand.
Let's have financial "war" on illegal immigration, not guns and walls on the border.
Let's have financial "war" on illegal immigration, not guns and walls on the border.
33
Your statement is inaccurate. All people pay taxes.
We all pay sales tax, property tax [either indirectly through your rent or directly if you won a house, car registrations, etc.
Remember, everyone needs to eat, have clothing and have a roof over their head. All these are taxed either directly or indirectly.
We all pay sales tax, property tax [either indirectly through your rent or directly if you won a house, car registrations, etc.
Remember, everyone needs to eat, have clothing and have a roof over their head. All these are taxed either directly or indirectly.
2
Baloney...they are all paying sales tax, and the ones who own homes are paying property taxes, AND even the ones with fake social security numbers are paying income taxes!
First, your point is irrelevant. The article is about allowing more LEGAL immigration and the economic benfits of doings so.
Second, your point is wrong. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes.
Second, your point is wrong. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes.
1
I was in Australia last year and asked a waiter why their burgers cost $20 US. His answer was that labor cost to much here "We don't have Mexicans". I was thrown back by what I interpreted as a racial slur, I'm a minority myself, but then he went on to explain that the minimum wage in Aus is $20 an hour and they don't have a source of "cheaper labor" like we do in the US.
So while there may not be proof around a trickle up effect, it for sure keeps your overall costs down, more money in your pocket and increases your spending power regardless of which class you fall into.
So while there may not be proof around a trickle up effect, it for sure keeps your overall costs down, more money in your pocket and increases your spending power regardless of which class you fall into.
12
This is also a logical fallacy because it implies that the savings from hiring cheap labor manifests itself in lower prices, when it fact it simply further lines the pockets of those who hire cheap labor.
1
But it doesn't increase the size of the economic pie, it just shifts income from the have-nots to the haves.
You realize, of course, that labor costs can't be 'kept down' without wages being kept down, which is what this article is arguing **doesn't** happen.
But as it happens, it actually takes fewer minutes of work at the minimum wage in Australia to buy a Big Mac than it does here in the US.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/unveiling-the-big-mac-minimum-wage-ind...
But as it happens, it actually takes fewer minutes of work at the minimum wage in Australia to buy a Big Mac than it does here in the US.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/unveiling-the-big-mac-minimum-wage-ind...
Let us please distinguish legal from illegal immigration. Diversity is great, but do we want our immigrants to be disproportionally illegal and from Mexico?
42
Why? From an economic perspective there is no difference between an illegal and a legal immigrant.
Well considering the US immigration system is broke big-time, and has been for most of my lifetime, (I'm 57). I don't think we've got much to complain about. We've made this foolish and irrational bed, now we've got to live with the results.
Diversity is not great, nor is it a strength. On the contrary.
2
I have many friends who came here from other countries and we are richer for it. The United States was founded by immigrants - the only ones of us WITHOUT immigrant background are those whose families are 100% Native American.
What the US has always benefited from - and will continue to benefit from - is those who come here are essentially entrepreneurs. They come here because they are Willing To Take a Chance. The immigrants I know work long hard hours to obtain this dream. And isn't that the sort of people we want to embrace? Hard workers, willing to risk it all, hoping to make a better life for themselves and their families.
I should think conservative should examine their OWN heritage a little better and see their immigrant ancestry, and find the benefit that current and future immigrants bring.
What the US has always benefited from - and will continue to benefit from - is those who come here are essentially entrepreneurs. They come here because they are Willing To Take a Chance. The immigrants I know work long hard hours to obtain this dream. And isn't that the sort of people we want to embrace? Hard workers, willing to risk it all, hoping to make a better life for themselves and their families.
I should think conservative should examine their OWN heritage a little better and see their immigrant ancestry, and find the benefit that current and future immigrants bring.
11
All things in moderation. An invasion is another story.
2
Can we please give the 'we are all immigrants' rhetoric a rest? It isn't 1900 any more. There are no more homesteads, there is no more frontier. There isn't even any heavy industry requiring loads of human muscle. There is, instead, a welfare state, which immigrant headed households are far more likely to benefit from than US-born headed households.
3
The real reason entrepreneurship works in America is Capitalism. Being on American soil does not make people smarter. It is the fact that a smart person can patent his idea and become rich that feeds immigration. So let us not hate rich capitalists for without them we'd not have written a constitution that allows this great country to become number one.
Adam you don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever needed to find a job to put food on the table and roof over your head? Were you willing to do one of those non-skilled jobs? Well I was in that position with a grad degree and IN MIAMI. I wasn't even considered but those Mariel rafters were given those jobs. You mean to tell me that a native born Floridian does not want that job on a construction site or at CVS? I finally found some odd jobs scrubbing toilets and blacktopping driveways. I guess those are jobs Americans don't want, right and only illegal immigrants will take? You and the rest of blind co-conspirators are just flat wrong. I could go on to refute your other arguments but there isn't enough space.
78
You seem to be doing okay if you're posting in France, either on vacation or, god forbid, living there in that socialist state.
You needed a class in networking, and job search skills.
We might also note that by State Dept. policy, apparently ANY Cuban who "defects" to the U.S. is given nearly a blank check. That is, in fact, how Ted Cruz was able to attend Ivy League colleges and why he is such a rabid conservative.
NPR "All Things Considered" recently had a program on baseball in Cuba, and it came out that if a Cuban baseball player comes to play a game in the U.S. and steps away from the stadium into the population at large, that player will be protected by the U.S.
As with the Bracero program in the World War II years, government does what it does for its own benefit. Let the chips fall where they may.
NPR "All Things Considered" recently had a program on baseball in Cuba, and it came out that if a Cuban baseball player comes to play a game in the U.S. and steps away from the stadium into the population at large, that player will be protected by the U.S.
As with the Bracero program in the World War II years, government does what it does for its own benefit. Let the chips fall where they may.
The immigration "debate" as espoused by the rabid right is no more than a continuation of their maunderings to your grandfather et al; fear of the other, the "takeover" by people of color. Thinly disguised appeals to fear and prejudice play well to their conservative right wing base.
Unfortunately facts and reason have little affect on the underlying core of racism in American society.
Unfortunately facts and reason have little affect on the underlying core of racism in American society.
8
Racism? You mean the Hispanic groups and some politicians that put ethnicity before country? So how is it racist to want people to come into this country with less entitlement and a little respect for it?
3
The fear of "takeover" is rational and the "racism" in this situation is defensive, necessary and self-protective rather than aggressive. Foreigners are flooding into our country, not the other way around; and this is facilitated by our own lawmakers. Current levels of immigration look and feel like default (demographic) invasion; and if it walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. We have the right to protect our own people and society from radical change, overcrowding and degradation.
While there is no disputing that immigrants add to the economy and not take away from it (imagine a a new fruit stall on the streets of Cairo or Budapest, which brings more customers, more variety and possibly adds a job or two), I disagree with the motives for immigration.
Most liberals view immigrants as those poor people driven from their homes violently or due to starvation. This view doesnt do enough justice for the intelligence and drive of the immigrants (whether from Mexico or from Eritrea), nor does it factor in the 'aspiration' of these immigrants.
Its the capable that immigrate (of the unfortunate). The incapable survive somehow.
Those that immigrate do not necessarily out of desperation, but at least in equal measure out of ambition and the probability of success both in the journey and the destination
Most liberals view immigrants as those poor people driven from their homes violently or due to starvation. This view doesnt do enough justice for the intelligence and drive of the immigrants (whether from Mexico or from Eritrea), nor does it factor in the 'aspiration' of these immigrants.
Its the capable that immigrate (of the unfortunate). The incapable survive somehow.
Those that immigrate do not necessarily out of desperation, but at least in equal measure out of ambition and the probability of success both in the journey and the destination
6
Sure, immigration 'adds' to the total size of the economy. If we transported the entire population of Bangladesh to the US and they were exactly as productive as they were in the home country, 'the economy' would 'grow'.
That doesn't mean the economy would be better ... it would be demonstrably worse.
That doesn't mean the economy would be better ... it would be demonstrably worse.
4
Mr. Davidson,
I generally love your work but this piece seems shortsighted on a number of fronts.
One, it ignores the limited resources available to all, and the strain that population growth generally, has placed on the planet.
Second,it ignores the degrading circumstances that the poorest live under, even in this Country.. The minimum wage, if even that amount is earned, is paltry and an unlivable wage. It may be more that some of these folks can earn in their countries of origin, but it is still, an unlivable wage which merely transfers the burden of poverty to our shores.
Your suggestion, by extrapolating the numbers from the Miami study, that we could comfortably absorb another eleven million under-educated, minimally skilled alien workers, is nothing short of ridiculous.
Respectfully,
mgt
I generally love your work but this piece seems shortsighted on a number of fronts.
One, it ignores the limited resources available to all, and the strain that population growth generally, has placed on the planet.
Second,it ignores the degrading circumstances that the poorest live under, even in this Country.. The minimum wage, if even that amount is earned, is paltry and an unlivable wage. It may be more that some of these folks can earn in their countries of origin, but it is still, an unlivable wage which merely transfers the burden of poverty to our shores.
Your suggestion, by extrapolating the numbers from the Miami study, that we could comfortably absorb another eleven million under-educated, minimally skilled alien workers, is nothing short of ridiculous.
Respectfully,
mgt
81
The UK also issues 550,000 immigrant visas each year. We have a population of 65 million , roughly one fifth of USA's 300 million. About 300,000 British leave the UK each year which leaves a net immigration total of 250,000 immigrants. Based on UK figures, doubling or quadrupling USA's immigration visas shouldn't create any problems at all.
1
Immigration doesn't actually impact global population, you are just shifting the population around so I see 0 correlation between immigration and population growth. Now if you are arguing that moving immigrants from poor countries to US increases their birthrates that will be a different argument, but from the best data that I know birth rates tend to drop to the US average with a generation or two. So if you actually support lower global population growth you should support more immigration. I don't know if the 11M per year figure makes sense but certainly something higher then the current quota maybe optimal.
Good comment, which I would have signed "resentfully"....
This article totally misses the point - new immigrants take jobs from former immigrants and the poor. They don't hurt professionals like me; in fact owners of businesses usually make more money from new immigrants because they keep labor costs down. But immigrants do hurt lower wage people by increasing the pool of workers who will work for minimum wages and refusing to organize. Also, the article disregards the enormous local costs of immigrants in terms of education, housing, and medical care.
Here in Minneapolis, MN, we are hemorring money to support an ill-equipped and severely under-educated Somali population. Our local schools are spending over $15k per student primarily to meet the severe challenges of educating and providing programs for Somali pupils. Also, our city and state are spending millions on subsidizing immigrant housing, food, and medical services. So, this author needs to do better research.
Here in Minneapolis, MN, we are hemorring money to support an ill-equipped and severely under-educated Somali population. Our local schools are spending over $15k per student primarily to meet the severe challenges of educating and providing programs for Somali pupils. Also, our city and state are spending millions on subsidizing immigrant housing, food, and medical services. So, this author needs to do better research.
78
But isn't that a small investment to pay for creating new tax-paying, prosperous citizens as the Minnesota population ages and retires? The "truth" lies in the census and demographics.
There is a distinction between refugees (like the Somalis you refer to) and immigrants (individuals who apply on their own). The US, along with many other countries, works with UNHCR to resettle at-risk populations, and allocates State Dept budgets to do so.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement provides funds to states for additional associated with refugees. Details on the additional budget allocated to MN here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/ffy-2013-14-state-of-minnes...
Also look up the The Reception and Placement Program on the US Dept of State site for more info on the refugee process, how a particular state is chosen, which groups are funded to assist refugees, and the like.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement provides funds to states for additional associated with refugees. Details on the additional budget allocated to MN here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/ffy-2013-14-state-of-minnes...
Also look up the The Reception and Placement Program on the US Dept of State site for more info on the refugee process, how a particular state is chosen, which groups are funded to assist refugees, and the like.
Allow me to add that here in Vermont, the U.S. Dept. of Education has just thrown us a curve ball that the state agency of ed is hastening to address, namely, that there is an imbalance in the distribution of experienced teachers in the public schools. One may expect that the poorest, high-minority schools (yes, we do have minority populations here) end up with the green, first-year teachers, who always start out with the least desirable assignments. But in fact, our largest city, Burlington, is a resettlement community and also the high-minority school system, and that is where the experienced teachers are attracted. So the crisis is now with the high-poverty, low-minority rural schools who become the guinea pigs for first-year teachers who may or may not even stay in the profession.
I don't live in US and in my opinion the world is better with developing countries's migrants at home, in US they will be consuming more and depleting Earth resources.
I agree that immigrants create more jobs and wealth and the US need them, but it also needs unions's power to tackle corporations's low wages and little/middle size companies that exploit immigrants, the big Lobby that is behind immigration.
I agree that immigrants create more jobs and wealth and the US need them, but it also needs unions's power to tackle corporations's low wages and little/middle size companies that exploit immigrants, the big Lobby that is behind immigration.
9
This article demonstrates perfectly the perils of educating yourself superficially on a topic and typing up an argument in an East Coast media bubble without ever looking at reality on the ground. Mr. Davidson has obviously not spent much, if any, time talking to laborers in meatpacking or farming or construction about the effects of illegal immigration on their trades. (Ask them--or would you dismiss their testimony as false consciousness?) Nor does he seem to have considered the effect of open borders on the welfare state--what our less fortunate Americans depend on for food, medical care, and often housing. Question: What effect does an influx of millions of impoverished workers earning minimum wage have on state budgets, which require each child of these workers to receive medical care and be educated to the tune of $10,000 or more per year? Ask California.
87
No, when you live in a "Right To Work" state, you reap what you sow. And you continue to elect local, state, and DC politicians that chant the free-trade mantra.
The issue is not "job-stealing" but wage depression.
If there is a constant, renewable source of labor willing to work under the table and/or for less than the rate the market would bear if such labor supply did not exist, then wages are artificially kept low for all workers in that class.
I am in favor of amnesty etc., but it would benefit workers to have as much employment above the board so that blue collar workers are more fairly compensated.
If there is a constant, renewable source of labor willing to work under the table and/or for less than the rate the market would bear if such labor supply did not exist, then wages are artificially kept low for all workers in that class.
I am in favor of amnesty etc., but it would benefit workers to have as much employment above the board so that blue collar workers are more fairly compensated.
18
Wage depression comes on the heals of union destruction more than anything else. Look at all the union activity we had in the 50's- 70's and the rising tide of the "middle class" that it carried with it. My mother was a clerical employee in GE's lamp division, every time the lamp manufacturing union got a new contract, the wages and benefits of the entire plant was raised for all employees. It was only with the foreign outsourcing and bifurcated union contracts that wages and benefits for all workers fell.
But US consumers got GE light bulb 4-pks at $1/each to compete with foreign-produced Sylvania, Osram, and Phillips bulbs along with some no-name Asian imports.
But US consumers got GE light bulb 4-pks at $1/each to compete with foreign-produced Sylvania, Osram, and Phillips bulbs along with some no-name Asian imports.
With every new immigrant, the rich get a little richer. With every native who's economic status is eroded, the rich get a little richer. This while poor public education shuts out in the cold millions of citizens. The divides between ethnic groups grow more distinct; company's have become places of sharply defined segregation in order to keep the work flow smooth, one department is dominated by one ethnicity, another by another ethnicity. Let's have a real conversation.
27
That's assuming the economic pie is a closed system, which it isn't. Your spendable income is my salary, whoever you are.
First, the idea isn't that radical - we basically had open borders until the late 1800s. Also, open borders is fundamentally a libertarian concept, and there is a website called openborders that promotes it.
5
Yeah, we also had homestead land for 'free' (after taking in from the Indians).
The Ellis Island era was actually pretty bad...ethnic machine politics in the cities ... immigrant populated slums. Then American's woke up and passed immigration restriction .. and the 'American Century' complete with the growth of a huge 'middle class' happened.
The Ellis Island era was actually pretty bad...ethnic machine politics in the cities ... immigrant populated slums. Then American's woke up and passed immigration restriction .. and the 'American Century' complete with the growth of a huge 'middle class' happened.
1
"Immigrants bring long-term benefits at no measurable short-term cost."
True if you ignore the cost of education, health care, crime and the plethora of welfare goodies illegal immigrants and their children receive gratis of the US taxpayer.
You might as well ignore gravity while you're at it.
True if you ignore the cost of education, health care, crime and the plethora of welfare goodies illegal immigrants and their children receive gratis of the US taxpayer.
You might as well ignore gravity while you're at it.
99
Illegal immigrants are NOT QUALIFIED for welfare. Just because your right wing cable network anchor repeat it enough times, doesn't make it true.
1
Only citizens and legal residents are allowed to receive welfare. The fact that you got any upvotes at all proves how ill informed and uneducated some Americans are.
When was the last time you saw or heard of an immigrant, legal or illegal, involved in a reportable crime ? Its been both my experience and statistically apparent that immigrants avoid crime and keep their noses clean in fear of deportation or screwing up their green card/citizenship applications.
As for education and health care, they are small investments today in future taxpayer and economic consumers, which as we boomers age, are going to very important to our retirements.
As for education and health care, they are small investments today in future taxpayer and economic consumers, which as we boomers age, are going to very important to our retirements.
Americans have by far the largest per capita carbon footprint among residents of large nations (2-3 times the level of European nations, 5 times the level of Mexico, and 20 times the level of Guatemala, according to the World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC).
Thus while it undoubtedly makes this a more interesting place to live, immigration to the U.S. means people switch to a lifestyle with 2X or even 20X the carbon footprint they had previously. And that's bad news in the fight against catastrophic climate change.
Thus while it undoubtedly makes this a more interesting place to live, immigration to the U.S. means people switch to a lifestyle with 2X or even 20X the carbon footprint they had previously. And that's bad news in the fight against catastrophic climate change.
12
I cannot forget that my ancestors were immigrants fleeing famine and war for freedom and a better life for themselves and, as a result, better for me, too. There has to be a more advantageous way to approach immigration issues; at least let's start with facts and reality, not stay with myths.
3
I don't get it. How many people have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants? Every decent job out there has you go through thee verify process.
4
You obviously don't work construction in California.
2
Oh, Adam. How do you account for the massive numbers of H1b (so called skilled worker) visas when we are able to demonstrate that there is no STEM shortage? How do you explain to the 500 IT workers laid off this year in California at the power company that the H1b workers they had to train did not 'take' their jobs? Do you think you might just do some research on this topic instead of talking about "understanding threats" based on race? Because I completely understand someone might not want to live in Mumbai. What I, and thousands of others have seen is that the desperation to live an American life has caused lies and bribes and wiggling aroung the rules on education and skillset to prevail with the same outcome over and over: American incumbent worker training cheaper H1b worker and then being laid off. This is fact. Not fuzzy feelings. So, yes, they ARE taking our jobs. Maybe they'll start bringing in cheap researchers to take yours next.
109
Just a few months back Microsoft laid off 20,000 workers and immediately lobbied Congress for more H1B visas, claiming that no qualified American workers could be found for the jobs.
While flooding the job market with immigrant labor, legal or otherwise, started with Reagan (first amnesty) and George HW Bush (H1B visa program), both political parties are equally responsible for the destruction of the American middle class.
While flooding the job market with immigrant labor, legal or otherwise, started with Reagan (first amnesty) and George HW Bush (H1B visa program), both political parties are equally responsible for the destruction of the American middle class.
4
Outsourcing !
With instant high-volume data transfer a lawyer, doctor, or architect in a foreign low-wage country is as accessible and capable as your next-door neighbor. Ever hear of Tom Friedman's book of a decade ago, "The World is Flat"? No amount of Luddite wishing is going to change that fact.
In fact, today's Internet traffic is already 60% machines talking to other machines, NOT real people doing human things online.
If the earth were wiped clean of human life today, our current networked machines would continue to carry on for some time without us, and probably find a way to survive all by themselves.
With instant high-volume data transfer a lawyer, doctor, or architect in a foreign low-wage country is as accessible and capable as your next-door neighbor. Ever hear of Tom Friedman's book of a decade ago, "The World is Flat"? No amount of Luddite wishing is going to change that fact.
In fact, today's Internet traffic is already 60% machines talking to other machines, NOT real people doing human things online.
If the earth were wiped clean of human life today, our current networked machines would continue to carry on for some time without us, and probably find a way to survive all by themselves.
"Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones."
And that's environmentally sustainable?
And that's environmentally sustainable?
17
From a purely financial perspective, the author may very well be correct. But immigration is not a purely financial issue. Yes, some use the "they took someone else's job" argument. But underlying the tension about immigration are a set of much more emotion-based thoughts. They're different. They don't speak my language. They stick to themselves and don't integrate. Their skin is a different color. They don't share my religion. They don't share my beliefs. They bring down the quality of the schools my kids are in. They commit crimes. And so on.
Dig deeper and you'll find deep resentment, fear and loathing.
Dig deeper and you'll find deep resentment, fear and loathing.
6
But, the US is a nation of immigrants, and assimilation has worked out pretty well for our continent over the last 400 years, why not now ? (Latino immigrants are no more insular than the Irish, Scandinavian, Germans, Italians, Slavs, Africans and Asians that proceeded them.)
And that deep resentment, fear and loathing are very well founded and should not be dismissed as "racism".
The most anti environment piece I have ever read
25
How can you say immigration is anti-environmental when our US immigrants have fewer children here in the US, than they would in their home countries ?
Granted they consume more resources, but we're moving farther and faster to renewable energy and can produce more food cheaply, than any other nation on the planet. So how are they NOT less of a burden on the world's ecological carrying capacity here that somewhere else?
Granted they consume more resources, but we're moving farther and faster to renewable energy and can produce more food cheaply, than any other nation on the planet. So how are they NOT less of a burden on the world's ecological carrying capacity here that somewhere else?
How quickly immigrationists play the race card. We are not all bigots like your grandfather, Adam. Immigration may raise the GNP, the results seem to be mixed and depend on the characteristics of the immigrants. What is undeniable is that we have our own native underclass and competing with immigrants is bad for them. This leads to other social and economic costs which we all must bear.
39
Immigration lowers the per capita GNP but the so called economists do not talk about that. The cheap labor lobby has billions of dollars to be used to buy off the think tanks and non partisan sources.
Bravo!
You miss the whole point. The point isn't whether people here illegally steal jobs, cost more money for social services, or whether anyone who doesn't want people here illegally is racist. The point is that Congress set laws in place as a part of their Constitutional duty to control who is and who is not entitled to live, work and vote in this country.
When people talk about "reform", they really are not talking about reform but rather what to do after the barn door has been left open for an extended period of time. Real reform would deal with what happens the day after...the day after we deal with those already here.
Real reform means dealing with the countries that are the original homes of those wanting to come here. Real reform has real numbers that ALL SIDES agree are to be enforced.
We have no one from either party talking about real reform.
When people talk about "reform", they really are not talking about reform but rather what to do after the barn door has been left open for an extended period of time. Real reform would deal with what happens the day after...the day after we deal with those already here.
Real reform means dealing with the countries that are the original homes of those wanting to come here. Real reform has real numbers that ALL SIDES agree are to be enforced.
We have no one from either party talking about real reform.
23
I like how you equate a "barn door" (6'3") with a 6,000 mile unguarded land border, (Canada/Mexico) and a 95,500 mile unguarded US coastline.
And, you wonder why fighting terrorism abroad is such a priority.
There's no way our "borders" will ever be "secure" no matter how much taxpayer money and technology is thrown at the problem, in our lifetime.
And, you wonder why fighting terrorism abroad is such a priority.
There's no way our "borders" will ever be "secure" no matter how much taxpayer money and technology is thrown at the problem, in our lifetime.
Real reform would mean enforcing rule of law and the laws already on the books. The powers that be are not doing that and are hence violating their fundamental duty and oath of office. They are therefore not trustworthy and should be removed from office.
Illegal immigrants accept low pay, are willing to do hazardous work without proper safety protection, and are willing to live in substandard, crowded conditions so that they can send most of their income to their home country. They pay no income tax in most cases, leaving the rest of us with a greater tax burden.
People like to say that immigrants take the jobs 'no one else wants'. But there's no job that some citizen would not take if a fair wage and decent working conditions are offered. Allowing large numbers of immigrants because of their willingness to ignore their right to safe working conditions and decent pay is not just an economic problem -- it's immoral.
Opposing illegal immigration does not make one a xenophobe or bigot. It makes economic sense to block more low-skilled laborers from coming here when we have a pool of unskilled and low skilled people already here who are having trouble making ends meet.
People like to say that immigrants take the jobs 'no one else wants'. But there's no job that some citizen would not take if a fair wage and decent working conditions are offered. Allowing large numbers of immigrants because of their willingness to ignore their right to safe working conditions and decent pay is not just an economic problem -- it's immoral.
Opposing illegal immigration does not make one a xenophobe or bigot. It makes economic sense to block more low-skilled laborers from coming here when we have a pool of unskilled and low skilled people already here who are having trouble making ends meet.
42
Economists are the high priests of globalism. Their science is based on the principle that people pursue their own economic self interest, and it would be odd and confusing if they themselves were to act otherwise. They are richly rewarded for pushing globalism; corporate boards are filled with them, along with out of work politicians.
The social sciences are not objective, and practitioners usually find things that correspond to their own views and economic interests. We don't know who is shading things, but as a whole top economists strongly favor the desires of corporations for 'free trade,' immigration, and deregulation.
Top 'name brand' economists make far more from corporations than from their day jobs, upwards of $1 million a year for the best known and connected. The less known economists aspire to join them and would meet with great hostility if they didn't go along.
The modern corrupt network of government, academics, and rent-seeking corporations which has come close to destroying the world financial system [2008] is well explained in 'Predator Nation.' 2012 by Charles H. Ferguson. See 'The Ivory Tower' chapter.
----
Case in point: Laura D'Andrea Tyson, held top government economic posts under Clinton, professor at Berkeley, has written pro-immigration editorials.
In 2011 she had four corporate directorships that paid her $784K a year.
The social sciences are not objective, and practitioners usually find things that correspond to their own views and economic interests. We don't know who is shading things, but as a whole top economists strongly favor the desires of corporations for 'free trade,' immigration, and deregulation.
Top 'name brand' economists make far more from corporations than from their day jobs, upwards of $1 million a year for the best known and connected. The less known economists aspire to join them and would meet with great hostility if they didn't go along.
The modern corrupt network of government, academics, and rent-seeking corporations which has come close to destroying the world financial system [2008] is well explained in 'Predator Nation.' 2012 by Charles H. Ferguson. See 'The Ivory Tower' chapter.
----
Case in point: Laura D'Andrea Tyson, held top government economic posts under Clinton, professor at Berkeley, has written pro-immigration editorials.
In 2011 she had four corporate directorships that paid her $784K a year.
17
I agree with Siobhan and hen3ry.
I am a Democrat, and do not support "opening the borders". The reason immigrants "take jobs Americans do not want" is because those jobs DON'T PAY ENOUGH. By paying an immigrant a pittance to sweep construction sites, pick farm produce, etc., yes, employers ARE preventing that job from going to a native. If an employer can't find someone to do the work, that means the pay he or she is offering is inadequate.
Even permanently bringing in higher skilled, and presumably legally documented workers such as doctors lowers the wages for native doctors. If there is a shortage of doctors, that means compensation/working conditions for that job have room to improve in order to attract more (native) people to do that job. [Or solve the problem of not enough medical school slots available for interested students, but that is another story].
I view the new-found Republican support for immigration as a cynical move to keep wages low for all of us.
I am a Democrat, and do not support "opening the borders". The reason immigrants "take jobs Americans do not want" is because those jobs DON'T PAY ENOUGH. By paying an immigrant a pittance to sweep construction sites, pick farm produce, etc., yes, employers ARE preventing that job from going to a native. If an employer can't find someone to do the work, that means the pay he or she is offering is inadequate.
Even permanently bringing in higher skilled, and presumably legally documented workers such as doctors lowers the wages for native doctors. If there is a shortage of doctors, that means compensation/working conditions for that job have room to improve in order to attract more (native) people to do that job. [Or solve the problem of not enough medical school slots available for interested students, but that is another story].
I view the new-found Republican support for immigration as a cynical move to keep wages low for all of us.
34
THE MOST HARM TO MOST PEOPLE Right-wing Republican agenda promotes Hardship and Death over Life; a key factor in the destruction process is to undermine the economy.
America is aging, the first of the Baby-Boom just turned 70 and the bulk will be retiring over the next decade. Without immigrants, the problems Japan is having because of its aging population will seem like a meaningless joke.
In the book "Death Over Life: Secret of Revelation: A Prophecy of America's Destruction" we find that the Republicans only have 2015/16 to accomplish their destructive agenda -- and part of that means discouraging immigrants.
Ted Cruz is now on record as wanting to "Padlock the IRS" and send all its agents to patrol the southern borders -- that not only underscores the wasted $605 Billion a year spend on a military whose first priority should be the defense of our borders from intrusion, but it also declares that the Republicans want to cease all revenue inflows necessary to meet Federal Financial Obligations.
America is aging, the first of the Baby-Boom just turned 70 and the bulk will be retiring over the next decade. Without immigrants, the problems Japan is having because of its aging population will seem like a meaningless joke.
In the book "Death Over Life: Secret of Revelation: A Prophecy of America's Destruction" we find that the Republicans only have 2015/16 to accomplish their destructive agenda -- and part of that means discouraging immigrants.
Ted Cruz is now on record as wanting to "Padlock the IRS" and send all its agents to patrol the southern borders -- that not only underscores the wasted $605 Billion a year spend on a military whose first priority should be the defense of our borders from intrusion, but it also declares that the Republicans want to cease all revenue inflows necessary to meet Federal Financial Obligations.
The worse the situation becomes, the more extreme the solutions will need to be.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal featured this article:
"U.S. Car-Making Boom? Not for Auto-Industry Workers
U.S. auto-industry wages have declined despite rise in output due to competition from foreign parts makers"
Essentially, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the others. Work and workers can be insourced and outsourced, and vice versa, but the effect is the same. Anyone remember how Home Depot parking lots became places for people to hire workers at what amounted to reverse auctions? (I live in Dallas.)
One more note, the writer of this article waves a magic wand and says the mere being in the United States makes people more productive. Isn't this the equivalent of the "magic asterisks" that Dr. Paul Krugman lambastes Republicans for when they produce budgets for which no identifiable sources of revenue are listed?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-car-making-boom-not-for-workers-14271546...
"U.S. Car-Making Boom? Not for Auto-Industry Workers
U.S. auto-industry wages have declined despite rise in output due to competition from foreign parts makers"
Essentially, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the others. Work and workers can be insourced and outsourced, and vice versa, but the effect is the same. Anyone remember how Home Depot parking lots became places for people to hire workers at what amounted to reverse auctions? (I live in Dallas.)
One more note, the writer of this article waves a magic wand and says the mere being in the United States makes people more productive. Isn't this the equivalent of the "magic asterisks" that Dr. Paul Krugman lambastes Republicans for when they produce budgets for which no identifiable sources of revenue are listed?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-car-making-boom-not-for-workers-14271546...
25
As most writers do when discussing immigration in semi-informed anecdotes, you fail to specify which immigrants you are talking about: legal or illegal. When it comes to "job stealing" and other 'finger-pointing', there is a GREAT DEAL of difference.
25
That is correct. Illegal immigrants probably get paid in cash. This means they do not pay a tax and their boss does not pay a tax for that worker. This hurts the economy. And it's ILLEGAL!
1
Mass legal immigration is also extremely harmful and undermining.
2
Well, I know firsthand that they are stealing our jobs on construction sites, garden work and design, floor installation. In my case, they bid $ 1 for one square foot of installing any floor. Well, they don't have to pay the bills. Can we say sorry, cannot make my child support payment because my jobs now don't produce the money!
42
Why doesn't sustainability of a country ever come up in these articles?
It is painfully obvious that overpopulation is one of the biggest problems of the world.
Do we want whatever country we live in to become as crowded, polluted and over-run as India and China?
What is needed is a proper idea of just how many people can survive sustain-ably, and adjust immigration numbers accordingly.
It is painfully obvious that overpopulation is one of the biggest problems of the world.
Do we want whatever country we live in to become as crowded, polluted and over-run as India and China?
What is needed is a proper idea of just how many people can survive sustain-ably, and adjust immigration numbers accordingly.
26
From the NYT very same page as article how Myth of Job Stealing.
"Employment among Hispanics has increased 5 percent over the last 12 months, according to the Labor Department, compared with 3.8 percent for blacks and 1.4 percent for whites. (The last figure partly reflects the rising number of retirements among the aging white population.)"
"Employment among Hispanics has increased 5 percent over the last 12 months, according to the Labor Department, compared with 3.8 percent for blacks and 1.4 percent for whites. (The last figure partly reflects the rising number of retirements among the aging white population.)"
19
Trickle down immigration. Bravo! A tour de force.
I also love how you explained that H-1B workers increase profits for our oligarchs who in turn drive job creation at the local McDonalds and Starbucks.
I also love how you explained that H-1B workers increase profits for our oligarchs who in turn drive job creation at the local McDonalds and Starbucks.
28
"Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer..."
Then why is the income gap growing in this country? The only way to stem the flood of illegals coming to this country is to fine any employer who hires them. This includes the person who cuts your lawn, cleans your house, gives you a pedicure or replaces your roof. They author here is quoting a 35 year old study that does not take into account the effect that technology had and is having on unskilled labor. The study reviewed a small sample of 125,000, who were absorbed by a thriving community of well educated, often wealthy Cubans who fled during the revolution and 1980 was a hugely different time. I lived in New Jersey for many years, starting in the mid 2000's, I watched as good jobs for engineers in the pharma industry, started going to H1B visa holders, while 55 year old year old engineers were being laid off. Factory workers were replaced by contractors, often illegals, hired through 3rd party contractors and bused in daily. My father worked as a laborer and made a decent living, now those jobs are done by someone who will work for 50 dollars a day (below minimum wage) that a contractor picks up in a Home Depot parking lot. These people often work in dangerous conditions, and can't get Worker's comp if they are injured. As long as employers can get away with paying less and illegal workers have fewer rights, this harms American workers and further grows the income gap.
Then why is the income gap growing in this country? The only way to stem the flood of illegals coming to this country is to fine any employer who hires them. This includes the person who cuts your lawn, cleans your house, gives you a pedicure or replaces your roof. They author here is quoting a 35 year old study that does not take into account the effect that technology had and is having on unskilled labor. The study reviewed a small sample of 125,000, who were absorbed by a thriving community of well educated, often wealthy Cubans who fled during the revolution and 1980 was a hugely different time. I lived in New Jersey for many years, starting in the mid 2000's, I watched as good jobs for engineers in the pharma industry, started going to H1B visa holders, while 55 year old year old engineers were being laid off. Factory workers were replaced by contractors, often illegals, hired through 3rd party contractors and bused in daily. My father worked as a laborer and made a decent living, now those jobs are done by someone who will work for 50 dollars a day (below minimum wage) that a contractor picks up in a Home Depot parking lot. These people often work in dangerous conditions, and can't get Worker's comp if they are injured. As long as employers can get away with paying less and illegal workers have fewer rights, this harms American workers and further grows the income gap.
43
DS brings in the fact that the Mariel study the author bases his argument on is narrow 35 years old. There also is the fact that our economy is not resilient as it was in 1980. Back then a homeless family -- not just a "bum" or a drunk -- was unheard of. Now, 35 years later, we have homeless families all over. Even Newport Beach CA -- a very wealthy community -- has homeless families. There is so much underemployment and unemployment that it doesn't pass the sniff test to insist that more low-end workers would lift all boats. It would only lift all yachts.
3
Outsourcing seems to have supplanted the fear of straight forward immigration. The new demons are low paid tech workers and call center staff in India, Philippines etc.
4
Those aren't unrelated. Particularly in the so-called 'High Tech' sector, the largest users of H1-B Visas are actually Indian companies based in India. Tata, Syspro, etc. They simply use H1-Bs as a bridge to offshoring the jobs.
1
The employers who are bringing in -- and want to bring in many more -- employees on HB-1 visas certainly think that increased immigration lowers their personnel costs. What do they know that Adam Davidson doesn't?
41
What Adam Davidson and other journalists, economists, and tenured college professors do know is that no immigrant will ever take their jobs.
3
I'm not convinced H1-Bs cost less for the USA. Don't smart firms eventually charge the market rate?
Economists almost unanimously tell us there is now a currency-war - but currency wars are only due to costs being too high for the participants in the currency war.
Furthermore, India is a fork between Pakistan and China - paid in jobs (H1-Bs).
Also many nations have far too many people for their own job markets, so the fallacy is we can give them our jobs for access to their markets.
Economists almost unanimously tell us there is now a currency-war - but currency wars are only due to costs being too high for the participants in the currency war.
Furthermore, India is a fork between Pakistan and China - paid in jobs (H1-Bs).
Also many nations have far too many people for their own job markets, so the fallacy is we can give them our jobs for access to their markets.
1
In the last 20-30 years, immigration has been cleverly used by corporatinos and their paid off tools in Congress to drive wages down - a race-to-the-bottom of the wage barrel...turning labor into a commodity.
That said, I support the Dream Act, but we should place stricter limits on immigration for now. For instance, the H1B program does not help American workers, but has instead been cynically abused by corporations to displace 10's of thousands of *qualified* American workers.
Undercover of helping those immigrants who have so long labored in our agricultural sector, the American IT sector has seen fit to use the sentiment to help agricultural workers to create a Landslide of advantage for itself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/senate-immigration-bill-visa-te...
One of the most respected technology pundits in Silicon Valley has this to say about the H1-B worker problem
http://www.cringely.com/2012/10/23/what-americans-dont-know-about-h-1b-v...
Here's an attorney and his consultants teaching corporations how to manipulate foreign-worker immigration law to replace qualified American workers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
That said, I support the Dream Act, but we should place stricter limits on immigration for now. For instance, the H1B program does not help American workers, but has instead been cynically abused by corporations to displace 10's of thousands of *qualified* American workers.
Undercover of helping those immigrants who have so long labored in our agricultural sector, the American IT sector has seen fit to use the sentiment to help agricultural workers to create a Landslide of advantage for itself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/senate-immigration-bill-visa-te...
One of the most respected technology pundits in Silicon Valley has this to say about the H1-B worker problem
http://www.cringely.com/2012/10/23/what-americans-dont-know-about-h-1b-v...
Here's an attorney and his consultants teaching corporations how to manipulate foreign-worker immigration law to replace qualified American workers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
8
Thanks for these links. I will check them out.
How is it that economists tell us that the rise and fall of prices over time are due to changes in supply and demand but these same forces do not affect the cost of labor?
18
I don't buy it at all. The cold, hard fact is that most illegal immigrants are low skill workers, and low skilled workers coming over burdens our social welfare system and damages our economic well-being. Are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that at a time when a lot of our citizens can't find jobs, that having more low-skilled workers will miraculous increase the number of jobs? I support immigration, but only immigration of people with very specialized skills that America desperately needs.
35
Just completed a major renovation on my home. After 4 rewritings by contractors who were undocumented, but hardworking and confident, still messed up. (General contractor had hired them, he was confident too). Ended up getting a union, expensive, electrician. He fixed many of the problems. One was so thorny he said it wasn't worth it, and it was just our doorbell. So I spent a few hours and untangled bundles of cables myself, and got it all working.
Adam Davidson might be living in a bubble, where he doesn't see how poor education and knowledge (but plenty of confidence and energy) among the undocumented results in terrible building outcomes in California. He seems to think some magic invisible hand keeps the well-trained high knowledge workers making decisions in the building trades, but my experience is just the opposite.
Adam Davidson might be living in a bubble, where he doesn't see how poor education and knowledge (but plenty of confidence and energy) among the undocumented results in terrible building outcomes in California. He seems to think some magic invisible hand keeps the well-trained high knowledge workers making decisions in the building trades, but my experience is just the opposite.
24
Don't bring in companies that use day laborers, and check their insurance and ask their references about this. How can you sleep at night knowing those workers have no protection?
Great comment. Sure, many Mexican immigrants are 'hard working', but al lot don't know what they are doing. Bad workmanship drives out good.
1
I do not believe for a moment that anybody with a reasonable level of education would ever think that immigrants are a drag on the economy. Of course they add to the GDP and create demand. That fact is self-evident. If it were not, then we would argue that every baby born is a drag to the economy. As a matter of fact immigrants are often educated by foreign countries and we do not have to pay for their education. Statistically they are as educated as Americans as an average.
The problem is that politicians have figured out that it is a great wedge to advance a political party. It is a proven tool. Political parties do it with all kind of minorities. Recipee: Problem in society --> find a minority to blame --> grab the bullhorn --> convince the majority that it is all fine with them but the problem is caused by a minority --> ride the wave to power!
The problem is that politicians have figured out that it is a great wedge to advance a political party. It is a proven tool. Political parties do it with all kind of minorities. Recipee: Problem in society --> find a minority to blame --> grab the bullhorn --> convince the majority that it is all fine with them but the problem is caused by a minority --> ride the wave to power!
5
To jzu:
The vast majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico and the Central American countries have no more than a primary school education. Many have less than that. And some have never been to school at all. The result is that a healthy percentage can barely read or write their native language, let alone English.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico and the Central American countries have no more than a primary school education. Many have less than that. And some have never been to school at all. The result is that a healthy percentage can barely read or write their native language, let alone English.
2
Although I support increased immigration, and amnesty for most undocumented immigrants, I believe that the author oversimplifies the effects of immigration (both internal and external). IMHO, there are many industries where wages have been kept lower than they should be because of immigration, such as restaurants, meat-packing, and nursing, just to name a few. In a local nursing strike, for example, some of the replacement nurses were foreigners, and some internal migrants from less expensive areas of the US. Many thought the strike-breaking wages were a big raise, only to find out later they were inadequate in this high-cost area. The flip side of this process is exporting jobs. An example is the high-tech industry, which is crying for more H-2 visas, but also sending work to countries around the world. I agree that we have to eliminate negative prejudices about immigrants. However, until we have stronger job protection, some employers in every industry will pit one group of workers against another, and sometimes the wedge group is immigrants.
8
We, after all that, would you even begin to support increased immigration or amnesty?
1. If immigration raises wages, why do agricultural laboring immigrants, for example, work for wages that natives will not? 2. If the author thinks immigration has no downside, he does not drive to work during rush hour -- in California, 1/4 of the population, i.e., drivers, are immigrants or children of immigrants. Gangs, homelessness, water shortages, energy consumption -- all severely exacerbated by large-scale immigration.
29
By making the ludicrous claim that US immigration is a net plus for the environment, the author amply demonstrates that he has no grounding in reality. Americans, including immigrants, are vastly more profligate with the world's resources than those of any country on the planet. We produce three times more emissions than the average Chinese, ten times more than the average Indian. American immigrants want, and usually achieve, the typical American accoutrements - a nice car or two, a house in suburbia - within a few years of their arrival. Whatever its economic effects, US immigration is an ecological disaster.
34
Yet, this is a nation built by immigrants. And we're the wealthiest nation. How is that disastrous?
It is also a social disaster that eviscerates community, social cohesion and solidarity.
1
This article ignores a lot of reality. Like that immigrants frequently send money home, so instead of creating more demand for local goods, they create more demand for goods in foreign countries. Or that immigrants may be at lower income levels, that the local goods they use are subsidized (think subsidized housing -- yes they do get in -- and food banks). The people in the trenches know the reality, but the ivory tower residents choose to ignore.
44
Of course you aren't taking into account that big business and local shysters use illegal immigrants to drive down wages. This is turn not only harms immigrants it harms other workers.
I too am in a STEM field and see it at work. If I can hire 4 H1B people instead of 1 qualified American, I'm ahead. I look better. I can beat them and pound them and threaten them with throwing them out of the country. And since I have no idea what they are doing--am not even really qualified to be managing them, I'll do it.
When you hire people to pick fruit because you are using them for cheap wages, yet still charge a consumer 2.00 for an apple, then you are not only suppressing wages, abusing the picker, but you are harming the consumer.
This is the same issue as everything else these days. It's always the worker who needs to take less. I would never occur to anyone the person with the corporate jet and the home in Switzerland might ratchet back his greed.
I too am in a STEM field and see it at work. If I can hire 4 H1B people instead of 1 qualified American, I'm ahead. I look better. I can beat them and pound them and threaten them with throwing them out of the country. And since I have no idea what they are doing--am not even really qualified to be managing them, I'll do it.
When you hire people to pick fruit because you are using them for cheap wages, yet still charge a consumer 2.00 for an apple, then you are not only suppressing wages, abusing the picker, but you are harming the consumer.
This is the same issue as everything else these days. It's always the worker who needs to take less. I would never occur to anyone the person with the corporate jet and the home in Switzerland might ratchet back his greed.
23
You're delusional if you think that more immigrants doesn't mean lower wages. Ask doctors if they would like to bring in 60,000 doctors each year. Their wages would drop immediately. Who paid for this article? LOL...
44
But... they're not doctors. And the jobs they do no one wants.
And the jobs they do no one wants...at those wages.
Adam Davidson's article mentioned that a "recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition", with the proposition being "the economic benefits of immigration."
There is no link to that particular poll, but, from what I can tell, the poll referenced by Mr Davidson was limited to the aggregate effect of high-skilled immigrants; see here: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?Survey....
Mr Davidson did not mention another poll conducted by the same organization in which 50% of leading economists agreed or strongly agreed that "unless they were compensated by others, many low-skilled American workers would be substantially worse off if a larger number of low-skilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the US each year"; that poll is Question B, here: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?Survey....
It would be nice if the New York Times Magazine linked to all polls cited in its articles. And it would be nice if polls were cited to be representative instead of being selectively cited to support an argument.
There is no link to that particular poll, but, from what I can tell, the poll referenced by Mr Davidson was limited to the aggregate effect of high-skilled immigrants; see here: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?Survey....
Mr Davidson did not mention another poll conducted by the same organization in which 50% of leading economists agreed or strongly agreed that "unless they were compensated by others, many low-skilled American workers would be substantially worse off if a larger number of low-skilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the US each year"; that poll is Question B, here: http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?Survey....
It would be nice if the New York Times Magazine linked to all polls cited in its articles. And it would be nice if polls were cited to be representative instead of being selectively cited to support an argument.
30
Yet another article written from the ivory tower by someone not competing for work with an illegal alien or forced to subsidize one through higher taxes or lower wages. If illegal immigrants are so beneficial to the work force then why did the CBO analysis of the Senate amnesty bill say that the amnesty of illegals would lead to stagnant wages for Americans for the next ten years. While only the wages of illegals would increase. If illegal aliens have no effect on jobs from Americans then why is teen unemployment so high? Especially among African American teens? Forty years ago when my older brother was a teen he worked after school in various restaurants as a dishwasher. He purchased custom made suits with his earnings and bought a used Buick that he drove to high school. I got my first job working after school at 16 in a downtown office. Now teens sit idle and are unemployed while illegal workers take those jobs. Explain again how employing non-citizens at the expense of American citizens is good for American workers? I already see how illegal workers benefit themselves and their corrupt employers just not the middle and working class who end up subsidizing them.
31
"Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. "
Just about 2 weeks ago, there was a major story right here in the TIMES about a young woman--illegal--who was smart, dedicated and eventually got through school and took a job as an intern, I think at Goldman Sachs, worked her way up to eventually make something like 300K a year. LOOK IT UP.
We are not talking ability here--simply that an illegal resident took an internship that would have gone to a citizen who might have made the upwardly mobile career that this woman did--so yes, someone who was illegal took a job that an American would have gotten.
Come to California where the population now is 41% Hispanic, 39% white and 20% other. Gardening/landscaping/farm ownership that the Asians did are now done by Hispanics, many of whom are illegal in California since we have the largest group in the USA--as I understand. There are many other jobs that they do as well, and again we are not talking about quality/ability which seems to be as good as anything done by citizens.
No where else in the world can you just walk across the border, bring your family, get services and support that even citizens sometimes have trouble getting. We take in 1 million new people legally every year. That seems to be about what we can handle in reality and there is no need to have open borders.
Just about 2 weeks ago, there was a major story right here in the TIMES about a young woman--illegal--who was smart, dedicated and eventually got through school and took a job as an intern, I think at Goldman Sachs, worked her way up to eventually make something like 300K a year. LOOK IT UP.
We are not talking ability here--simply that an illegal resident took an internship that would have gone to a citizen who might have made the upwardly mobile career that this woman did--so yes, someone who was illegal took a job that an American would have gotten.
Come to California where the population now is 41% Hispanic, 39% white and 20% other. Gardening/landscaping/farm ownership that the Asians did are now done by Hispanics, many of whom are illegal in California since we have the largest group in the USA--as I understand. There are many other jobs that they do as well, and again we are not talking about quality/ability which seems to be as good as anything done by citizens.
No where else in the world can you just walk across the border, bring your family, get services and support that even citizens sometimes have trouble getting. We take in 1 million new people legally every year. That seems to be about what we can handle in reality and there is no need to have open borders.
33
Illegal immigrants are clearly not stealing jobs. Such remarks often spearhead the veiled racist close the border chants. Americans steal jobs in some instances by hiring illegals for construction work pricing out legitimate contractors who follow fair hiring practices. However, legal immigration does steal jobs at an alarming rate. H1B hiring practices once reserved for companies that could not hire enough technically competent people to compete has become a new form of indentured service. Hundred of thousand of people are working at medium to low skilled computer and programing in jobs in this country. Such jobs would be perfect for retrained and underemployed Americans. Instead major insurance and pharmaceutical companies chose to hire the disposable. Every time immigration reform comes up Republicans want to raise the H1B limit another 100,000. I would like to see at the minimum a 10 for 1 rule. Every 10 HB1s, hire one American, every 100 hire10 right up the ladder. Immigrants are stealing American jobs, it's not the illegal immigrants who are at fault and American corporations orchestrate the plan.
5
There are plenty of middle aged, experienced engineers out there that lost their job to and H1B hire. How about the number of H1B engineers hires can only be upped when there is full employment for all experienced engineers in this country.
2
Two side of the same coin -- mass immigration, legal or illegal, destroys wages and quality of life.
As for racism ....see 'La Raza'.
As for racism ....see 'La Raza'.
I don't know If the writer is an economist. He sure doesn't live in the real world.
16
No, he isn't. He has a BA in Religious studies from U of Chicago.
1
The so called immigrants from the mariel boatlift were ex convicts,mental patients and miscreants.Do you know why only 7 percent got jobs? The other 93% went on welfare,medicaid and food stamps.Also, the criminals committed monstrous crimes and wound up in jail.The comparison of today's immigrants to these people from 1980 is not correct.Your analogy of this is completely flawed.
15
Laborers who are undocumented are laborers who can't organize, and have no recourse to the legal system when their rights are abused. That is a microeconomic incentive for employers to keep the system as it is. Davidson chalks the prevailing mindset up to well-meaning ignorance. But that's not the whole story.
3
Siobhan writes, "If millions of poorly educated people doing low-skilled work opened up millions of higher paying ancillary jobs, our middle class would be booming. Instead, it's disappearing. And what used to be well-paying union jobs now pay low-skill wages, with millions competing for them."
The facts contradict this analysis. Those well-paying union jobs began to disappear when Reagan and his Republican successors destroyed the unions, and when both parties signed trade agreements that shipped the good manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries. Immigration had nothing to do with it. The same is true of the tech jobs. My partner worked in high tech. The last job offer she had was to go to India to teach her skills there for a year, and then she would be tossed aside.
The facts contradict this analysis. Those well-paying union jobs began to disappear when Reagan and his Republican successors destroyed the unions, and when both parties signed trade agreements that shipped the good manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries. Immigration had nothing to do with it. The same is true of the tech jobs. My partner worked in high tech. The last job offer she had was to go to India to teach her skills there for a year, and then she would be tossed aside.
9
Reagan didn't destroy the construction trades unions in California -- at least not directly. Mass immigration did, in the late 80s and early and mid 90s, when Reagan was long gone.
The 'free trade' mantra and open borders amount to the same thing. However, open borders are worse, as it takes jobs that are not 'outsourceable' (construction) and we, native-born Americans, also have to foot a lot in taxes to pay for immigrants and their households (you don't think a 35 year old lawn guy pays enough taxes to cover the cost of his three kids in public school, do you?)
The 'free trade' mantra and open borders amount to the same thing. However, open borders are worse, as it takes jobs that are not 'outsourceable' (construction) and we, native-born Americans, also have to foot a lot in taxes to pay for immigrants and their households (you don't think a 35 year old lawn guy pays enough taxes to cover the cost of his three kids in public school, do you?)
1
Let's start with the first fallacy in your argument: that those of who really don't think the US's southern border should function as a free crossing for millions of people from one ethnic group, while other immigrants from other groups wait on lines for visas and to go through legal processes. There are cultural and identity politics power bloc issues involved here. Actually, no, I'm not afraid Mexicans or Central Americans will take my job. But I don't see why I should pay taxes for national security when my southern border is a joke, or why one ethnic group should gain illegal entry at these rates, supported by activist groups who share their heritage, under the flag of humanitarianism. Because I can assure you that if these millions were flooding in from civil wars in, say, Scandinavia, all the activists you see today pushing for amnesty and work permits and a path to citizenship would be standing on the other side of the line screaming that we were only letting them all in because they are blonde and blue-eyes. This is about identity politics and nothing more. I have an identity, too. I don't see why I should pay taxes for no security whatsoever on my southern border, or welcome a power bloc that isn't "mine" and look forward to surrendering my culture. No. The answer is No.
23
It's about identity politics ever since the States took the Southwest from Mexico. You live on land populated with people and you feel you are entitled on stomping your culture over Latinos. In contrast, your use of Scandinavians is a false dichotomy, like much of your rant. America has had a history of preferring people based on race throughout the last century with a very disgusting mix of xenophobia and racism. While United Statesans were enforcing Jim Crow and preventing any mixing of peoples and cultures, Mexico is mixed and outlawed slavery before the States. I'm not sugarcoating any of the bad things that do happen in Mexico, but I'm only stating facts.
What culture are you really surrendering anyways? And why do you feel so entitled that your culture is better? The United States and the beauty behind it is that we're a culture of immigrants and castaways from other nations for one reason nor another. Not a homogenous racist hell like in other nations around the world that insist on ethnic and racial purity.
We created the problem in Mexico by creating the War on Drugs and by incentivizing illegal activity by making our borders impossible to enter legally for people of all ethnicities. It's about time we correct our mistakes instead of fueling organized crime and damaging those Southern countries.
What culture are you really surrendering anyways? And why do you feel so entitled that your culture is better? The United States and the beauty behind it is that we're a culture of immigrants and castaways from other nations for one reason nor another. Not a homogenous racist hell like in other nations around the world that insist on ethnic and racial purity.
We created the problem in Mexico by creating the War on Drugs and by incentivizing illegal activity by making our borders impossible to enter legally for people of all ethnicities. It's about time we correct our mistakes instead of fueling organized crime and damaging those Southern countries.
In my line of work they don't steal jobs per se. Wages are pushed down. The price for a typical job is pushed down to a point where a average person can't make their typical expenses. Many of the folks I end up competing with for work do not have the expenses that a lower middle class tradesperson has. I have noticed that folks of means like to pay the least and some brag about how little they paid. Shortsighted?
18
My main concern is for all of the unhoused and unemployed citizens born here. I see huge numbers of Latinos born outside of the US in HUD financed buildings; both projects and elderly housing. Shouldn't we take care of all native born Americans before providing any housing or welfare assistance to those born outside of the US?
I also think we need to not grant citizenship to those born here to foreign-born parents who come simply with that intention.
First and foremost we need to get every person born in this country to US parents a safe secure place to sleep with a skill appropriate task (read job).
I will add that many of the folks who are in dire circumstances are African American. We have a debt to them which has yet to be paid off.
I also think we need to not grant citizenship to those born here to foreign-born parents who come simply with that intention.
First and foremost we need to get every person born in this country to US parents a safe secure place to sleep with a skill appropriate task (read job).
I will add that many of the folks who are in dire circumstances are African American. We have a debt to them which has yet to be paid off.
29
You "see" illegals in HUD housing... Really? Is it written on their back, their forehead... Or do you see people of darker skin tone and assume they are illegal?
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded in 2010 that, "Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."
Only the most insensitive, self-righteous, self-serving individual would provide arguments that allow a continuance of harm to our most economically-vulnerable citizens as the author does.
Only the most insensitive, self-righteous, self-serving individual would provide arguments that allow a continuance of harm to our most economically-vulnerable citizens as the author does.
24
Immigrants are some of the most hard-working and talented workers in US. I will not generalize about immigrants in Europe or other countries, but in this country, where it's survival of the 'fittest', this is the case.
1
What's your evidence? In fact immigrant headed households as a whole tend to receive more in federal welfare than households headed by US born folks.
3
This article far from "debunking" anything it is the writers opinion from his journalist chair. From my experience in the pharmaceutical industry, life looks very different. I live in a USA where US citizens are quickly replaced with foreign cheap labor. Most be good to be in journalist fantasy land.
28
I have worked in both journalism and the pharmaceutical industry. I moved to the pharma because the pay and hours were better, when my kids were young. As a technical writer and later manager, I had a great job in a collegial environment. In the mid 2000's I watched as my older colleagues (55 year old engineers) were laid off and replaced by 25 year H1-B engineers from India. I watched as factories turned away native workers, but bussed in illegal aliens through a third party contractor to work on packaging lines. They received no benefits, had to pay to get their below minimum wage jobs and were sent home without pay if machinery malfunctioned. If they were injured they were shepherded out the back door. I watched lay off after lay off, I saw regular jobs become contract jobs without benefits. As a former journalist I can also say this is a shoddy piece of work, that certainly wouldn't pass QA in a pharma environment, because the data is 35 years old and does not take into account any of the social or environmental implications of unfettered immigration.
4
Davidson misrepresents the work of George Borjas:
>>>Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.
Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low-wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves.
http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-liter...
>>>Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.
Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low-wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves.
http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-liter...
18
Use reason and rational thoughts to maximize ones happiness?
Sadly and ironically, collective fear, jealousy, xenophobia, risk aversion and hate are what people use to maximize their happiness, they are way easier to come by, learn, repeat and spread.
Sadly and ironically, collective fear, jealousy, xenophobia, risk aversion and hate are what people use to maximize their happiness, they are way easier to come by, learn, repeat and spread.
3
"The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else."
Seriously? This old bogus claim? Doesn't the 19th century anti-union boilerplate propaganda have a shelf date?
Why economists dislike a lump of labor
Tom Walker ([email protected])
Review of Social Economy, 2007, vol. 65, issue 3, pages 279-291
Abstract: The lump-of-labor fallacy has been called one of the “best known fallacies in economics.” It is widely cited in disparagement of policies for reducing the standard hours of work, yet the authenticity of the fallacy claim is questionable, and explanations of it are inconsistent and contradictory. This article discusses recent occurrences of the fallacy claim and investigates anomalies in the claim and its history. S.J. Chapman's coherent and formerly highly regarded theory of the hours of labor is reviewed, and it is shown how that theory could lend credence to the job-creating potentiality of shorter working time policies. It concludes that substituting a dubious fallacy claim for an authentic economic theory may have obstructed fruitful dialogue about working time and the appropriate policies for regulating it.
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafrsocec/v_3a65_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a3_...
Seriously? This old bogus claim? Doesn't the 19th century anti-union boilerplate propaganda have a shelf date?
Why economists dislike a lump of labor
Tom Walker ([email protected])
Review of Social Economy, 2007, vol. 65, issue 3, pages 279-291
Abstract: The lump-of-labor fallacy has been called one of the “best known fallacies in economics.” It is widely cited in disparagement of policies for reducing the standard hours of work, yet the authenticity of the fallacy claim is questionable, and explanations of it are inconsistent and contradictory. This article discusses recent occurrences of the fallacy claim and investigates anomalies in the claim and its history. S.J. Chapman's coherent and formerly highly regarded theory of the hours of labor is reviewed, and it is shown how that theory could lend credence to the job-creating potentiality of shorter working time policies. It concludes that substituting a dubious fallacy claim for an authentic economic theory may have obstructed fruitful dialogue about working time and the appropriate policies for regulating it.
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafrsocec/v_3a65_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a3_...
3
If all of the authors assertions are true why do the central American countries not get poorer with each person that comes to the US? Why do they not fight tooth and nail to maintain that alleged economic advantage of having more people? Because its a bunch of malarkey maybe? Somehow importing a bunch of people that don't read or speak the language with no education,soft skills, or trade skills = magical economic benefits.
26
Perhaps the author should visit any IT or Research group on Wall Street. If he can find any company that employs more American citizens compared to H1B Visa workers please identify that company for an award. It's gotten so bad that during 2009 when employees were being let go HR at the company I worked for complained that too many Indian and Chinese workers were being laid-off. The Head of the Unit laughed and stated to HR, "have you seen the makeup of the group. Who else could be laid-off".
So to the author, the only myth is the myth itself that "immigrants" are not stealing US jobs.
So to the author, the only myth is the myth itself that "immigrants" are not stealing US jobs.
15
[[By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin.]]
That is an unintentionally hilarious comment.
And I guarantee you he only stopped using those slurs around people who would give him grief about it.
That is an unintentionally hilarious comment.
And I guarantee you he only stopped using those slurs around people who would give him grief about it.
1
I had a wife and an infant child when I desperately needed a job years ago. Not once, but twice, I lost out to immigrants on brand-new work visas.
I will never forget how saddened and angry I was to think that the government of the country I and 6 generations of my family had served would treat me and mine so shabbily. Those immigrants had jobs, jobs I would have had if they had not been here.
I will never forget how saddened and angry I was to think that the government of the country I and 6 generations of my family had served would treat me and mine so shabbily. Those immigrants had jobs, jobs I would have had if they had not been here.
37
Isn't it also safe to say the job or land your ancestor had when he or she came here 6 generations ago could have been someone else's? Or your wife could have been someone else's wife had you not come along and swept her off her feet? And if this is about native entitlement, there are tribes of people in reservations on that list. If you were more qualified that those immigrants, the fault is on the employer who hired them on the cheap, not the immigrants who came here for the very same reason your ancestors did, to survive and find a better life.
Related to this article please then explain continued high unemployment that never goes away.
7
You're deliberately misreading the article. Let's take the assertion that somehow the carpenter was doing grunt work. This is true if you consider it *an adjunct* of his main job, carpentry. A carpenter who has to clean up the work site lowers his productivity because, after all, there are only so many hours in a day. If you can hire someone whose only role is unskilled labor, then he can spend more time doing carpentry, and is probably happier he's doing work that he was trained to do. That's what the study found.
I'm not sure how you want something "proven" when basic logic seems to elude the people being described in this article.
I'm not sure how you want something "proven" when basic logic seems to elude the people being described in this article.
Peri's studies do no such thing. They are almost entirely theoretical.
No one familiar with Southern California construction would argue that illegal immigrants only do the most basic manual labor. They don't.
No one familiar with Southern California construction would argue that illegal immigrants only do the most basic manual labor. They don't.
2
Many Mexicans who migrate to the USA, legally and non-documented, are encouraged to come (and paid for) by US employers. Many of these folks are doing jobs that US citizens would not do and live in conditions that potential workers from the US would not tolerate. So much for them taking "our" jobs.
1
US citizens used to do those jobs at higher pay before Mexico decided to outsource their welfare system to north of the border.
Perhaps we could send our millions of low skilled uneducated workers to Mexico?
Sound like a fair trade?
Perhaps we could send our millions of low skilled uneducated workers to Mexico?
Sound like a fair trade?
2
Issues like immigration always rend the different constituents of right and left parties because the liberal-illiberal dichotomy is rarely cleanly reflected in political parties. Immigrants don't take jobs, they make them and on the rare cases in which they do out-compete existing workers head-to-head, everyone else is better for it. No one benefits from a job being done inefficiently except the worker who is not replaced because a better option is unavailable.
1
"We generally support immigration when the immigrants are different from us." Why would that be? Because our experiences are that immigrants who do whatever it is we do ARE taking jobs from us. What he is saying that, yes, jobs may be hard to come by, but they would be just as hard if we had no immigrants. That may be, but if my son doesn't get the job he applied for and an immigrant does get that job, my sympathies are going to be with my son. I want Adam Davidson to come where I live, meet the people I know, and not stay buried in Brooklyn among the cultural elites who have good jobs and connections and can get their kids internships and jobs and have no real life experience with what the people I know are dealing with.
21
There is an oversupply of labor, but this can be fixed by bringing in more labor?
'...Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it...'
When wages are cash, health care is 'free', and extra income is sent back home, how does that help the economy again?
'...immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks...while citizens with more education focus on skilled work...'
And our citizens without more education or skills. Do they somehow become 'management material'?
'...Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants...'
There are 650,000+ H1B visa workers in the US, more soon to follow. Is it just a coincidence that IT workers have been laid off and wages have been stagnant for more than a decade?
'...Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer...'
The immigrant becomes richer, that much is for certain. No mention of birthright citizenship and welfare shopping. Since 1/3 of all births in California are to illegal immigrants and those births, and the next 18 years of the child's life, are paid for by the taxpayers, how does this benefit the US?
But here's an idea: How about we welcome a few million journalists into the country every year to work at 1/3 of the pay? Those journalists will not mind training their replacements, knowing it is best for the country, right?
Why is it always the elite, secure in their jobs, who tell the rest of us to eat cake?
'...Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it...'
When wages are cash, health care is 'free', and extra income is sent back home, how does that help the economy again?
'...immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks...while citizens with more education focus on skilled work...'
And our citizens without more education or skills. Do they somehow become 'management material'?
'...Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants...'
There are 650,000+ H1B visa workers in the US, more soon to follow. Is it just a coincidence that IT workers have been laid off and wages have been stagnant for more than a decade?
'...Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer...'
The immigrant becomes richer, that much is for certain. No mention of birthright citizenship and welfare shopping. Since 1/3 of all births in California are to illegal immigrants and those births, and the next 18 years of the child's life, are paid for by the taxpayers, how does this benefit the US?
But here's an idea: How about we welcome a few million journalists into the country every year to work at 1/3 of the pay? Those journalists will not mind training their replacements, knowing it is best for the country, right?
Why is it always the elite, secure in their jobs, who tell the rest of us to eat cake?
47
Boom! "How about we welcome a few million journalists into the country every year to work at 1/3 of the pay? Those journalists will not mind training their replacements, knowing it is best for the country, right?" LOL
this is hopelessly naive but it's what helps keep the economy going..profit and loss capitalism works wonderfully for some but only at great cost to most others, and the first group is shrinking while doing better than ever while the second is growing and doing much worse. immigration is and has always been profitable in bringing cheaper labor to our shores to create greater profits while setting workers against one another for the reasons spoiled supporters of our economics refuse to see..of course more jobs are created for some but check the stats for most..america is poorer now than at anytime since the great depression and that is hardly the fault of immigration but is the fault of those who profit from immigration: the 1%, and their professional class of servants who do quite well, thank you.
1
Because our current "elite", i.e the Masters of the Universe who are running our country, are also our enemies. They are engaged in soft tribal warfare against us and the author of this article is one of them.
Silicon Valley has flat wages, soaring house prices, a net outflow of US born citizens, horrible traffic, statewide drought exacerbated by an exponentially growing population, ... other than that mass immigration is great. Your arguments make sense in the same way a Ponzi scheme makes sense. Unfortunately we live in a finite world of finite resources.
40
I will be forwarding this article to several otherwise rational people who have been unable to see the reality presented here.
The insensibility of the depiction of 'illegals' as a problem for the native worker is but a small portion of the weakness of all such arguments. Yes, open borders would be good for mankind as a whole and no danger to any living American. But barring that rational approach the next best thing for both the world and for America is the current situation where we guard the borders in a lackadaisical manner and the interior of the nation not-at-all.
For at the most we have merely placed a filter on passage across our border and kept out the criminal and deterred the less hardy from even trying to cross. Which means that Adam Davidson's good economic results are mostly free to take place only on a select but significant subset of what we might otherwise see.
It would still be better for 'card carrying Americans' for the undocumented to be brought out of the shadows. Making them legal would actually create more jobs and better paying jobs among the general population of workers. The only segment of our society that benefits from keeping the undocumented underground are the owners of businesses, farms and wealthy households.
The insensibility of the depiction of 'illegals' as a problem for the native worker is but a small portion of the weakness of all such arguments. Yes, open borders would be good for mankind as a whole and no danger to any living American. But barring that rational approach the next best thing for both the world and for America is the current situation where we guard the borders in a lackadaisical manner and the interior of the nation not-at-all.
For at the most we have merely placed a filter on passage across our border and kept out the criminal and deterred the less hardy from even trying to cross. Which means that Adam Davidson's good economic results are mostly free to take place only on a select but significant subset of what we might otherwise see.
It would still be better for 'card carrying Americans' for the undocumented to be brought out of the shadows. Making them legal would actually create more jobs and better paying jobs among the general population of workers. The only segment of our society that benefits from keeping the undocumented underground are the owners of businesses, farms and wealthy households.
2
LOL. Bandon Oregon is 92% white. Coos county, of which it is a part, has a foreign born population of 3.8%, versus Oregon 9.8% and the US, 13+%.
For someone who loves open borders, you sure have avoided the immigrant surge.
For someone who loves open borders, you sure have avoided the immigrant surge.
1
Economists who favor immigration have also stated that open borders are incompatible with the existing social safety net. You cannot have open borders and anything approaching a welfare state. The demand on social services from an influx of immigrants would cripple the system. If you support open borders than you better be prepared for massive social dislocation. Jobs at every level of the ladder would be affected. What would stop one of the giant outsourcing firms from bringing over mass amounts of cheap high-skilled labor? The few stable middle class professional jobs would continue to be eroded.
There is a reason that we don’t merely use a narrow view of economic costs and benefits when making policy decisions. A 2007 study by Robert Putnam has shown that increased diversity leads to a decline in civic engagement and trust in almost every meaningful way. Open borders would naturally lead to an even meaner version of capitalism and a less cohesive society then we already have.
There is a reason that we don’t merely use a narrow view of economic costs and benefits when making policy decisions. A 2007 study by Robert Putnam has shown that increased diversity leads to a decline in civic engagement and trust in almost every meaningful way. Open borders would naturally lead to an even meaner version of capitalism and a less cohesive society then we already have.
32
I didn't see any figures here about unemployment rates among Hispanic immigrants or their children in California's Central Valley. My understanding is that it is very high and getting worse. And with 37 million people, why would California want more? Have you driven on the freeways in LA or the Bay Area? People may think endless growth is a good thing, but it can't go on forever. I fear for my grandchildren.
43
Imperial county, heavily 'Latino' and rural, is always the leader in unemployment. It is currently about 20% there.
It's not just the employment rate, it's the frightening fact that hispanics have a very high dropout rate and high welfare use. They commit 50% of homicides, rapes, and kidnappings in California. One Texas demographer stated, that with the current demographics regarding hispanics, 33% of the state in the near future will be HS dropouts. Why the US is allowing in millions of latinos who are forming another violent underclass like the blacks is a travesty.
1
Who's against immigration? We naturalize over 1,000,000 people a year, from all around the world, making them Americans. I haven't heard anyone anywhere on the political spectrum complaining about that.
Some people object to the inequity, and political cynicism, of extending the benefits of citizenship to people who don't follow the process which the 1,000,000+ do, but that's a separate issue.
Some people object to the inequity, and political cynicism, of extending the benefits of citizenship to people who don't follow the process which the 1,000,000+ do, but that's a separate issue.
14
I'm more interested of where you got your figure of "legalizing 1 million people a year".
I am against it and am complaining about it.
No, immigrants are not oranges. But neither are they economic cogs. They bring their cultural habits and values, and their ethnic identities, with them. The negative economic consequences of immigration to Americans is obvious and undeniable barring the kind of analytical gymnastics employed in this article. However, the social consequences of such mass immigration to our society are even more horrendous. Third World mass immigration eviscerates social cohesion and solidarity and sows long-term conflict. Those who push for ongoing mass immigration to Western countries have a hidden and malign agenda. Buyer and reader beware of such articles as this one.
31
Dharma101,
Where did your family come from? Are they native to this land?
Mine aren't either.
We are a nation of immigrants...and will be for a long time to come.
By the way, can you give us one example of "...the (horrendous) social consequences of such mass immigration to our society". Unless you are talking from the point of view of Native American groups?
Because, I can think of about 1,000 positive social consequences of immigration to our society.
Where did your family come from? Are they native to this land?
Mine aren't either.
We are a nation of immigrants...and will be for a long time to come.
By the way, can you give us one example of "...the (horrendous) social consequences of such mass immigration to our society". Unless you are talking from the point of view of Native American groups?
Because, I can think of about 1,000 positive social consequences of immigration to our society.
There is no country in the world in which"white people" have a TFR necessary to reproduce themselves. As we begin disappearing, others will replace us. My ancestors were stowaways on a supply ship to the Jamestown colony--illegals.
"Third world mass immigration" .... ?? What's that? You mean like all the Irish and Italian and African and Chinese who came to this country and built it?
And who's pushing for "mass immigration"? You're all straw-man-hat, no cattle.
You know what "eviscerates social cohesion and solidarity"? Political opportunism of the Reagan and Bush sort, not to mention the idiocy and false patriotism of the tea party crowd.
And who's pushing for "mass immigration"? You're all straw-man-hat, no cattle.
You know what "eviscerates social cohesion and solidarity"? Political opportunism of the Reagan and Bush sort, not to mention the idiocy and false patriotism of the tea party crowd.
Doubling the number of immigrants who could come here annually -- and legally -- is not the same as allowing anyone who comes here illegally to claim legal status simply by right of having sneaked over the border. Let us not pretend that it is the same. There is a difference between legal immigration and unrestrained foreign invasion. There is a difference between honoring the law and ignoring it.
16
You haven't convinced me. There are too many Americans underemployed, unemployed, paid too little, and being squeezed out. No, I'm not buying it.
38
It surprises me that this analysis rarely appears in news articles on the effects of immigration. On one level it reminds me somewhat of the pro-Walmart argument -- yes, their workers are paid relatively low wages (although lately improved), and yes, many of their products are sourced in low-wage countries such as China, but these practices lead to lower prices thereby improving the standard of living for millions of Americans. In other words, without undocumented immigrants, prices for much of the American shopping cart would go up. But there must be an upward limit at which point a marginal increase in immigration would no longer deliver broad economic benefits?
1
'...without undocumented immigrants, prices for much of the American shopping cart would go up...
We pay one way or another and most Americans would rather have goods be more expensive, than to have tens of millions of people use billions of dollars in taxpayer funded services.
We pay one way or another and most Americans would rather have goods be more expensive, than to have tens of millions of people use billions of dollars in taxpayer funded services.
1
Absorbing 11 million extra people a year, as suggested here, would bring with it substantial environmental costs, something the author ignores. Where will these people live, and how much will our carbon use increase as the new people adopt wasteful American lifestyles? We hardly have enough roads to handle current traffic in many American cities as it is. In the West, there may not be enough water to support the current human population, let alone millions more. Someday soon, I hope, economists will understand that we can't grow perpetually without fatal consequences for our environment and the natural world.
34
Our efforts to help the Third World should be aimed at helping them achieve good governance, improve their economies and reduce their high birth rates. Bringing them to the West only destroys our own nations and turns us increasingly into Third World basket cases ourselves.
2
The problem with looking at wages in only one state or city is that it ignores the fact that Americans who see their wages eroded or who can't get jobs MOVE to other cities, other states. In order to look at the effects of labor on wages, you need to look at it NATIONALLY, as George Borjas has done.
Moreover, some 7 million illegal aliens, according to SS no match letters, are using stolen SS numbers and committing fraud on the I-9 to get jobs alongside Americans. They are literally stealing jobs. Even legal immigrants, such as those on H1-Bs, are stealing jobs, or is the author conveniently ignoring the fact that Southern California Edison is requiring AMERICAN workers to train their H1-B replacements? That's not an uncommon occurrence with the H1-B program, unfortunately. Companies want CHEAP labor, or cheaper labor. In fact, several major tech companies admitted to conspiring to keep salaries down by agreeing to not hire each other's employees.
Moreover, some 7 million illegal aliens, according to SS no match letters, are using stolen SS numbers and committing fraud on the I-9 to get jobs alongside Americans. They are literally stealing jobs. Even legal immigrants, such as those on H1-Bs, are stealing jobs, or is the author conveniently ignoring the fact that Southern California Edison is requiring AMERICAN workers to train their H1-B replacements? That's not an uncommon occurrence with the H1-B program, unfortunately. Companies want CHEAP labor, or cheaper labor. In fact, several major tech companies admitted to conspiring to keep salaries down by agreeing to not hire each other's employees.
33
I'm a liberal Democrat. Politicalcompass.org puts me in the vicinity of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I helped put Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and I would love to see her in the White House.
But this article is the left-wing equivalent of global warming denial. Cesar Chavez understood the impact of an oversupply of cheap labor on his union members, which is why he denounced illegal immigrants to INS (ICE's predecessor). And the National Academy of Sciences found that the wages of Americans without high school diplomas sank ~30 percent between 1979-95, and that half of that drop was due to the oversupply of cheap labor from mass immigration.
Of course, big business Republicans like Jeb Bush and the Koch brothers favor "comprehensive immigration reform" because they like the cheap labor. And Agribusiness loves being able to pay illegal immigrant workers $2-$3/hour (see The American Way of Eating, by Tracie McMillan. As part of her reporting she worked among them.)
If Americans are so in favor of "path to citizenship" why did blue state Oregon vote two to one against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants?
And if immigration is so good for the economy, why are 18 million Americans still looking for jobs?
But this article is the left-wing equivalent of global warming denial. Cesar Chavez understood the impact of an oversupply of cheap labor on his union members, which is why he denounced illegal immigrants to INS (ICE's predecessor). And the National Academy of Sciences found that the wages of Americans without high school diplomas sank ~30 percent between 1979-95, and that half of that drop was due to the oversupply of cheap labor from mass immigration.
Of course, big business Republicans like Jeb Bush and the Koch brothers favor "comprehensive immigration reform" because they like the cheap labor. And Agribusiness loves being able to pay illegal immigrant workers $2-$3/hour (see The American Way of Eating, by Tracie McMillan. As part of her reporting she worked among them.)
If Americans are so in favor of "path to citizenship" why did blue state Oregon vote two to one against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants?
And if immigration is so good for the economy, why are 18 million Americans still looking for jobs?
89
Two thirds of farm workers are *legal* immigrants.
What do economists think has happened to their wages in the decades since the first amnesty under Reagan?
What do economists think has happened to their wages in the decades since the first amnesty under Reagan?
1
How does the author think that skilled carpenters become skilled carpenters?
This is accomplished by first cleaning up the job site and moving and lifting heavy things. The low-wage jobs the author says are reserved for immigrants are actually the stepping stone into higher paid work. And there is significant downward pressure on the wages of these jobs, which leads to depressed wages overall in these industries (unless you are in a union).
The author completely glosses over this distinction. You can't throw in a few sentences about how some other researcher disagrees with your assertions and say you have explored a topic. Where does the "skilled native" acquire these advanced skills, except by working his way up?
This is accomplished by first cleaning up the job site and moving and lifting heavy things. The low-wage jobs the author says are reserved for immigrants are actually the stepping stone into higher paid work. And there is significant downward pressure on the wages of these jobs, which leads to depressed wages overall in these industries (unless you are in a union).
The author completely glosses over this distinction. You can't throw in a few sentences about how some other researcher disagrees with your assertions and say you have explored a topic. Where does the "skilled native" acquire these advanced skills, except by working his way up?
40
" Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site)." Very true yet mostly Euro-Americans. The history of this is embedded, Borjas has a point.
Being a first generation immigrant, immigrants have always helped the long term, look at Elder Care; and now it is a Global value that can't be denied. The fight still remains on what is called "a national income level for the poor" These native poor groups are used by ever political grifter politician in our history.
Lee Kuan Yew is correct. The USA still has the advantage over China, of getting from 6 Billion people the brightest and many among that 11 million. If we closed that advantage, we have Japan with American Ugliness and a Gun.
Being a first generation immigrant, immigrants have always helped the long term, look at Elder Care; and now it is a Global value that can't be denied. The fight still remains on what is called "a national income level for the poor" These native poor groups are used by ever political grifter politician in our history.
Lee Kuan Yew is correct. The USA still has the advantage over China, of getting from 6 Billion people the brightest and many among that 11 million. If we closed that advantage, we have Japan with American Ugliness and a Gun.
4
It's now officially a myth just because the University of Chicago polled some economists who said they think it's a myth? And because of a single, cherry-picked example from 35 years ago?
In a market economy suffering high (by our standards) unemployment, not to mention substantial underemployment, you can't truly have "jobs that no one wants." What you have instead is a disagreement between employers and labor about the working conditions and pay for those jobs. There are two possible outcomes: Either the pay and conditions improve to the point where the available labor fills those openings, or employers find an alternative source of labor that will acquiesce to the existing conditions.
One of problems with economists, aside from the necessarily highly speculative nature of their work, is that they are in one of those fields that feels very little job or wage pressure from immigrants (or H-1B visa holders, etc.). They're free to spend their time writing condescending articles telling the rest of us how foolish (or worse, racist!) we are if we dare to disagree with them. But, rather than merely being xenophobic simpletons, many Americans have actually experienced these job and wage pressures first-hand and reasonably feel that, at least while our economy is still limping along, it makes little sense to add millions of additional job seekers to it.
In a market economy suffering high (by our standards) unemployment, not to mention substantial underemployment, you can't truly have "jobs that no one wants." What you have instead is a disagreement between employers and labor about the working conditions and pay for those jobs. There are two possible outcomes: Either the pay and conditions improve to the point where the available labor fills those openings, or employers find an alternative source of labor that will acquiesce to the existing conditions.
One of problems with economists, aside from the necessarily highly speculative nature of their work, is that they are in one of those fields that feels very little job or wage pressure from immigrants (or H-1B visa holders, etc.). They're free to spend their time writing condescending articles telling the rest of us how foolish (or worse, racist!) we are if we dare to disagree with them. But, rather than merely being xenophobic simpletons, many Americans have actually experienced these job and wage pressures first-hand and reasonably feel that, at least while our economy is still limping along, it makes little sense to add millions of additional job seekers to it.
136
Onion farmers in Arkansas, in order to comply with federal regs, advertised for laborers to bring in the crop. Whites either worked half a day and vanished after lunch break or didn't show up the following morning.
You say the real problem is between capital and labor. If pay and working conditions improve, the farmer will pass along his costs and we'll be paying five bucks for a 3-lb. bag of onions and ten bucks for a pint of strawberries.
Why not let immigrants who want to work, work?
You say the real problem is between capital and labor. If pay and working conditions improve, the farmer will pass along his costs and we'll be paying five bucks for a 3-lb. bag of onions and ten bucks for a pint of strawberries.
Why not let immigrants who want to work, work?
Adam Davidson's logic and comments are biased. Chicago is the home of Libertarian and monetarist economics, where Milton Friedman centered the economics department. The home of freshwater economics, as Paul Krugman often notes. Sample saltwater economists and a very different answer is likely. Davidson has a degree from the University of Chicago.
Losing control of our borders? Can that do other than lower wages and increase total profits relative to total wages? No. Can one argue that the ultimate rate of profit would not change in the long run. Yes. Would it increase inequality in the long run? Depends on the means of measurement. On the other hand, the current capitalists would be better off, and the current low-wage workers would be worse off.
Losing control of our borders? Can that do other than lower wages and increase total profits relative to total wages? No. Can one argue that the ultimate rate of profit would not change in the long run. Yes. Would it increase inequality in the long run? Depends on the means of measurement. On the other hand, the current capitalists would be better off, and the current low-wage workers would be worse off.
1
Why do you think Texas, Arizona, and California grow faster than Maine?
While I think there are some good and valid points in this article (namely America was built on immigrants), there are some points not well-explained. For example, if a country becomes more prosperous the more workers it has then why aren't India, China, and Africa becoming more prosperous if it all boils down to more people to do more work? If the argument is just general population size, then should we be encouraging US citizens to have more children so we will become more prosperous? Also, the author makes the same argument as many others- that immigrants almost always start low on the pay scale so don't displace existing workers. This is just not true. Look at the HB1 visa system. There are whole consulting firms now that exist to bring in foreign workers doing skilled jobs for a low salary. Whole departments in IT are let go and replaced by such workers to lower costs. No experts explain how this system of HB1 visas and consultants helps the US workers improve their lives or the economy overall. (Yes the foreign workers are being paid but less than before so the net money spent in the economy goes down not up and US workers go on unemployment). More rigorous requirements for admitting skilled workers requiring justification based on true skills gap and not lowering costs could help close the loop hole. Won't the economy also grow if we can put to work all the skilled displaced US workers? Or should they seek to immigrate... A nation of immigrants yes but- choose wisely.
35
Hiring cheaper HB1 visa workers is yet another way to redirect money upward.
3
"For example, if a country becomes more prosperous the more workers it has then why aren't India, China, and Africa becoming more prosperous if it all boils down to more people to do more work?"
Yeesh.
(1) Both India _and_ China are far more prosperous than they were ten years ago. Look it up.
(2) Africa's not a country. It's a continent comprising 30+ different countries. Some of them have economies that are growing quite strongly and populations that are becoming more prosperous. Look that up.
The rest of your post flows ever more from your faulty logic.
Yeesh.
(1) Both India _and_ China are far more prosperous than they were ten years ago. Look it up.
(2) Africa's not a country. It's a continent comprising 30+ different countries. Some of them have economies that are growing quite strongly and populations that are becoming more prosperous. Look that up.
The rest of your post flows ever more from your faulty logic.
You might also include the expansion of the L visa program that this administration just announced. It's going to make it even easier for firms to bring in their employees from overseas, who supposedly have "special knowledge", which is loosely defined by regulations already, and which will become even more so under this administration. The crux of the matter, however, is that these workers are paid wages based on THEIR HOMELAND, and there is no provision requiring the company to show it can't find US workers.
1
Here's another myth that needs to be debunked: that people who oppose unfettered illegal immigration are bigots as the author so artfully intones in his first paragraph.
People who oppose massive, unchecked illegal immigration are tired of what they see around them. We don't need studies from Harvard to tell us that low skill and trade jobs are now overwhelmingly done by cash under the table illegal workers when not long ago those jobs were done by American citizens particularly our young adults. We do not need the University of Chicago to tell us that our property taxes are rising as the number of immigrant children flood into our schools unanticipated every year requiring expensive services. We don not need UC Berkeley to tell us that our emergency rooms are filled with people who walk in and will pay nothing while we go home with a big bill. We do not need Pew to tell us that if we get into a car accident with an illegal immigrant, they will walk away with no consequences just as they do every other facet of life here. No income taxes on the billions of dollars earned here and sent overseas, no health insurance or car insurance costs but plenty of care, service and freedom.
Supporting individual freedom does not mean allowing the socially destructive anarchy that is our current policy for (not) dealing with illegal immigrants. How is protesting the lawless opportunism we see around us everyday directly at our expense now considered bigotry?
People who oppose massive, unchecked illegal immigration are tired of what they see around them. We don't need studies from Harvard to tell us that low skill and trade jobs are now overwhelmingly done by cash under the table illegal workers when not long ago those jobs were done by American citizens particularly our young adults. We do not need the University of Chicago to tell us that our property taxes are rising as the number of immigrant children flood into our schools unanticipated every year requiring expensive services. We don not need UC Berkeley to tell us that our emergency rooms are filled with people who walk in and will pay nothing while we go home with a big bill. We do not need Pew to tell us that if we get into a car accident with an illegal immigrant, they will walk away with no consequences just as they do every other facet of life here. No income taxes on the billions of dollars earned here and sent overseas, no health insurance or car insurance costs but plenty of care, service and freedom.
Supporting individual freedom does not mean allowing the socially destructive anarchy that is our current policy for (not) dealing with illegal immigrants. How is protesting the lawless opportunism we see around us everyday directly at our expense now considered bigotry?
164
Alas, despite your little diatribe, apparently you do need someone to explain to you if all of those illegals and the problems they cause are granted citizenship and entered into our system then they cease to be these troublesome "ghosts" you speak of. They will be taxed, insured and tracked like the rest of us. But by all means, let's just continue to chase our own tail and use issues caused by policy as the reasons to not change said policy.
Your point may have merit but your examples are ridiculous. I care for patients in car accidents - there are plenty of problems with people not having insurance - but it isn't from illegal immigrants. And our schools are not flooded by children of those immigrants - you aren't getting into school as an illegal. The lack of income tax is fair - but is a product of the very policy you seem to advocate.
"Here's another myth...that people who oppose unfettered illegal immigration are bigots as the author so artfully intones in his first paragraph."
While that's not always accurate, your own examples belie bigotry that has clouded over fact. Hospital emergency rooms aren't flooded with non-status immigrants (or "illegals" as you so artfully phrase it). Countless data has been compiled showing that those high-cost emergency room people are chronically homeless, very often war veterans, _not_ the immigrants you're railing against. No income taxes on renumerations returned to home countries? That doesn't mean the wages they're making haven't been taxed. Most people who work - even those using false SS numbers - are paying taxes. And they're actually not getting any services back. Western Union and Moneygram - both American corporations - are also making a good amount of money from such remunerations, as well.
You're right - people holding your ignorant views probably aren't all bigots; but their (your) views certainly are.
While that's not always accurate, your own examples belie bigotry that has clouded over fact. Hospital emergency rooms aren't flooded with non-status immigrants (or "illegals" as you so artfully phrase it). Countless data has been compiled showing that those high-cost emergency room people are chronically homeless, very often war veterans, _not_ the immigrants you're railing against. No income taxes on renumerations returned to home countries? That doesn't mean the wages they're making haven't been taxed. Most people who work - even those using false SS numbers - are paying taxes. And they're actually not getting any services back. Western Union and Moneygram - both American corporations - are also making a good amount of money from such remunerations, as well.
You're right - people holding your ignorant views probably aren't all bigots; but their (your) views certainly are.
Adam Davidson's figure of merit was whether immigration increased the absolute size of the national economy. More relevant measures for existing residents is whether low-wage immigrants increase the quality of life and the size of the economy per resident. Two issues that he didn't address are (1) income inequality and the associated issue of (2) the cost of government benefits. Does he believe that bringing in many millions of low-wage, relatively uneducated residents has no affect on income inequality? Does he support he support the United States moving to the far greater income inequalities that characterize the third world? Financial, educational, and medical inequalities have been addressed in modern times by government expenditures, which when divided by the number of workers have reached about $40,000 per worker per year. Does he believe that immigrant workers with wages near or below the minimum wage generate tax revenues comparable to $40,000 a year? Maybe those who Adam Davidson describes so pejoratively for opposing an open immigration policy have deeper insights and are more logical than he suspects.
67
The GDP doesn't really accurately reflect the economic well-being of the average worker. For example, according to the IMF in 2013, India had a GDP of $1,876,811,000,000 in US dollars, placing it at 10th place in the world; Switzerland came in at 20th with $650,431,000,000. However, Switzerland's per capita GDP was a striking $80,477 in US dollars while India's was an appalling $1,499. India's GDP is, of course, a result of its huge population. Switzerland's by far represents a much more prosperous country peopled with a healthy middle-class. If you were an average worker, where would you want to live?
I think most of us in the US would rather have a tighter labor market with more employment for US workers, fewer people, and higher wages than a higher GDP brought about by immigration. I know I would.
I think most of us in the US would rather have a tighter labor market with more employment for US workers, fewer people, and higher wages than a higher GDP brought about by immigration. I know I would.
3
You write: "Financial, educational, and medical inequalities have been addressed in modern times by government expenditures, which when divided by the number of workers have reached about $40,000 per worker per year."
I'm drawing Social Security and Medicare. I've recently been checking out subsidized housing for myself to replace the home I've been no longer able to afford (over $1,000 per month in mortgage payments, insurance and taxes). It appears that the upper income limit to qualify for subsidized housing is, in fact, $40,000, although I don't know what program that is or where it applies. But $40,000 is some kind of magic number--the very figure that you cite.
It all fits together, somehow.
I'm drawing Social Security and Medicare. I've recently been checking out subsidized housing for myself to replace the home I've been no longer able to afford (over $1,000 per month in mortgage payments, insurance and taxes). It appears that the upper income limit to qualify for subsidized housing is, in fact, $40,000, although I don't know what program that is or where it applies. But $40,000 is some kind of magic number--the very figure that you cite.
It all fits together, somehow.
If having millions more people, which is what immigration is about, were really THAT good for a country's economy, the countries illegal aliens come from would be fighting to keep them, not demanding that WE keep them. Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, #14 in GDP, and home to one of the world's richest men, Carlos Slim, an owner of this newspaper, yet it's more than happy to send 10% of its working age population to this country, most of them illegally.
2
Wow! As I read these comments how much a drain we immigrants are on the native Americans, I must say that it feels a bit nauseating. The good news is that in my daily life and job, nobody has made the assertion that I am a drain on them. Perhaps there is dichotomy between the comment writers and the people I have the pleasure to work with. I never personally felt the level of intolerance I see in these comments.
I do want to say to all those that are so sure that we immigrants are a drain:
That other country I grew up in fully subsidized my education. When I sold what I owned in that other country, I had a capital gain on that sale (due to unfortunate currency exchange rate) and I paid capital gain tax on that foreign property in the US. The day, I came here I worked and paid income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, real estate tax, sales tax. How I should be a drain is a mystery. Of course I have not kept a detailed account to substantiate my claim.
Last: To the one native American that is the primary sufferer of my presence in the US because I took his/her job: I apologize. I hope he/she reads this statement. (Yes, I am sarcastic)
I do want to say to all those that are so sure that we immigrants are a drain:
That other country I grew up in fully subsidized my education. When I sold what I owned in that other country, I had a capital gain on that sale (due to unfortunate currency exchange rate) and I paid capital gain tax on that foreign property in the US. The day, I came here I worked and paid income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, real estate tax, sales tax. How I should be a drain is a mystery. Of course I have not kept a detailed account to substantiate my claim.
Last: To the one native American that is the primary sufferer of my presence in the US because I took his/her job: I apologize. I hope he/she reads this statement. (Yes, I am sarcastic)
15
jzu --
If you are living in Cincinnati, Ohio then you are in America's Rust Belt. I just looked it up and Cincinnati had almost 100,000 more people in 1980 than it has today. It lost tens of thousands of good paying jobs that never came back and the new ones created, for the most part, were not nearly as good as those which were lost.
This is the kind of thing Americans fear will happen in America on a much wider and more devastating scale in the future. When we don't have enough good jobs for ourselves today it cannot be simply "intolerance" or prejudice that leads people to think we should not be greatly increase legal immigration.
It seems that you came to America to improve your economic situation, which was already good in your home country since you obtained a college degree(s) and had property to sell.
Now put yourself in the position of Americans without college degrees and few assets. If you were them, wouldn't you worry about your future too?
Here's a link to a quite dismal future painted by our former Secretary of Labor, Dr. Robert Reich:
"The economic model that dominated most of the twentieth century was mass production by the many, for mass consumption by the many.
...
That virtuous cycle is now falling apart.
...
It may be that a redistribution of income and wealth from the rich owners of breakthrough technologies to the rest of us becomes the only means of making the future economy work."
http://robertreich.org/post/113801138315
If you are living in Cincinnati, Ohio then you are in America's Rust Belt. I just looked it up and Cincinnati had almost 100,000 more people in 1980 than it has today. It lost tens of thousands of good paying jobs that never came back and the new ones created, for the most part, were not nearly as good as those which were lost.
This is the kind of thing Americans fear will happen in America on a much wider and more devastating scale in the future. When we don't have enough good jobs for ourselves today it cannot be simply "intolerance" or prejudice that leads people to think we should not be greatly increase legal immigration.
It seems that you came to America to improve your economic situation, which was already good in your home country since you obtained a college degree(s) and had property to sell.
Now put yourself in the position of Americans without college degrees and few assets. If you were them, wouldn't you worry about your future too?
Here's a link to a quite dismal future painted by our former Secretary of Labor, Dr. Robert Reich:
"The economic model that dominated most of the twentieth century was mass production by the many, for mass consumption by the many.
...
That virtuous cycle is now falling apart.
...
It may be that a redistribution of income and wealth from the rich owners of breakthrough technologies to the rest of us becomes the only means of making the future economy work."
http://robertreich.org/post/113801138315
2
People are complaining about the illegal immigrants with no money and no useful skills (if they had either they could legally enter). Very few people are opposed to educated foreigners bringing cash into their country. I too am an immigrant, and, like you, have brought my own money with me. I am happy to be accepted in my new country. But I am trying to fit in - I am learning the language, I am not looking for financial aid, I am not trying to change customs, I do not want people to change their religious beliefs, I do not complain about the local lifestyle, food, or clothing. I do object when others legally or illegally enter a country and then proceed to try to change everything about it.
4
If you are paying taxes, you are a legal immigrant, so comments about illegal immigrants do not apply to you.
3
In NYC, every professional family I know hires a housekeeper, roofers, child care workers, etc. who are mostly illegal immigrants. These people subsidize the two-career family, and so of course we are pro-immigration. Political leaders are too, because they mitigate population (and congressional seat) loss at redistricting time. Nothing altruistic about any of this. We COULD hire middle-aged union members to repair our roofs, but the immigrant guy is much cheaper. People who personally derives benefit from open immigration...including the large employers who have always favored open borders, support it.
Borjas is right. The real cost is borne by native working class people, not us middle class professionals (unless we are in high tech fields).
But there are larger questions about "globalization" and open borders for people and goods. We can all agree that immigrants--legal immigrants (of which the US admits a remarkably large number--are a benefit for the US. But large-scale, unregulated immigration hurts the working class, overloads the natural environment, keeps unionization low, and puts great costs on the communities that have to furnish schools, health care, and security to communities where the influx is highest. Before the debate became so polarized, leftist political theorists argued that relatively closed borders are essential to social trust, to common democratic values, to equality, unions, and to the rule of law. I think that is still true.
Borjas is right. The real cost is borne by native working class people, not us middle class professionals (unless we are in high tech fields).
But there are larger questions about "globalization" and open borders for people and goods. We can all agree that immigrants--legal immigrants (of which the US admits a remarkably large number--are a benefit for the US. But large-scale, unregulated immigration hurts the working class, overloads the natural environment, keeps unionization low, and puts great costs on the communities that have to furnish schools, health care, and security to communities where the influx is highest. Before the debate became so polarized, leftist political theorists argued that relatively closed borders are essential to social trust, to common democratic values, to equality, unions, and to the rule of law. I think that is still true.
78
Thank you for being so candid about the well-heeled New York household's dependence on low-wage, mostly illegal immigrant labor. Very courageous on your part.
1
Indeed, this is so simplistic an article. Illegal immigration attracts people who are most desparate and have nothing to lose; it is true that they will be more productive in a country like the US with developed legal, financial and physical infrastructure, as the author argues. They are also more hard working. But this directly impacts other blue collared and poor peope of the US. Why would you hire an American citizen with rights who can sue you if s/he is mistreated when it is far easier to hire an illegal immigrant who will work for less than minimum wage and not complain about anything etc. So, of course it impacts US citizens with low incomes. Immigration policy to attract educated people from all over the world, legally, is different. Even though some Americans will be impacted directly in the short term, in the longer term these educated folks will impact the US economy in a positive way: they will get married, have kids, buy a house, shop for christmas, but more importantly, they will help US maintain its edge in high tech and other areas, rather than helping their home countries pose a threat to US leadership in technology and other areas. Illegal immigration, on the other hand, will result in a permanent underclass, increased crime that is associated with poverty unfortunately and an increasing demand for programs such as food stamps, medical coverage etc. Coming reveloution in automation with robotics will make the situation in worse for the poor in the US.
30
The author chooses to ignore the most basic statistics - the number of total new immigrants in the U.S. since 1990 (net change in population self-identifying as immigrant) is roughly equal to the total number of jobs that have been created in the U.S. over that same time frame (19-21 million). That's an incontrovertible fact - virtually every job of any sort created in the U.S. has gone to an immigrant, net net. If we want to end income inequality, the only way to do it is to raise incomes at the lower levels. The only way to do that is restrict supply of labor - following the basic laws of economics. An open door is the most important factor in income inequality.
As a small business owner, I would love to pay $20/hr to my $10/hr employees (many of whom are immigrants). I can only do that if we raise the prices of our farmed goods - we barely break even as it is, and can only sustain increased costs if we can pass them through. The will happen only if our competitors have to compete for more expensive labor too, causing all of of us to raise prices accordingly. That would be a good thing - we raise and sell a luxury item - oysters. However, as long as there is a ready, cheap source of (immigrant) labor, income inequality will remain a fact.
The idea that welcoming new immigrants is a healthy way to grow and makes us all richer sounds nice - but in reality the middle class only emerged when immigration was virtually shut down except for refugees (1924-1960).
As a small business owner, I would love to pay $20/hr to my $10/hr employees (many of whom are immigrants). I can only do that if we raise the prices of our farmed goods - we barely break even as it is, and can only sustain increased costs if we can pass them through. The will happen only if our competitors have to compete for more expensive labor too, causing all of of us to raise prices accordingly. That would be a good thing - we raise and sell a luxury item - oysters. However, as long as there is a ready, cheap source of (immigrant) labor, income inequality will remain a fact.
The idea that welcoming new immigrants is a healthy way to grow and makes us all richer sounds nice - but in reality the middle class only emerged when immigration was virtually shut down except for refugees (1924-1960).
74
Most of the economic data analyzing job losses in the US economy has demonstrated the losses came not as a result of immigration, but as a result of the rise of China in the WTO and the dissolving of most trade protections here in the US. You really shouldn't be blaming the undocumented janitor for taking a low-paying job that most native born Americans won't take; you should blame presidents since Clinton signing trade agreements with nations that ensure the cost of labor is shifted to cheaper countries and consumer goods manufactured there become cheaper here. While you're at it, you might want to blame yourself for buying an iPhone manufactured in China by workers paid less than US minimum wage.
To the progressives, you are nothing more than a greedy business owner. Just wait until they force you to raise wages like they did in Seattle.
This is the best economic analysis of immigration I've ever read.
There are only two ways to increase economic output: raise productivity per worker or add more workers. For the last few centuries, both have been essential to robust economic growth.
Today, most developed nations find their native populations leveling off, or even declining. A country that severely limits immigration, like Japan, runs a very serious risk of long-term economic decline - unless they can find a way for productivity growth alone to sustain long-term economic growth.
The United States therefore is not plagued by immigration; we are blessed by it. Vigorous immigration ensures continued population growth, which is essential to robust long-term economic growth.
Fire up that lamp beside the golden door.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
There are only two ways to increase economic output: raise productivity per worker or add more workers. For the last few centuries, both have been essential to robust economic growth.
Today, most developed nations find their native populations leveling off, or even declining. A country that severely limits immigration, like Japan, runs a very serious risk of long-term economic decline - unless they can find a way for productivity growth alone to sustain long-term economic growth.
The United States therefore is not plagued by immigration; we are blessed by it. Vigorous immigration ensures continued population growth, which is essential to robust long-term economic growth.
Fire up that lamp beside the golden door.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
5
There is only one way to increase wages; decrease the supply of workers.
3
This commentary is illustrative everything wrong with the immigration debate and the media that distorts it. It claims to debunk the "Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant." It doesn't.
To do so it would need to show that immigrants create a net positive number of jobs for non-immigrants.
But more importantly it would need to show that the overall affect of immigration is a positive on jobs for non-immigrants. That means more better jobs and more better paying jobs. It doesn't show that.
Finally, we are not just interested in jobs, we are interested in the whole affect on society and the economy. When an immigrant takes a job paying $10 per hour, it may very well enrich his employer, but it does not enrich the community that pays for his families health care, education, and other social services.
To do so it would need to show that immigrants create a net positive number of jobs for non-immigrants.
But more importantly it would need to show that the overall affect of immigration is a positive on jobs for non-immigrants. That means more better jobs and more better paying jobs. It doesn't show that.
Finally, we are not just interested in jobs, we are interested in the whole affect on society and the economy. When an immigrant takes a job paying $10 per hour, it may very well enrich his employer, but it does not enrich the community that pays for his families health care, education, and other social services.
79
Do you know any undocumented immigrants being paid $10/ hour? The only people I know making that much are in-status immigrants or native born Americans.
1
Most nannies in NYC make about $15/hr. off the books, or $17-$20 on the books. It is very hard to find someone willing to work on the books, because a) they have to be in legal immigration status and b) they cannot as readily evade income taxes. Parents pay a stiff premium (higher base salary plus payroll taxes) to employ childcare workers legally.
Yes, let's keep illegal immigrants here. Having a high income while others are forced to work for much less, even considering the lack of quality control, is wonderful, after all! Seriously, I don't know where the author lives, but here in NC, the impact of an apparently limitless supply of unskilled and low-paid foreign labor is difficult to ignore, and the reverse racism, if I may use that term, is all too real. In several fields, such as construction, landscape maintenance, and cooking, one would be hard-pressed to find low-level workers who are not lately from Mexico, while the unemployment rate among other traditionally disadvantaged groups is quite high.
There is nothing wrong with favoring equally well qualified citizens over the citizens of other countries, since those others generally have the option of returning to employment in their home country, should they so desire. U.S. citizens do not have that choice, and many other countries, including Mexico, by the way, prohibit or greatly restrict the employment of foreigners. At the least, one would think that a reciprocal employment treaty requiring those countries to be as accommodating toward U.S. citizens as our country is to their citizens would be in order. In addition, if a U.S. citizen is unable to find a job, that person at some point is due public benefits, while a foreign citizen is not, so the big-picture situation is even worse than the zero-sum equation experienced by those displaced by the undocumented.
There is nothing wrong with favoring equally well qualified citizens over the citizens of other countries, since those others generally have the option of returning to employment in their home country, should they so desire. U.S. citizens do not have that choice, and many other countries, including Mexico, by the way, prohibit or greatly restrict the employment of foreigners. At the least, one would think that a reciprocal employment treaty requiring those countries to be as accommodating toward U.S. citizens as our country is to their citizens would be in order. In addition, if a U.S. citizen is unable to find a job, that person at some point is due public benefits, while a foreign citizen is not, so the big-picture situation is even worse than the zero-sum equation experienced by those displaced by the undocumented.
46
ARHG.
Quite simply, some of us prefer to live in a country that isn't teeming with people, no matter where they come from. It's not about racism or nativism; it's about the idea that unchecked growth has severe downsides, which we've all seen.
The idea of self-government is that people can decide for themselves what policies make sense. Consistent with that is the idea that one of the goals for immigration should be to make life better for Americans now and into the future.
We have a responsibility to be better world citizens. But we don't have a responsibility to take in people from all over the world in ways that will undermine the quality of life in this country. The U.S. is already a much more crowded place than it was when I was growing up in the 60s. Our national forests look like tree farms, our national parks are overcrowded, and families compete for camping spots in local parks - it's harder and harder to get into nature to recharge.
Meanwhile, California may run out of water, traffic/congestion in larger cities continues to get worse and worse, and there's not enough employment or education opportunities for the people already here.
People in the U.S. aren't better than other people. But we do have a system of self-government that should allow us to make decisions about the way we want to live - and it doesn't include taking in everybody from all over the world to the point where the quality of life for Americans now and into the future is undermined.
Quite simply, some of us prefer to live in a country that isn't teeming with people, no matter where they come from. It's not about racism or nativism; it's about the idea that unchecked growth has severe downsides, which we've all seen.
The idea of self-government is that people can decide for themselves what policies make sense. Consistent with that is the idea that one of the goals for immigration should be to make life better for Americans now and into the future.
We have a responsibility to be better world citizens. But we don't have a responsibility to take in people from all over the world in ways that will undermine the quality of life in this country. The U.S. is already a much more crowded place than it was when I was growing up in the 60s. Our national forests look like tree farms, our national parks are overcrowded, and families compete for camping spots in local parks - it's harder and harder to get into nature to recharge.
Meanwhile, California may run out of water, traffic/congestion in larger cities continues to get worse and worse, and there's not enough employment or education opportunities for the people already here.
People in the U.S. aren't better than other people. But we do have a system of self-government that should allow us to make decisions about the way we want to live - and it doesn't include taking in everybody from all over the world to the point where the quality of life for Americans now and into the future is undermined.
134
This article is unconvincing to say the least. Low skilled immigrant workers certainly compete with low skilled native workers for jobs and wages—decreasing the number of native workers hired and their wages. In addition, these low skilled workers illegals consume a lot of public monies. The National Research Council/National Academy of Science researched this subject for two years in 1995 and reported in "The New Americans Economic, Demographic. and Fiscal Effects of Immigration" and found that when all the costs of illegal and legal Hispanic immigration are counted they cost state, local and federal taxpayers $5,000/household. They costs have risen above this since then as even more benefits have been created for low paid workers. They concluded that these low skilled immigrants will never pay enough taxes to pay for the benefits (paid for by others) they consume.
Because of the way that GNP is calculated as the sum of all expenses and labor immigrants will add to the GNP; but the GNP/person will go down because they almost universally earn less than the national average--they don't contribute more than they cost to the economy. High skilled, highly educated immigrants do contribute to the economy since they earn more than the average income and pay more in taxes than they consume. Canada, Australia, etc. have recognized this fact several years ago and largely restrict their immigrants to educated and skilled groups which will contribute more than they cost.
Because of the way that GNP is calculated as the sum of all expenses and labor immigrants will add to the GNP; but the GNP/person will go down because they almost universally earn less than the national average--they don't contribute more than they cost to the economy. High skilled, highly educated immigrants do contribute to the economy since they earn more than the average income and pay more in taxes than they consume. Canada, Australia, etc. have recognized this fact several years ago and largely restrict their immigrants to educated and skilled groups which will contribute more than they cost.
47
I would suggest an article entitled "The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States", by Cafero and Staples, published June 2009 by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Increased immigration, legal and illegal, is the main driver of population growth in our country, causing a strain on resources, water shortages in the West, congestion, the loss of habitat and consequent loss of species, and environmental degradation generally. Sprawl development resulting from population growth results in the "destruction of 2.2 million acres of wild lands and agricultural lands each year". When I came of age in the 1950's, the population of the U.S. was 125 million. Now it is 315 million, and growing faster than any other industrialized country. We are a nation of immigrants, but we no longer have millions of acres of land, empty and waiting to be farmed, or of factories with the need for thousands of unskilled workers.
In addition, while the author and other ivory-tower theorists argue that an increased number of workers is good for the economy because there is then an increased demand for goods and services, he should tell that to a low-income worker in the hospitality industry, and to a low-skilled worker who does manual labor of any kind, and explain to them why their jobs and incomes are threatened by well-meaning liberals who ,because of ignorance or political cynicism, agree to the importation of foreign workers who will take their jobs.
Increased immigration, legal and illegal, is the main driver of population growth in our country, causing a strain on resources, water shortages in the West, congestion, the loss of habitat and consequent loss of species, and environmental degradation generally. Sprawl development resulting from population growth results in the "destruction of 2.2 million acres of wild lands and agricultural lands each year". When I came of age in the 1950's, the population of the U.S. was 125 million. Now it is 315 million, and growing faster than any other industrialized country. We are a nation of immigrants, but we no longer have millions of acres of land, empty and waiting to be farmed, or of factories with the need for thousands of unskilled workers.
In addition, while the author and other ivory-tower theorists argue that an increased number of workers is good for the economy because there is then an increased demand for goods and services, he should tell that to a low-income worker in the hospitality industry, and to a low-skilled worker who does manual labor of any kind, and explain to them why their jobs and incomes are threatened by well-meaning liberals who ,because of ignorance or political cynicism, agree to the importation of foreign workers who will take their jobs.
69
In addition, I would ask re the environment: what about all the trash they leave as they trek across the border?
4
I don't buy the argument that open borders is nothing but a boon to Americans. My friends in construction have definitely been affected negatively by illegal immigration. For them more competition and lack of Spanish language skills are forcing them out of the industry. Unfortunately, the prospect of retraining in their mid-forties is frightening and expensive.
Mass immigration by those with less than a high school education is a huge burden to our social services and increases inequality. While goods and services are cheaper for the middle and upper classes, working class Americans are forced to compete with illegals for jobs, schools, housing and social services. The CBO report on 2013's S.744 shows how much greater inequality would be if it had become law.
And mass immigration is terrible for the environment. The per capita impact on the environment and natural resources in the U.S. is several times that of Honduras or Mexico. Allowing in anyone who wants to come here means more pollution, sprawl, traffic, noise and climate change while leaving less water, open space, forest land, wildlife and natural systems that keep us all alive. Simply put, runaway population growth is not sustainable.
This propaganda piece for mass immigration ignores the social, economic and environmental costs. Mass immigration only benefits the rich and powerful and would most assuredly bring us back to the Robber Baron era.
Mass immigration by those with less than a high school education is a huge burden to our social services and increases inequality. While goods and services are cheaper for the middle and upper classes, working class Americans are forced to compete with illegals for jobs, schools, housing and social services. The CBO report on 2013's S.744 shows how much greater inequality would be if it had become law.
And mass immigration is terrible for the environment. The per capita impact on the environment and natural resources in the U.S. is several times that of Honduras or Mexico. Allowing in anyone who wants to come here means more pollution, sprawl, traffic, noise and climate change while leaving less water, open space, forest land, wildlife and natural systems that keep us all alive. Simply put, runaway population growth is not sustainable.
This propaganda piece for mass immigration ignores the social, economic and environmental costs. Mass immigration only benefits the rich and powerful and would most assuredly bring us back to the Robber Baron era.
126
Until reading Adam's article, I was under the apparently misguided assumption that there were lots of poorly skilled, unemployed people in the US who would be qualified for the lifting, loading, and sweeping tasks on construction sites that he says poorly skilled immigrants (legal or otherwise) are doing.
Adam misses the crux of the immigration issue to many: no one is arguing that immigration is bad or wrong. But immigration levels and the decision on who should get visas should be policy decisions made by representatives of the American people. Illegal immigration short-circuits that governance function by imposing an inflow (and costs to society) not agreed to via the democratic process.
All that said, most economists, with their spreadsheets and formulas, have not spent much time in the places where immigration has real affects on citizens. Until they get their hands dirty in the real economy, I'd urge them to quit with their predictable pontificating. Or, I'd offer an experiment to explore the effects of immigration on one sector of the economy by allowing every economist in the world to immigrate to the US and compete openly for jobs as economists and professorships. We can evaluate how that works out in about 10 years.
Adam misses the crux of the immigration issue to many: no one is arguing that immigration is bad or wrong. But immigration levels and the decision on who should get visas should be policy decisions made by representatives of the American people. Illegal immigration short-circuits that governance function by imposing an inflow (and costs to society) not agreed to via the democratic process.
All that said, most economists, with their spreadsheets and formulas, have not spent much time in the places where immigration has real affects on citizens. Until they get their hands dirty in the real economy, I'd urge them to quit with their predictable pontificating. Or, I'd offer an experiment to explore the effects of immigration on one sector of the economy by allowing every economist in the world to immigrate to the US and compete openly for jobs as economists and professorships. We can evaluate how that works out in about 10 years.
100
Mass immigration from the Third World is bad and wrong.
3
One of the interesting things about the extraordinary spurt of double digit economic growth in China from 1979 to 2009 was that much of it was driven simply by increasing the number of people in the work force. Huge numbers shifted from unproductive, make-work jobs in state-owned companies or unsalaried subsistence agriculture to productive work in the new market economy. Labor force participation was increased by the entry of many more women. Now that the Chinese work force is shrinking in absolute numbers every year due to the demographic effects of the one-child policy, economic growth is slowing dramatically. The US also has an aging population, but the effects are partially mitigated by immigration, legal and illegal. The effects of being undocumented are terrible for the individuals who are in that status, and for the society as a whole, so we need to fix that. Doing so will be to everyone's benefit.
6
'...The effects of being undocumented are terrible for the individuals who are in that status...'
If that was true, we would not have more illegal immigrants gaming the system every year.
Whatever you reward, you will get more of.
If that was true, we would not have more illegal immigrants gaming the system every year.
Whatever you reward, you will get more of.
1
'...Doing so will be to everyone's benefit...'
As long as we ignore that it has done just the opposite for the American people for the past four decades.
As long as we ignore that it has done just the opposite for the American people for the past four decades.
1
Is there too much distance between the author's perceptions, and realities which are complicated and nuanced?
Here's my experience: in the 1980's, professionals from another global region, not trained in my technical profession, entered it anyway because they could not get American credentials in their original (usually academic or medical) fields. They tutored each other sufficiently to pass tests that were often given to those applying for work in my field. Though not sufficiently skilled or experienced to perform as well as my peers did, once hired they were often retained in the field, in large part because they accepted low salaries, gave each other references and inflated job histories, shared news of job openings, and supported each other after hours to produce work they were supposed to deliver on the job. Their presence in my field diluted salaries, and, because of sub-par work and missed deadlines, created mistrust between those in my field, and the managers and executives who hired them,
Because I've felt long-term negative professional and financial effects due to immigrants who, though professionals, were willing to lie to get ahead, I kind of jump when poked, when immigration is mentioned. Yet I support the President's initiatives, and consider myself to be fair, inclusive, welcoming, and supportive.
Here's my experience: in the 1980's, professionals from another global region, not trained in my technical profession, entered it anyway because they could not get American credentials in their original (usually academic or medical) fields. They tutored each other sufficiently to pass tests that were often given to those applying for work in my field. Though not sufficiently skilled or experienced to perform as well as my peers did, once hired they were often retained in the field, in large part because they accepted low salaries, gave each other references and inflated job histories, shared news of job openings, and supported each other after hours to produce work they were supposed to deliver on the job. Their presence in my field diluted salaries, and, because of sub-par work and missed deadlines, created mistrust between those in my field, and the managers and executives who hired them,
Because I've felt long-term negative professional and financial effects due to immigrants who, though professionals, were willing to lie to get ahead, I kind of jump when poked, when immigration is mentioned. Yet I support the President's initiatives, and consider myself to be fair, inclusive, welcoming, and supportive.
13
Simple question for Mr. Davidson: Does he think it's ok that Southern California Edison is replacing its IT workers with way lower paid H1-Bs?
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/southern-california-edison-...
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2488388/it-outsourcing/h-1b-loophol...
Would Mr. Davidson think its ok if he was replaced with a way lower priced H1B?
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/southern-california-edison-...
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2488388/it-outsourcing/h-1b-loophol...
Would Mr. Davidson think its ok if he was replaced with a way lower priced H1B?
174
I have a simple answer to this. The H1B visa system is ridiculous. It makes much more sense to have an almost completely open border. If this was the case, then it would make no sense to replace staff with "cheaper" immigrant labor, because immigrant labor would not be cheaper. It is cheaper now because the job comes with the added benefit of a visa. If this benefit was no longer provided, then tech workers would compete with each other equally.
2
That is a perfect union issue; I suggest you organize. IT workers have long resisted this even though they are heavily exploited for their dedication and esprit. For thirty years, I logged brutal hours both in development and in operations giving up family and leisure time to meet a deadline or keep a facility up. No overtime, no choice, take one for the team, and attaboy. Until this changes, you are just another replaceable part, so cheaper is better. Blame your colleagues and yourself for not organizing.
2
A few problems with this argument:
1. The commenter is obviously unfamiliar with the Dept. of Labor wage requirements for H1-B visa;
2. It is entirely possible that the replaced workers were overpaid for their skill set. Why shouldn't the labor market be global?
1. The commenter is obviously unfamiliar with the Dept. of Labor wage requirements for H1-B visa;
2. It is entirely possible that the replaced workers were overpaid for their skill set. Why shouldn't the labor market be global?
It would have been nice if this commentary lived up to its title. Mostly it collected some vague opinions. For example, it said immigration is better for the environment because immigrants don't have to travel back and forth to their own country. First, the commentary was not about the environment. Second, if it is going to discuss the environment, then it needs to consider all the factors that affect the environment when one allows illegal immigration.
Anyway, there is never going to be an honest discussion about immigration. The people in power like the cheap labor. The rest don't get a vote.
Anyway, there is never going to be an honest discussion about immigration. The people in power like the cheap labor. The rest don't get a vote.
130
Baffled123, the article does not say ANYTHING like "immigration is better for the environment because immigrants don't have to travel back and forth". Please read and COMPREHEND before you comment! What it says is that immigration is one source of growth that does not add to environmental damage (unlike other sources of growth, such as industrialization).
@Baffled123: I don't know where in America ( no locale indicated) you live, but let me just tell you what the reality is in My area of the Hudson Valley, NY. For farmers in our region, the only agricultural workers willing able to toil in the fields and orchards and dairy farms,are the "immigrant" workers. There are no "native" or as I shall indelicately say "white folks" who will do the work that these farms provide. There are very few local "black folks", racist sounding, I know, who also don't want these jobs ,but true. As a matter of fact, the farmers have to import workers from the Caribbean countries to pick fruit in the fall. Without these willing workers, many of whom have also become construction workers, necessary to fulfill the desires of "weekenders" from"the city" to build their "country houses". We have a proliferation of restaurants and B&Bs catering to many of these visitors, who also need help to do those jobs that locals do not want. This is only a parochial view, I realize, but this is not the only area in our country where this is the new reality. Until we can encourage "self-deportation", as Mitt suggested this is it.
Speaking of the environment, what about the border lands that have been completely trashed by the illegals, including some national parks and/or monuments?
2
I think immigrants on the whole raise the bar for the rest of us. They usually come from places where they had to work very hard to make a lot less. They have the ambition to do better for their families and are risk takers in moving to a foreign place. The population of the best performing public elementary school in our state is over 40% first or second generation immigrant.
There may be some challenges with immigrants, there is a wide variation in their value for education depending on their country of origin for example.
The US has always benefited from immigration. But it would also be unwise to have porous borders. unchecked hiring of undocumented workers or to allow convicted criminals to remain, as was the case before the Obama Administration.
Even with widespread agreement on a path to documented status, there is no action in the GOP House because it is too good a hot button issue to mobilize the 15% nativists. And in states like TX, where less than 25% of eligible voters show up, 15% wins elections.
There may be some challenges with immigrants, there is a wide variation in their value for education depending on their country of origin for example.
The US has always benefited from immigration. But it would also be unwise to have porous borders. unchecked hiring of undocumented workers or to allow convicted criminals to remain, as was the case before the Obama Administration.
Even with widespread agreement on a path to documented status, there is no action in the GOP House because it is too good a hot button issue to mobilize the 15% nativists. And in states like TX, where less than 25% of eligible voters show up, 15% wins elections.
44
This article could not be more wrong.
The global problem is with population growth. The issue was raised by Paul Ehrlich in his famous book, "the Population Bomb," which appeared in 1968, then resurfaced in later books on the environment, such as "Limits to Growth," by Meadows, Meadows and Randers, that appeared in 1974 with subsequent updates.
The problem is that there are too many people on the planet, and the large numbers of people gradually destroy the environment. One consequence is global warming, but there are others, such as gradually declining living standards, particularly in the third world. (An exception is the case of China, which faced with high population density introduced a one-child policy, resulting in phenomenal economic growth in the last several decades.)
In an overpopulated world it is irresponsible for anyone to have more than two children. Overpopulation in the third world causes immense suffering. There are always other proximate causes, but population growth is partially responsible for the genocide in Rwanda, for the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in which children kill other children, and for starvation in parts of Somalia.
Without so much population growth, there would be no need for immigration to the US. People would be able to build up the economies of THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.
The real racists are those who claim that they should have as many children "as they feel like," and the rest of us should just accept it.
The global problem is with population growth. The issue was raised by Paul Ehrlich in his famous book, "the Population Bomb," which appeared in 1968, then resurfaced in later books on the environment, such as "Limits to Growth," by Meadows, Meadows and Randers, that appeared in 1974 with subsequent updates.
The problem is that there are too many people on the planet, and the large numbers of people gradually destroy the environment. One consequence is global warming, but there are others, such as gradually declining living standards, particularly in the third world. (An exception is the case of China, which faced with high population density introduced a one-child policy, resulting in phenomenal economic growth in the last several decades.)
In an overpopulated world it is irresponsible for anyone to have more than two children. Overpopulation in the third world causes immense suffering. There are always other proximate causes, but population growth is partially responsible for the genocide in Rwanda, for the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in which children kill other children, and for starvation in parts of Somalia.
Without so much population growth, there would be no need for immigration to the US. People would be able to build up the economies of THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.
The real racists are those who claim that they should have as many children "as they feel like," and the rest of us should just accept it.
145
Let me preface this reply by saying that my husband and I have only one child. My only sibling has no children. So my little branch of the human family tree is doing its part to downsize.
But reproduction, and control over one's reproductive capacity, is a basic human right. I support legal abortion, because the state doesn't have the right to force a woman to bear a child. By the same principle, the state doesn't have the right to force a woman NOT to have children. You praise China's one-child policy, but how would such a cap be enforced in the U.S.? What happens if a woman gets pregnant anyway? Will "the rest of us" force her to terminate? Sterilize her after one or two births whether she consents or not? That violates one's reproductive autonomy as much as criminalizing abortion.
The total fertility rate in the U.S. as of 2013 was already less than 2 (it was 1.87), so if 2's your goal, we're there. I would prefer to see 1.5 and dropping to 1, but evidently large families are already balanced out by women who have only one child or none. Education and easy access to contraception are what's needed—not "the rest of us" dictating the reproductive use of someone else's body, or making eugenic decisions about who gets to have children.
The dangers of overpopulation are real and urgent. It's telling, however, that the most fearful views about it should arise in immigrant discussions (shouting keep "them" in "their own countries"). That's where racism rears its ugly head.
But reproduction, and control over one's reproductive capacity, is a basic human right. I support legal abortion, because the state doesn't have the right to force a woman to bear a child. By the same principle, the state doesn't have the right to force a woman NOT to have children. You praise China's one-child policy, but how would such a cap be enforced in the U.S.? What happens if a woman gets pregnant anyway? Will "the rest of us" force her to terminate? Sterilize her after one or two births whether she consents or not? That violates one's reproductive autonomy as much as criminalizing abortion.
The total fertility rate in the U.S. as of 2013 was already less than 2 (it was 1.87), so if 2's your goal, we're there. I would prefer to see 1.5 and dropping to 1, but evidently large families are already balanced out by women who have only one child or none. Education and easy access to contraception are what's needed—not "the rest of us" dictating the reproductive use of someone else's body, or making eugenic decisions about who gets to have children.
The dangers of overpopulation are real and urgent. It's telling, however, that the most fearful views about it should arise in immigrant discussions (shouting keep "them" in "their own countries"). That's where racism rears its ugly head.
39
Many folks I have met in third world countries don't have much choice to intellectually evaluate the problems they themselves dwell. Kids are their pensions and health insurance - principle and theorey do not provide shelter, food or warmth. Family looks after family.
These are dirt poor countries, many of which rely on the the money sent home by their emigrating workers as the greatest part of the local economy.
I agree that you have provided a very broad picture of a global problem, but whats your solution?
These are dirt poor countries, many of which rely on the the money sent home by their emigrating workers as the greatest part of the local economy.
I agree that you have provided a very broad picture of a global problem, but whats your solution?
1
The US is the worst place for population growth, whether native- or immigrant-driven. The problem is that the US has the greatest per capita resource use and greenhouse emissions of any major industrialized nation. The average immigrant's greenhouse emissions go up fourfold after arrival here (Center for Immigration Studies, 2008). And immigration is the main driver of the US population explosion, responsible for about 2/3 of the 115 million growth since 1970. (You count not only immigrants but children born to them in the US, after the given date.)
8
The problem is not immigrants, illegal or otherwise. The problem is employers. Employers will often hire illegal immigrants to do the less skilled jobs because they can pay them less and they can abuse them. Employers, particularly the high tech ones, are bringing in immigrants or outsourcing jobs because it's cheaper to hire immigrants or outsource rather than pay Americans. We're told that America has a skills gap. We're told that not enough Americans go for STEM fields. As someone who is in a STEM field, received a degree in the sciences back in 1980, when they were saying the same thing about the sciences, I can state that it's a ploy to get people into those fields, have a glut and then underpay them.
Do I think immigrants add to our country? Yes, they do. Do I think they have a place in our country? Yes, definitely. But I'm tired of hearing the myth that they work harder than we do, are always better than we are, and that we, as native Americans are lazy, useless moochers. Other countries do a better job protecting their citizens and making sure that employers treat employees like human beings. American businesses prefer immigrants who don't know their rights or Americans who are so downtrodden that they don't dare demand anything better.
Do I think immigrants add to our country? Yes, they do. Do I think they have a place in our country? Yes, definitely. But I'm tired of hearing the myth that they work harder than we do, are always better than we are, and that we, as native Americans are lazy, useless moochers. Other countries do a better job protecting their citizens and making sure that employers treat employees like human beings. American businesses prefer immigrants who don't know their rights or Americans who are so downtrodden that they don't dare demand anything better.
265
The reason that it is said that immigrants work harder is not that citizens work less. The reason is something else. An immigrant, of the non-skilled type we are talking about, but perhaps even the semi-skilled ones, has to work harder because of several inherent personal disadvantages, the lack of language, the lack of contacts, ignorance of the system, all those tools that make work easier. Often, he has a low skill job that pays little and he has to do additional work. So we don't need to feel offended by the remark, it does not diminish us.
54
I agree with that but when employers use that as an excuse not to hire Americans it's galling.
48
" The problem is employers."
Yes, and the number of H1B visas that issued and requested every year by those very same employers. Americans with technical training loose jobs to immigrants who work for less and often stay without having gone through the normal process.
I get it that the TIMES thinks all Americans are racists and that we have forgotten our past and that this nation is build on immigration. I am a second generation American and some of my extended family died in a country overthrown by a mass-murdering dictator. Compared to the DAR and the Mayfower people I'm just a kid washed ashore in the latest storm.
We continue to tout the fact that we are a nation of laws, but lately it is getting very difficult to prove that. No doubt the 1% approve of immigration, legal or not, because it provides the fodder for their economic war on the average citizen.
Yes, and the number of H1B visas that issued and requested every year by those very same employers. Americans with technical training loose jobs to immigrants who work for less and often stay without having gone through the normal process.
I get it that the TIMES thinks all Americans are racists and that we have forgotten our past and that this nation is build on immigration. I am a second generation American and some of my extended family died in a country overthrown by a mass-murdering dictator. Compared to the DAR and the Mayfower people I'm just a kid washed ashore in the latest storm.
We continue to tout the fact that we are a nation of laws, but lately it is getting very difficult to prove that. No doubt the 1% approve of immigration, legal or not, because it provides the fodder for their economic war on the average citizen.
18
If anything has convinced me that I am right, as a Democrat, to oppose illegal immigration, it is this article.
"People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country."
Seriously? First of all, it's a blanket assertion that if you oppose illegal immigration--or, in the writer's convolution "immigration" overall--you must be in the lower classes.
But since when do Democrats ignore anything that does not harm them directly? Since when do we say--hey, I'm OK, fend for yourself.
Second, this article propagates the "trickle up" theory of illegal immigration that has yet to be proven anywhere by anyone.
If millions of poorly educated people doing low-skilled work opened up millions of higher paying ancillary jobs, our middle class would be booming. Instead, it's disappearing. And what used to be well-paying union jobs now pay low-skill wages, with millions competing for them.
In addition, there's the fantasy that those who used to do less-skilled work are now "freed up" to do higher paying work requiring higher level skills, which illegal immigrants don't possess.
That requires us to believe that people have intentionally been doing lower-paying work, requiring less skills than they possess, simply "because." It defies reason.
"People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country."
Seriously? First of all, it's a blanket assertion that if you oppose illegal immigration--or, in the writer's convolution "immigration" overall--you must be in the lower classes.
But since when do Democrats ignore anything that does not harm them directly? Since when do we say--hey, I'm OK, fend for yourself.
Second, this article propagates the "trickle up" theory of illegal immigration that has yet to be proven anywhere by anyone.
If millions of poorly educated people doing low-skilled work opened up millions of higher paying ancillary jobs, our middle class would be booming. Instead, it's disappearing. And what used to be well-paying union jobs now pay low-skill wages, with millions competing for them.
In addition, there's the fantasy that those who used to do less-skilled work are now "freed up" to do higher paying work requiring higher level skills, which illegal immigrants don't possess.
That requires us to believe that people have intentionally been doing lower-paying work, requiring less skills than they possess, simply "because." It defies reason.
302
"People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country."
Of course not. It's fine to sip your latte and pat yourself on the back for your "compassion" while poorer Americans take the actual hit for it. But witness the hissies in this paper when the costs of illegal immigration actually effets them - ie in the form of free college tuition for those here illegally. I'd make a bet that not many of this clutch of economists aren't living the dream at the bottom of the income scale either.
"In addition, there's the fantasy that those who used to do less-skilled work are now "freed up" to do higher paying work requiring higher level skills, which illegal immigrants don't possess."
I've seen this meme around a few times lately, firstly from a libertarian economist. I've yet to see a link to a research source for it though. Without one, i can only conclude that the assertion is either speculative or anecdoctal.
Also, any statistics and projections with regard to the economic benefits of illegal immigration is more than a bit disingeneous and useless without an accurate asessment and realistic projection of the costs.
Of course not. It's fine to sip your latte and pat yourself on the back for your "compassion" while poorer Americans take the actual hit for it. But witness the hissies in this paper when the costs of illegal immigration actually effets them - ie in the form of free college tuition for those here illegally. I'd make a bet that not many of this clutch of economists aren't living the dream at the bottom of the income scale either.
"In addition, there's the fantasy that those who used to do less-skilled work are now "freed up" to do higher paying work requiring higher level skills, which illegal immigrants don't possess."
I've seen this meme around a few times lately, firstly from a libertarian economist. I've yet to see a link to a research source for it though. Without one, i can only conclude that the assertion is either speculative or anecdoctal.
Also, any statistics and projections with regard to the economic benefits of illegal immigration is more than a bit disingeneous and useless without an accurate asessment and realistic projection of the costs.
10
Siobhan: I stand and applaud you for this post. I wish I could recommend it 1000 times. This author is so pathetically ignorant of reality in the US, it's like he lives in a soap bubble somewhere.
Mr. Davidson is a highly paid NPR journalist and speaker, who earns generous fees from places like BOA and Goldman Sachs. I rather doubt that illegal immigrants from Mexico are competing for (and under bidding) his job at NPR. On the other hand, I wonder if he employs any illegal nannies. housecleaners or yardmen! Because I have noticed that many people in favor of illegal immigration are (perhaps secretly) benefitting from it in that way.
Mr. Davidson is a highly paid NPR journalist and speaker, who earns generous fees from places like BOA and Goldman Sachs. I rather doubt that illegal immigrants from Mexico are competing for (and under bidding) his job at NPR. On the other hand, I wonder if he employs any illegal nannies. housecleaners or yardmen! Because I have noticed that many people in favor of illegal immigration are (perhaps secretly) benefitting from it in that way.
17
No, that thinking is completely wrong.
First, the problem many Americans face is not immigration, legal or illegal, but the lack of jobs, or more precisely, lack of jobs with the benefits that they would like. The job marker was pretty tight even a few years ago with more immigrants in the country. The lack of jobs is NOT the result of immigration but of other factors. That natural experiment provides as good a proof as one can ever get in the social sciences.
Second, many immigrants have been here for years and have roots. They can never be turned out. "Deportation" can perhaps destroy a few (hundred thousand) families but it will never succeed as a policy. it's one of such policies (e.g. the 'war on drugs') whose implementation creates many more problems than not and that can never be carried out, to boot. So, what to do? Anti-immigrationists have no sensible answer.
Pro-immigration reform is sensible and good policy, and the decent and human thing to do.
First, the problem many Americans face is not immigration, legal or illegal, but the lack of jobs, or more precisely, lack of jobs with the benefits that they would like. The job marker was pretty tight even a few years ago with more immigrants in the country. The lack of jobs is NOT the result of immigration but of other factors. That natural experiment provides as good a proof as one can ever get in the social sciences.
Second, many immigrants have been here for years and have roots. They can never be turned out. "Deportation" can perhaps destroy a few (hundred thousand) families but it will never succeed as a policy. it's one of such policies (e.g. the 'war on drugs') whose implementation creates many more problems than not and that can never be carried out, to boot. So, what to do? Anti-immigrationists have no sensible answer.
Pro-immigration reform is sensible and good policy, and the decent and human thing to do.
4