Hillary Clinton wants to offer a path to citizenship to those who are living here illegally. Once a person becomes a citizen, he or she can petition for their parents to get green cards. Green cards would entitle the parents to move here legally and to claim all of sorts of expensive government benefits such as medical care and housing.
Some people advocate for illegal immigrants without realizing what an additional burden their parents would make on our country. We are already 20 trillion dollars in debt. Do we want to end up an economic basket case, like Greece?
Some people advocate for illegal immigrants without realizing what an additional burden their parents would make on our country. We are already 20 trillion dollars in debt. Do we want to end up an economic basket case, like Greece?
28
A fire in a city of Seattle owned subsidized 25 unit apartment building Tuesday revealed one of the hidden costs of immigration: virtually all of the residents are immigrants, from east Africa, Asia, etc. So while Seattle and other cities struggle to find housing for a tragically burgeoning homeless population, our tax resources are being further tapped to house immigrants who are supposed to be benefitting "The economy".
I am one of the people who benefit from immigration, being a person with investments, and a professional in a field that few immigrants compete in. While I want some level of immigration to continue, I do feel that I have a greater responsibility to look out for the interests of my fellow citizens than those of immigrants.
I suggest that people like me, and business owners, who benefit from cheap labor ought to be taxed to provide services for these immigrants, as well as for the workers they have displaced, or have reduced wages for. It's only fair, isn't it?
I am one of the people who benefit from immigration, being a person with investments, and a professional in a field that few immigrants compete in. While I want some level of immigration to continue, I do feel that I have a greater responsibility to look out for the interests of my fellow citizens than those of immigrants.
I suggest that people like me, and business owners, who benefit from cheap labor ought to be taxed to provide services for these immigrants, as well as for the workers they have displaced, or have reduced wages for. It's only fair, isn't it?
21
Starting with my generation, the Baby Boomers, America stopped making real things and real people. The white Boomers outsourced both to various ethnic and racial groups. Trump is just the irrational backlash to that.
4
it depends, of course, on which "us" you're referring to. if you're wealthy then no; if you're poor, then yes. but this disparity runs more or less across the societal board.
i do think that the big us—the USA, us—would be temporarily well served with a decline in immigration levels. there are too many people chasing too few jobs, and this disparity is tearing—really shredding—the fabric of our society.
i do think that the big us—the USA, us—would be temporarily well served with a decline in immigration levels. there are too many people chasing too few jobs, and this disparity is tearing—really shredding—the fabric of our society.
19
Edsall is commended for his efforts to inform us of both sides of the debate, but he knows which way the wind is blowing, and illegal immigration is the wave of the present and the future.As l'oncle Raoul would say, with his fatalistic outlook on life,and if he were here,"C'est ainsi!" In Buenos AIRES,where I am still on the trail of those who took part in the "guerra sucia,"there r so many homeless migrants camping out in the Plaza de MAYO, that u can barely see the Casa Rosada.Unofficially, ARGENTINA has an open borders policy, evident everywhere u look.Sitting in a cafe, a "chiquita" from an immigrant family will go to each table with a scribbled note, "una moneda,"and majority give something.Government subsidizes many of the foreigners, yet will not extend veterans' benefits and recognition to "soldados rasos" who fought in the Falklands, and many of whom, badly wounded and unable to work, depend on their fellow "companeros"for the necessities of life.I know many of them, have been to their homes, and admire their stoicism their grace under pressure.U meet one who is confined to a wheelchair, having lost a leg, and it's you who feel infirm. Yet they r not a priority for Macri or his predecessors.To return to Edsall's article, he can quote statistics and opposing arguments all he wishes, but the end result will be a rise in illegal immigration and and an increase in the marginalization of the American worker. This is a trend that will not be contained.
3
Wall, E-Verify, deport entire family, end DACA, end Sanctuary Cities, ICE in every jail. In Trump's second term we can start talking about a plea deal.
17
So - if we agree that immigrants are valuable - let's try a hypothetical.
Given a fixed target for annual immigration - do you target:
a. Professionals, Dr's engineers, scientists from around the world; or
b. Grade 3 graduates who speak no english and will work in quasi-legal jobs and are here illegally.
Wow - that is a really tough choice.
Given a fixed target for annual immigration - do you target:
a. Professionals, Dr's engineers, scientists from around the world; or
b. Grade 3 graduates who speak no english and will work in quasi-legal jobs and are here illegally.
Wow - that is a really tough choice.
15
The AAAS is an organization of scientists who work in fields such as chemistry, biology, and physics. They are not social workers, teachers, or others who professionally interact with illegal immigrants. Scientists are unaware of all of the government and private programs that help illegal immigrants. Therefore, they have not included the cost of these programs. The cost of illegal immigrants is much higher than the incredibly high number that the scientists reached.
To illustrate this, the AAAS should list the programs it counted in this newspaper. Then the public could add all of the ones it did not know about. The costs would sky rocket.
To illustrate this, the AAAS should list the programs it counted in this newspaper. Then the public could add all of the ones it did not know about. The costs would sky rocket.
9
Unlike many states, California, for more than 30 years, has required equalized funding state-wide for K-12 education, paid by state-wide income taxes, which have been reaching ever higher rates.
In 2012, the Democrats pushed through a supposedly "temporary" additional state-wide income tax that was "dedicated" to provide additional funding -- i.e. funding on top of the already equalized share -- for school districts (above all, Los Angeles) with high concentrations of "English-language learners" -- i.e. children from Spanish-speaking households, mostly headed by immigrants, largely illegal immigrants.
Supposedly, this was going to help these Spanish-speaking children do better,
not only in English but also in math and science.
However, so far, the "results" have proven "disappointing", to say the least,
despite the "supplemental" funding their schools have received above and beyond their equal share.
So now, the state Democrats are pushing to double down and extend this supposedly "temporary" tax to continue to provide the additional funding to school districts with large concentrations of Spanish-speaking children supposedly in order to help them learn English, let alone math and science.
To paraphrase Socialist Lincoln Steffens after visiting Soviet Russia in 1919,
"I have seen the future...," and it speaks Spanish, and it needs ever more taxpayer money.
In 2012, the Democrats pushed through a supposedly "temporary" additional state-wide income tax that was "dedicated" to provide additional funding -- i.e. funding on top of the already equalized share -- for school districts (above all, Los Angeles) with high concentrations of "English-language learners" -- i.e. children from Spanish-speaking households, mostly headed by immigrants, largely illegal immigrants.
Supposedly, this was going to help these Spanish-speaking children do better,
not only in English but also in math and science.
However, so far, the "results" have proven "disappointing", to say the least,
despite the "supplemental" funding their schools have received above and beyond their equal share.
So now, the state Democrats are pushing to double down and extend this supposedly "temporary" tax to continue to provide the additional funding to school districts with large concentrations of Spanish-speaking children supposedly in order to help them learn English, let alone math and science.
To paraphrase Socialist Lincoln Steffens after visiting Soviet Russia in 1919,
"I have seen the future...," and it speaks Spanish, and it needs ever more taxpayer money.
24
Deporting someone for crossing the border illegally, even after they have lived and worked here for years and contributed to the country, even if they were brought in minor incapable giving consent, is like revoking someone's driver's license for life when he is caught parking in a no-parking zone.
Nobody says that a speeder is being given amnesty when he is allowed to drive away after being given a ticket.
Yes it should be difficult and expensive for an illegal immigrant to obtain legal status. It should not be impossible. There should be a way to do it.
Nobody says that a speeder is being given amnesty when he is allowed to drive away after being given a ticket.
Yes it should be difficult and expensive for an illegal immigrant to obtain legal status. It should not be impossible. There should be a way to do it.
5
The test of a good "economy" is not the "growth" of total GDP.
The test of a good "economy" is the growth of GDP per capita.
Of course, more immigrants mean more people.
More people usually mean more total GDP.
But that does not mean more GDP per capita.
Immigration may lead to a bigger economic pie.
But that does not mean that the slices get bigger.
In fact, usually, the slices get smaller,
because the supposed "growth" gets eaten up by more people.
That contrasts with other phenomena that might or might not "grow" total GDP:
various kinds of fiscal policies,
(including both various kinds of spending "programs"
and various kinds of taxation policies),
various kinds of monetary polices,
various kinds of banking policies,
various kinds of economic regulation,
various kinds of trade policies,
various kinds of employment policies,
(including various kinds of retirement polices),
various kinds of spending on armed forces,
various kinds of policies for education, health and technology.
None of those other phenomena require more people.
In contrast, immigration always means more people.
So, with immigration, unlike the other phenomena,
the resulting growth in total GDP (if any)
must be divided up among more people.
Just compare India and Australia:
India has a bigger total GDP.
But also far, far more people,
and consequently a much much smaller GDP per capita.
Is there any doubt which of the two has a better "economy"?
The question answers itself.
The test of a good "economy" is the growth of GDP per capita.
Of course, more immigrants mean more people.
More people usually mean more total GDP.
But that does not mean more GDP per capita.
Immigration may lead to a bigger economic pie.
But that does not mean that the slices get bigger.
In fact, usually, the slices get smaller,
because the supposed "growth" gets eaten up by more people.
That contrasts with other phenomena that might or might not "grow" total GDP:
various kinds of fiscal policies,
(including both various kinds of spending "programs"
and various kinds of taxation policies),
various kinds of monetary polices,
various kinds of banking policies,
various kinds of economic regulation,
various kinds of trade policies,
various kinds of employment policies,
(including various kinds of retirement polices),
various kinds of spending on armed forces,
various kinds of policies for education, health and technology.
None of those other phenomena require more people.
In contrast, immigration always means more people.
So, with immigration, unlike the other phenomena,
the resulting growth in total GDP (if any)
must be divided up among more people.
Just compare India and Australia:
India has a bigger total GDP.
But also far, far more people,
and consequently a much much smaller GDP per capita.
Is there any doubt which of the two has a better "economy"?
The question answers itself.
6
It is quite clear that increased immigration has negative economic consequences for the American poor. It is great for upper class folks looking to hire low cost help. That is why it is so popular with NYT readers.
15
While we complain about government policy, let's recognize that there are things each of us can do to discourage illegal immigration. How many of us ask contractors that we hire if they only use documented workers? How many of us ask to their proof? How many of us hire domestic help for home services such as landscaping or cleaning and ask the provider if they are legally documented? How many of us are involved with organizations, such as homeowners, that hire services, and insist that they are all documented workers?
Like me, I'll bet that most of us avoid asking those questions. But we as consumers can start spreading a legal immigration culture tomorrow, if we believe our own rhetoric.
Like me, I'll bet that most of us avoid asking those questions. But we as consumers can start spreading a legal immigration culture tomorrow, if we believe our own rhetoric.
3
In common with all progressive policies, allowing illegal immigration advantages the rich over the poor. The limousine liberals get low cost household help, the businesses that use unskilled labor get higher profits. The working class gets lower wages.
17
Let me give you three examples of the contribution of immigrants to the US, and how Americanization of their children reverses their good to outstanding immigrant values that benefits the US.
E,g. (1) Mr. Rahami came to the US as a refugee, worked hard, started his own small business and used the American system, of laws, rights and freedom, to fight against any discrimination that might have hurt him. His son, on the other hand. bred all his childhood, adolescence and adulthood in the US, takes to bombing to express his anger, rage or political opinions.
92) The Pulse nightclub shooter's father is an immigrant who has not been arrested for anything, other than his eccentric political views (which is allowed in the US). But his American son went on a shooting rampage killing over 40 people.
3) Educated immigrants from all over Asia are some of the brightest, most creative, innovative and/or productive people in the US...and give more than they get from the US (including my wife).
4) But we do have to be careful about some growing organized crimes, fed by immigrants (legal and illegal) from certain parts of the world: Central America, Northern South America, East Africa (especially Nigeria, Uganda..), etc. These are places where illegal trafficking in weapons, narcotic, diamonds, banned items like ivory, trafficking in women and children, trafficking in people, internet fraud, etc. are rampant. They are coming into the US through immigrants from these countries.
E,g. (1) Mr. Rahami came to the US as a refugee, worked hard, started his own small business and used the American system, of laws, rights and freedom, to fight against any discrimination that might have hurt him. His son, on the other hand. bred all his childhood, adolescence and adulthood in the US, takes to bombing to express his anger, rage or political opinions.
92) The Pulse nightclub shooter's father is an immigrant who has not been arrested for anything, other than his eccentric political views (which is allowed in the US). But his American son went on a shooting rampage killing over 40 people.
3) Educated immigrants from all over Asia are some of the brightest, most creative, innovative and/or productive people in the US...and give more than they get from the US (including my wife).
4) But we do have to be careful about some growing organized crimes, fed by immigrants (legal and illegal) from certain parts of the world: Central America, Northern South America, East Africa (especially Nigeria, Uganda..), etc. These are places where illegal trafficking in weapons, narcotic, diamonds, banned items like ivory, trafficking in women and children, trafficking in people, internet fraud, etc. are rampant. They are coming into the US through immigrants from these countries.
5
it is not valid to bunch together legal and illegal immigration !
Illegal immigrants do NOT contribute - period ! sure they work and produce goods and provide services but for the most part they do not pay taxes or contribute to social security , they depress wages by working for less than american workers and they displace especially low and uneducated americans by taking jobs they normally would fill , they accumulate billions of unpaid hospital bills every year - much more than all uninsured americans combined - and the cost of educating their children is not offset by tax contributions !
in addition illegals drain billions of $ from our economy by sending a big chunk of the money they make back to mexico , money that is never spend in the US
Illegal immigrants do NOT contribute - period ! sure they work and produce goods and provide services but for the most part they do not pay taxes or contribute to social security , they depress wages by working for less than american workers and they displace especially low and uneducated americans by taking jobs they normally would fill , they accumulate billions of unpaid hospital bills every year - much more than all uninsured americans combined - and the cost of educating their children is not offset by tax contributions !
in addition illegals drain billions of $ from our economy by sending a big chunk of the money they make back to mexico , money that is never spend in the US
14
The Elite may like to talk pompously about removing borders and allowing "freedom" of movement, but do not be deceived.
The New Elite Agenda is actually for the replacement of "national borders" (over which the stinking mass of citizens might have exercised some control) with "private borders" which the Elite themselves may control at their own discretion.
The Elite do not intend to rub shoulders with the crowds, the riff-raff, the plebs. Not at all! THEY will retreat to their private mansions, their private country estates, their private gated communities, all surrounded by private borders sporting "KEEP OUT! Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted." signs.
Private property borders are of course defensible only with the support of a state which defends private property rights.
The New Elite Agenda is to limit the state to providing just such private property rights (for the benefit of the Elite) while ensuring the rest of the citizenry have little if any say in their destiny.
The Modern Era - and the 20th century in particular - were an anomaly. The ideals of the Modern Era, especially the notions of democracy and national self-determination, were an aberration.
Stripped of its ephemera, human history until the Modern Era was a story of aggressively narcissistic, machiavellian psychopaths competing (sometimes collaborating) to attain power then using that power to dominate and brutalise their fellow human beings.
We are returning to "normal".
We are being "refeudalised".
The New Elite Agenda is actually for the replacement of "national borders" (over which the stinking mass of citizens might have exercised some control) with "private borders" which the Elite themselves may control at their own discretion.
The Elite do not intend to rub shoulders with the crowds, the riff-raff, the plebs. Not at all! THEY will retreat to their private mansions, their private country estates, their private gated communities, all surrounded by private borders sporting "KEEP OUT! Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted." signs.
Private property borders are of course defensible only with the support of a state which defends private property rights.
The New Elite Agenda is to limit the state to providing just such private property rights (for the benefit of the Elite) while ensuring the rest of the citizenry have little if any say in their destiny.
The Modern Era - and the 20th century in particular - were an anomaly. The ideals of the Modern Era, especially the notions of democracy and national self-determination, were an aberration.
Stripped of its ephemera, human history until the Modern Era was a story of aggressively narcissistic, machiavellian psychopaths competing (sometimes collaborating) to attain power then using that power to dominate and brutalise their fellow human beings.
We are returning to "normal".
We are being "refeudalised".
12
IMMIGRANTS Generate many more taxpayer dollars than they require over the long run. So I say, let's bring in all the immigrants we can so we can earn more tax dollars and make both the country and the government run better. Over time, a number of studies show that immigrants pay more in taxes than the amount they cost in social services. The pattern is clearly not uniform. In a large city like Philly, there are largely immigrant areas where there is extreme food insecurity and social programs require an overall input of funds. But there is also a high tech sector of immigrant workers who pay significant taxes on their high wages to offset the cost to social programs of those who are less fortunate.
3
Trump knows the value of immigration to the American economy--after all the entire hotel industry is built on the backs of immigrants. That little fact, which is a big fact for Trump's huge wallet will play a significant role if he ever reaches the White House---"oh, that immigration policy, as soon as my Attorney General Christie gets that nasty little indictment out of the way, we will be all over this issue."
3
Americans think of Immigration in terms of vote getting
4
What about the cost to social cohesion. There is nothing wrong with diversity, there is, however, a major cost to pay in mutli-culturalism. Either you have a dominant culture and agreed upon way of living, or you have chaos, suspicion, disconnectedness and social isolation. The difference today versus the late 19th and early 20th centuries is that we don't promote a sense of "Americanism" anymore. Not to mention that we don't have the need for vast pools of labor in manufacturing that we used to.
16
Maybe a better way of distinguishing these diametrically opposed groups, would be to refer to "legal immigrants" as immigrants, and the illegals as invaders. This would help to clear up the misunderstanding that so many, including the NYT, seem to have.
13
One result of lower wages being paid for manual and other types of labor, where immigrants now thrive, is to create a disincentive for work generally. Lower wages, which look good to a single Mexican immigrant living in group housing here, don't pay enough to support even a small American family. When the wages stay low, millions of America lose the value of work and, overtime, can become disconnected and outright lazy. This attacks a fundamental American value: the willingness to work at any job you can find to support and better yourself.
Cheap politicians say immigrants are doing work that American born citizens don't want to do. In some cases, this might be true, but if the wages were 20 or 30 dollars an hour, people would be breaking down doors to sign up. Undocumented immigrants help to keep wagers lower.
Another unreported phenomenon is the "smuggling" in of foreign workers. I don't have documented proof, but I have seen evidence that American companies are bringing in hundreds of thousands of workers taking jobs that would otherwise go at higher pay to native born. Some companies have a majority of immigrants from India and elsewhere doing work in office and it is fair to assume they didn't all get here on their own. It is all about keeping profits high and growing.
Seasonal work that used to go to young people now features temporary immigrants from Russia, Australia, eastern Europe and elsewhere. The full story is largely unknown and is barely reported.
Cheap politicians say immigrants are doing work that American born citizens don't want to do. In some cases, this might be true, but if the wages were 20 or 30 dollars an hour, people would be breaking down doors to sign up. Undocumented immigrants help to keep wagers lower.
Another unreported phenomenon is the "smuggling" in of foreign workers. I don't have documented proof, but I have seen evidence that American companies are bringing in hundreds of thousands of workers taking jobs that would otherwise go at higher pay to native born. Some companies have a majority of immigrants from India and elsewhere doing work in office and it is fair to assume they didn't all get here on their own. It is all about keeping profits high and growing.
Seasonal work that used to go to young people now features temporary immigrants from Russia, Australia, eastern Europe and elsewhere. The full story is largely unknown and is barely reported.
12
What Does Immigration Actually Cost Us?
Nothing, because everything is free, right?
Nothing, because everything is free, right?
8
Creating jobs for high school dropouts does not seem like a winning economic proposition. We need to understand why students are dropping out and address those issues, first and foremost.
The mill towns in New England, where I grew up, started going dark decades before any wave of immigration, post WWII. Their American factory owners up and left their old buildings and workforce behind.
Some us are trying to blame immigration for a basic problem that is integral to American society: inequality. Inequality of opportunity, inequality of education, and inequality of compensation for labor.
Build a wall and those problems are still there.
The mill towns in New England, where I grew up, started going dark decades before any wave of immigration, post WWII. Their American factory owners up and left their old buildings and workforce behind.
Some us are trying to blame immigration for a basic problem that is integral to American society: inequality. Inequality of opportunity, inequality of education, and inequality of compensation for labor.
Build a wall and those problems are still there.
3
Donald Trump is labeled xenophobic for his Border Wall proposal, but Hillary Clinton agrees with Trump on the need for a border barrier. They differ in regards to architecture and funding. Hillary voted for a comprehensive immigration bill that, if passed, would have directed Homeland Security to implement a “Southern Border Fencing Strategy, adding 700 miles of fencing to the already existing Border Fence. After the bill failed, Hillary said “It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of fencing within 18 months.” During her present campaign, Hillary said "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders." Hillary’s Border Fence would serve the same purpose as Donald’s Border Wall. So why isn’t she labeled xenophobic
11
Which us are we talking about? Because most of us really don't benefit from the massive importation of unskilled Latinos who don't speak English and only come here to make a quick buck.
22
As we see the primary complaints are bout cost, and the villain is the undocumented mother. When the question should be, what are the gains. As usual these whiner seem to think only in terms of cost.
They are cheapskates, petty little people who think they are paying too much for everything, and most of whom do not have a pit to hiss in.
The question is, do they, or do they not contribute to the economy. They come here to work at jobs most Americans can't or are unable to do.
Work goes where the jobs are, and those who have learned to get along without all the goodies to make a better life for themselves.
They are cheapskates, petty little people who think they are paying too much for everything, and most of whom do not have a pit to hiss in.
The question is, do they, or do they not contribute to the economy. They come here to work at jobs most Americans can't or are unable to do.
Work goes where the jobs are, and those who have learned to get along without all the goodies to make a better life for themselves.
1
You repeat the common misconception. Illegal "immigrants" most certainly do jobs Americans will do, have done, and still do in areas of the country that haven't been overrun by illegal "immigrants": all the construction trades, tree trimming, meat packing, food and hospitality.
8
Immigration bashing is an effective way of diverting attention from real causes and real solutions to job loss and income disparity.
As long as Trump and the Republicans can divert attention by emotional appeals, real solutions like tax reform, better trade deals, infrastructure investment, health care reform and educational investment will remain off the table.
As long as Trump and the Republicans can divert attention by emotional appeals, real solutions like tax reform, better trade deals, infrastructure investment, health care reform and educational investment will remain off the table.
3
That is absolutely correct.
"Immigration bashing is an effective way of diverting attention from real causes and real solutions to job loss and income disparity."
Illegal immigration is what is mainly criticized and it is very important to distinguish it from people who immigrate with permission from the country.
"real solutions like tax reform, better trade deals, infrastructure investment, health care reform and educational investment will remain off the table. "
I have listened to Trump speech and he has addressed all of these areas."
"tax reform": Reduce corporate rate to 15%. This makes sense to me. We want companies to repatriate money, and choose U. S. as the preferred location so we can have more jobs and the personal income tax revenue they create.
"Better Trade Deals": This is a major theme for Trump. He does not talk about TPP as the gold standard.
"Health Care Reform"; Repeal and replace the ACA.
"Educational Investment": School choice and no common core.
John
3
If the US will take 50 Million poor people, what do you think will happen to the income inequality in the US? Only 3rd grade math is required to answer.
8
Excellent parsing out of information, but after reading through it, the evidence appears to be saying that the negative wage effect of illegal immigration amounts to very little. Whereas the positives related to GDP, lower costs to consumers, and "greasing the wheels of the economy' more than make up for the low wages of high school drop-outs who face a host of other limiting factors. Add to that the irony that the folks most vocally against Immigration Reform are the white landowners who stand to benefit the most from immigrant labor (like Trump). Yet Edsall seems to conclude that minorities should be blaming Democrats for these marginal effects, when Democrats are the only party creating programs to lift families out of poverty, with job training, affordable healthcare and college assistance.
4
Employers pay themselves too. If they pay themselves the reduced wages they don't have to pay to employees, the average wage won't change. The median wage will change. It will decline.
A median is not the same thing as an average.
A median is not the same thing as an average.
1
"when Democrats are the only party creating programs to lift families out of poverty, with job training, affordable healthcare and college assistance. "
Perhaps the best antipoverty program is opportunity and not wealth transfer in the form of benefits you mentioned. The affordable healthcare act has made health care more costly for most families. And look what government college assistance has done to tuition inflation.
Perhaps the best antipoverty program is opportunity and not wealth transfer in the form of benefits you mentioned. The affordable healthcare act has made health care more costly for most families. And look what government college assistance has done to tuition inflation.
4
I ask, where in the world can Americans just walk into any country and demand that they provide citizenship, medical care, education, housing, etc.? Where?
46
What a joke. Not once in this article does it say whether they're talking about legal vs illegal immigrants, but it implies that they're talking about illegal immigrants. Now instead of illegal aliens, then undocumented immigrants, NYT wants to just call everyone immigrants and see if we notice.
There is a HUGE difference in costs to society if an immigrant is illegal. I'm very liberal and disgusted with this obsession to push illegal immigrants on us. They are breaking the laws. Why really are NYT and others trying to convince us that it's ok to let anyone to take advantage of the US?
There is a HUGE difference in costs to society if an immigrant is illegal. I'm very liberal and disgusted with this obsession to push illegal immigrants on us. They are breaking the laws. Why really are NYT and others trying to convince us that it's ok to let anyone to take advantage of the US?
43
Rebecca - "Why really are NYT and others trying to convince us that it's ok to let anyone to take advantage of the US?"
Illegal aliens are NOT taking advantage of the US, but they are certainly taking advantage of American taxpayers.
Illegal aliens are NOT taking advantage of the US, but they are certainly taking advantage of American taxpayers.
4
Any editorial that fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration is worthless. Elites benefit from cheap labor. The rest of us, forced to deal with with virtually uneducated people who never learn much English, have kids they dumb into the school district without paying much in taxes and work off the books would entirely beg to differ.
In short we really don't need Latino peasants with five kids and a third grade education. We should be allowed to say they should be deported without being accused of being fundamentally bad people.
In short we really don't need Latino peasants with five kids and a third grade education. We should be allowed to say they should be deported without being accused of being fundamentally bad people.
35
Total costs for immigrants must be considered.
Supposedly erudite "studies" touted by the pro-immigrant crowd invariably either fail to include all these costs or they disingenuously shove the costs into fine print footnotes or appendices that get overlooked (intentionally or negligently) by pro-immigrant media and politicians touting the portions of the studies that supposedly show the benefits of immigration.
What are these omitted or overlooked costs that ought to be considered?
Here are some of them:
Costs for state and local governments, as well as the federal government,
Costs for impacts on infrastructure such as roads and parks and police and fire.
Costs for all members of households headed by immigrants,
including costs for their "citizen" children.
Long-term costs for immigrants when they reach retirement age and begin drawing on Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Costs for governments to provide services in languages other than English.
Costs imposed by law on non-governmet entities to provide services in languages other than English.
Costs imposed by law on non-government entities (such as hospitals) to provide services to persons who cannot pay (including immigrants, legal and illegal) who cannot pay.
Finally, for comparison, the all net costs (plus or minus) for immigrants and their families need to be set side-by-side with all net costs (plus or minus) for citizens (including credit for Social Security and Medicare taxes paid in past years).
Supposedly erudite "studies" touted by the pro-immigrant crowd invariably either fail to include all these costs or they disingenuously shove the costs into fine print footnotes or appendices that get overlooked (intentionally or negligently) by pro-immigrant media and politicians touting the portions of the studies that supposedly show the benefits of immigration.
What are these omitted or overlooked costs that ought to be considered?
Here are some of them:
Costs for state and local governments, as well as the federal government,
Costs for impacts on infrastructure such as roads and parks and police and fire.
Costs for all members of households headed by immigrants,
including costs for their "citizen" children.
Long-term costs for immigrants when they reach retirement age and begin drawing on Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Costs for governments to provide services in languages other than English.
Costs imposed by law on non-governmet entities to provide services in languages other than English.
Costs imposed by law on non-government entities (such as hospitals) to provide services to persons who cannot pay (including immigrants, legal and illegal) who cannot pay.
Finally, for comparison, the all net costs (plus or minus) for immigrants and their families need to be set side-by-side with all net costs (plus or minus) for citizens (including credit for Social Security and Medicare taxes paid in past years).
17
Sam Finn--Who's going to pay YOUR Social Security benefits, or support your Medicare, or help pay for an infrastructure overhaul? The millennial crowd is even bigger that the boomers, and they are having even fewer children. So, who's going to help pay for these necessary expenses, when the time comes? For that matter, WHO is going to pay to ship all these people back where they came from? You DO know that most of these people entered the US in 2007, during the Bush Administration right? And, that more people are leaving, today, than coming in, yes? No, I didn't think so.
1
Another important thing to consider -- we would have massive food shortages without immigrants to harvest our crops. A few years back, after complaints that "immigrants were taking all our jobs," Pacific Northwest growers made a point of trying to hire American citizens to harvest their crop. The American workers lasted literally one day before walking off the job.
3
Only 3% of all illegal aliens work in agriculture and two thirds of all agricultural workers are LEGAL immigrants,
What do you think has happened to their wages because of the massive influx of illegal aliens over the past five decades?
Care to hazard a guess? Or don't they matter?
What do you think has happened to their wages because of the massive influx of illegal aliens over the past five decades?
Care to hazard a guess? Or don't they matter?
10
So logically they should pay people without legal recourse less money to do the job that citizens are unwilling to do?
6
Illegal farmworkers have been organizing to demand higher wages, and to prevent growers from hiring cheaper illegal workers. They have successfully sued blueberry growers here in Washington.
If the growers are going to pay more for farm labor, they could attract more citizens than the ones who are already working in the fields. If they do not want to pay more or are unable to do so, they could ask the federal government to make it easier for them to bring temporary workers in from Mexico.
If the growers are going to pay more for farm labor, they could attract more citizens than the ones who are already working in the fields. If they do not want to pay more or are unable to do so, they could ask the federal government to make it easier for them to bring temporary workers in from Mexico.
7
The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration report and your column about the issue are very timely. I am reasonably confident that this will be an important topic in the next Presidential debate. I have not had time to read the report to determine if the rate of immigration was discussed. In previous scholarly discussions that looked at the historical waves of immigration there were findings that a rapid rate caused heightened anxiety in the receiving society.
The immigration rate and cultural differences (language, religious worship behavior and personal characteristics like skin and hair color and texture, eye shape, even body build) seem to make a difference. As everyone knows culture changes very slowly so a rapid rate of immigration seems to create a higher level of anxiety and a consequent resistance to new residence.
I personally believe that these cultural factors play a more important role than economicor the fiscal consequences of immigration factors.
In the commentary and in the statements of Mr. Trump the question of illegality comes up quite often but from my experience the definition of legal seems somewhat to only concern itself with the numbers and the reasons. A good example is "political refugees" puts an immigrant at the head of the line to become an American citizen.
Remember the Cuban Boat lift, the flood of refugees from Viet-Nam and the Iranian revolution. This created new legal citizens.
The immigration rate and cultural differences (language, religious worship behavior and personal characteristics like skin and hair color and texture, eye shape, even body build) seem to make a difference. As everyone knows culture changes very slowly so a rapid rate of immigration seems to create a higher level of anxiety and a consequent resistance to new residence.
I personally believe that these cultural factors play a more important role than economicor the fiscal consequences of immigration factors.
In the commentary and in the statements of Mr. Trump the question of illegality comes up quite often but from my experience the definition of legal seems somewhat to only concern itself with the numbers and the reasons. A good example is "political refugees" puts an immigrant at the head of the line to become an American citizen.
Remember the Cuban Boat lift, the flood of refugees from Viet-Nam and the Iranian revolution. This created new legal citizens.
2
oops, resistance to new residents.
A great article. I look forward to your column after the 2nd debate.
A great article. I look forward to your column after the 2nd debate.
I've responded to a couple of the posts, but feel compelled to add a bit more (some of it already stated in other comments).
This has been going on. all around the world, since the birth of the human race. Nomadic hunter-gatherers went wherever they needed to go to survive.
After the birth of civilization and the rise of agrarian settlements and then cities, entire populations relocated to places that were more fertile, had more open/available space, and/or less violence/competition, etc. Which brings me to the point stated by some others: that's a great deal of the reason Europeans started coming to the New World in the first place. And now, with the technological advances, globalized business/communication/trade, and so on of the last few decades, we've seen massive immigration to "better places", apparently most popular among them the US.
We're all immigrants. Every stinking one of us, save the native americans, are descended from or first generation immigrants. If we wanted to go back to pre-historic times, even the native americans immigrated here from Asia...
This has been going on. all around the world, since the birth of the human race. Nomadic hunter-gatherers went wherever they needed to go to survive.
After the birth of civilization and the rise of agrarian settlements and then cities, entire populations relocated to places that were more fertile, had more open/available space, and/or less violence/competition, etc. Which brings me to the point stated by some others: that's a great deal of the reason Europeans started coming to the New World in the first place. And now, with the technological advances, globalized business/communication/trade, and so on of the last few decades, we've seen massive immigration to "better places", apparently most popular among them the US.
We're all immigrants. Every stinking one of us, save the native americans, are descended from or first generation immigrants. If we wanted to go back to pre-historic times, even the native americans immigrated here from Asia...
4
There are lots of interesting points in the article.
It is said that it's a problem that immigrants consume more services than they pay for in taxes. Does that include sales and real estate taxes either directly or through a landlord? Isn't the same true for Trump and the other Nobles who pay no taxes at all?
Without immigrants the US population growth would be nil which would stifle economic growth.
The objectionable immigrants are usually Mexican. Keep in mind that most of the West was part of Mexico and many coming north have indigenous ancestors. It's really more an issue of a right to return than immigration.
The California agricultural and tourist economy would fall apart without immigrants. Working in the fields is not an option for native born who have no experience in agriculture. Many Mexicans came here after NAFTA made their small scale farming uneconomic.
It is said that it's a problem that immigrants consume more services than they pay for in taxes. Does that include sales and real estate taxes either directly or through a landlord? Isn't the same true for Trump and the other Nobles who pay no taxes at all?
Without immigrants the US population growth would be nil which would stifle economic growth.
The objectionable immigrants are usually Mexican. Keep in mind that most of the West was part of Mexico and many coming north have indigenous ancestors. It's really more an issue of a right to return than immigration.
The California agricultural and tourist economy would fall apart without immigrants. Working in the fields is not an option for native born who have no experience in agriculture. Many Mexicans came here after NAFTA made their small scale farming uneconomic.
2
None of your assertion are true. Most of the west was only Mexican for a brief moment in time. The California economy is drowning in unskilled labor that hurts everyone there who is not an illegal. Most illegals do not work in the field but rather take jobs that Americans are happy to do just not at the lousy wages being offered.
8
Before Columbus arrived, the people who lived in what is today Mexico (such as the Aztecs and the Maya) were distinct from those who lived in what is today the United States. Mexico does not have a pre-Columbian claim on a part of our country.
Spain took control of the combined areas. During that time, some Mexicans came north. When the U.S. gained control, it recognized their individual land claims, and many of their descendants live in New Mexico.
But most of the Mexicans who are living in the United States are not descended from people who lived here before the U.S. took over. It is not an issue of "a right to return". You are rewriting history to say so.
Spain took control of the combined areas. During that time, some Mexicans came north. When the U.S. gained control, it recognized their individual land claims, and many of their descendants live in New Mexico.
But most of the Mexicans who are living in the United States are not descended from people who lived here before the U.S. took over. It is not an issue of "a right to return". You are rewriting history to say so.
5
What is never discussed is the cost of educating the children of immigrants. Many are born here and are automatically US citizens regardless of the legal/illegal status of their parents. Therefore the cost of educating them is not attributed to immigration. But this is disingenuous at best. Immigrants serve capital not labor. Get real about this. If you work for money rather than having your money work for you immigrants are most likely not an economic benefit for you.
20
The Academy comes down on the side of pro-immigration .... "The inflow of labor supply has helped the United States avoid the problems facing other economies that have stagnated as a result of unfavorable demographics, particularly the effects of an aging work force and reduced consumption by older residents. In addition, the infusion of human capital by high-skilled immigrants has boosted the nation’s capacity for innovation, entrepreneurship, and technological change."
Is the US struggling with an old population and no population growth? No. Millennials make up the largest portion of the population and they are NOT old.
Is the US finding an infusion of human capital by high-skilled immigrants? No. The US is overcome with low skilled immigrants - the reason why so many in states with high (illegal) immigration enjoy cheap childcare, house cleaning, and yard workers. These are not innovative or highly -skilled people. While most work hard and long hours, they do not and will not make good salaries; they will continue to require government subsidies. They come for this in the form of education, healthcare, and housing.
Where is the discussion about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?!!!! That is the impact most of us citizens are unhappy about. Come on NYTimes!! Stop your propaganda.
Is the US struggling with an old population and no population growth? No. Millennials make up the largest portion of the population and they are NOT old.
Is the US finding an infusion of human capital by high-skilled immigrants? No. The US is overcome with low skilled immigrants - the reason why so many in states with high (illegal) immigration enjoy cheap childcare, house cleaning, and yard workers. These are not innovative or highly -skilled people. While most work hard and long hours, they do not and will not make good salaries; they will continue to require government subsidies. They come for this in the form of education, healthcare, and housing.
Where is the discussion about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?!!!! That is the impact most of us citizens are unhappy about. Come on NYTimes!! Stop your propaganda.
34
> Where is the discussion about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?!!!!
Legalize all immigration.
Legalize all immigration.
1
Why legalize all immigration? We don't need these people. Worse still, they deliberately broke our laws. Send them home and let their own governments take care of them!
10
Orwell couldn't have done it better. An "illegal alien" became an "illegal immigrant" became an "undocumented immigrant" became an "immigrant without papers" until finally emerging as an "immigrant", you know, the very fabric of this country.
39
One question for Mr.. Trump: Have you ever waited on line for anything?
1
I could care less about Trump.
What I care about is the USA.
And whether he wins or loses,
the best thing about him is that he has put immigration front and center,
right where it belongs.
"Waiting in line"?
You bet:
I have waited in line --for hours and hours --
at the UCLA Harbor Medical Center ER room,
right in the heart of "south central" LA,
which, during the past 30 years has changed from predominantly black to predominantly Latino --
yes, waiting for hours and hours at UCLA Harbor Medical Center,
with hundreds and hundreds of people speaking Spanish --
a good chunk of whom are no doubt illegal or children of illegals,
and the rest of whom may be legal immigrants (by hook or by crook) but who are predominantly unskilled, low-wage or unemployed, and therefore cannot pay,
but who, according to the federal EMTALA must be taken care of there,
regardless of their ability to pay,
and the result is that the UCLA white hats (the doctors and the nurses)
of course to not provide their treatment for free (despite their idolized image) --
--- no, they remain on full salary,
and the costs for their salaries gets shoved onto
the paying patient -- who of course are "disproportionately" Americans.
And, btw, while "EMT" in "EMTALA" means "emergency medical treatment",
the "AL" means "active labor" -- i.e. poor immigrant mothers -- many illegal -- receiving free health care for delivery of their anchor babies.
What I care about is the USA.
And whether he wins or loses,
the best thing about him is that he has put immigration front and center,
right where it belongs.
"Waiting in line"?
You bet:
I have waited in line --for hours and hours --
at the UCLA Harbor Medical Center ER room,
right in the heart of "south central" LA,
which, during the past 30 years has changed from predominantly black to predominantly Latino --
yes, waiting for hours and hours at UCLA Harbor Medical Center,
with hundreds and hundreds of people speaking Spanish --
a good chunk of whom are no doubt illegal or children of illegals,
and the rest of whom may be legal immigrants (by hook or by crook) but who are predominantly unskilled, low-wage or unemployed, and therefore cannot pay,
but who, according to the federal EMTALA must be taken care of there,
regardless of their ability to pay,
and the result is that the UCLA white hats (the doctors and the nurses)
of course to not provide their treatment for free (despite their idolized image) --
--- no, they remain on full salary,
and the costs for their salaries gets shoved onto
the paying patient -- who of course are "disproportionately" Americans.
And, btw, while "EMT" in "EMTALA" means "emergency medical treatment",
the "AL" means "active labor" -- i.e. poor immigrant mothers -- many illegal -- receiving free health care for delivery of their anchor babies.
7
Gosh, this is news? I did a critical thinking unit on immigration when I was in university 15 years ago and found numerous papers and studies saying just what this one does. Can we just accept that immigration, and particularly illegal immigration, is a boon to many small business owners and professional people seeking nannies and gardeners, and a detriment to blue collar types, particularly semi-skilled and unskilled workers? No 23 year old Guatemalan woman is ever going to take Mr. Edsall's, or Nick Kristoff's, or Roger Cohen's job, so they can afford to advocate for greater societal largess in regard to immigrants and refugees. It would be nice if the Times at least tried to look at if it were presenting all sides of this issue, but I guess given the paper's new FOX news of the left model that's asking too much.
26
Does the writer or anyone know how many years a legal immigrant has to wait for their green card ? They come here legally pay their taxes (even to social security which they are not even guaranteed). Why does the immigration debate always start with fixing the illegal immigrants problem ? Why is there no conversation on overhauling the current immigration system ? For starters, the current annual employment based immigration green cards are split by the number of countries in the world. Genius right ! World's majority of the population is in China and India, so now you have a backlog of more than decades for people who are here legally from China and India. Do the electoral brass even realize that in this immigration juggernaut people are stuck to same jobs because once you have applied for your green card, you have to be in the same position till you get the green card. My friends this is what I call discrimination. It is unfair. Do a data analysis for the folks who have come here legally, these are well educated, highly paid engineers doctors who want a better life (like anyone else as a human). Wont we as a society not treat them fair when we pander for votes for people who have been here illegally, who have broken law and in the name of humanity and mercy try to empathize with the illegal immigration problem ? I think the priority should be
1) Fix the legal immigration backlog.
2) Overhaul immigration to a merit and a need based program.
1) Fix the legal immigration backlog.
2) Overhaul immigration to a merit and a need based program.
8
Simply not true.
1
We really don't owe anyone the right to move here.
7
There is -- and ought to be -- a line for legal immigration.
America has every right to control immigration,
and that includes controls on the numbers who are allowed legally each year,
and the right to determine what those numbers are,
including total numbers,
and the right to divide up the allowed total number among various categories
(e.g. skill-based or family-based)
with numerical limits on each category.
If the line is long, that simply means that more people want to come here than America decides it wants to have here.
America has no duty to accept more than it wants.
Those who come here illegally are line-jumpers,
-- whether or not their reason is "for a better life",
they are line-jumpers, pure and simple.
For years, America has granted more than one million "green cards" annually -- -- --- the right to legal permanent residence --
far more generous than any other country -
not to mention hundreds of thousands of "temporary resident" visas for study and work -- a very large chunk of whom are able to eventually convert their supposedly "temporary" status directly into citizenship (bypassing the LPR green card stage),
not to mention birthright citizenship for all children born to all immigrants, whether legal or illegal or whether permanent or temporary, without limit, but in fact ranging upwards of half a million annually.
America has every right to control immigration,
and that includes controls on the numbers who are allowed legally each year,
and the right to determine what those numbers are,
including total numbers,
and the right to divide up the allowed total number among various categories
(e.g. skill-based or family-based)
with numerical limits on each category.
If the line is long, that simply means that more people want to come here than America decides it wants to have here.
America has no duty to accept more than it wants.
Those who come here illegally are line-jumpers,
-- whether or not their reason is "for a better life",
they are line-jumpers, pure and simple.
For years, America has granted more than one million "green cards" annually -- -- --- the right to legal permanent residence --
far more generous than any other country -
not to mention hundreds of thousands of "temporary resident" visas for study and work -- a very large chunk of whom are able to eventually convert their supposedly "temporary" status directly into citizenship (bypassing the LPR green card stage),
not to mention birthright citizenship for all children born to all immigrants, whether legal or illegal or whether permanent or temporary, without limit, but in fact ranging upwards of half a million annually.
5
Nothing is more absurd than the restrictions on the Dreamers. The NAS Study clearly states that the economic benefits to the nation from the SECOND generation, i.e. the Dreamers, is a big economic positive.
These young people whose situation is a result of no fault of their own, are educated, and ready to contribute positively to the nation. it is simply mean and spiteful, and also contrary to the national interest to keep them in limbo indefinitely.
The GOP has no justification at all for their dogged opposition to regularizing the status of the Dreamers--except of course that they might vote for Democrats if they ever became citizens--a possibility that becomes more real as the Dreamers realize that Republicans hate them.
These young people whose situation is a result of no fault of their own, are educated, and ready to contribute positively to the nation. it is simply mean and spiteful, and also contrary to the national interest to keep them in limbo indefinitely.
The GOP has no justification at all for their dogged opposition to regularizing the status of the Dreamers--except of course that they might vote for Democrats if they ever became citizens--a possibility that becomes more real as the Dreamers realize that Republicans hate them.
2
>benefits to the nation
The nation is an idea, not an individual human. Humans can be benefited because they are alive. Ideas are not alive, thus cant be benefited. Immigrants benefit individuals with their production.
The nation is an idea, not an individual human. Humans can be benefited because they are alive. Ideas are not alive, thus cant be benefited. Immigrants benefit individuals with their production.
We are not keeping them here. They can always go back home. Allowing them citizenship only encourages more people we don't really need to come here and break our laws in hopes of getting the same deal. Many of the so-called Dreamers are Latino nationalists with no loyalty to this country and very few skills.
8
My taxes certainly benefit to these 2nd generation illegal immigrants, who in large numbers show up at school requiring their own interpreter, special ESL classes, outreach programs...
9
If I wanted a national policy on immigration -- or anything -- I very much doubt I would ask someone who never had any experience in government or public policy and has never demonstrated any interest in the subject except to the degree he personally benefits.
We don't do public policy by casting lots.
We don't do public policy by casting lots.
3
Well perhaps it doesn't make for good immigration policy but we do - kind'a make public policy by casting lots. They are called ballots.
3
Every one of these immigration studies combines legal and illegal immigration and looks at the costs and benefits of immigration. And none of these studies considers the costs of kids born here because, as long as we continue to have the lunacy of Birthright Citizenship, the kids are US citizens, not immigrants, legal or illegal. Yet they only exist in this country, and collect entitlements in this country, costing the US taxpayer, because of the illegal entry and presence of their parents. The costs of the entire families should be considered in any cost/benefit analysis.
29
Overpopulation is overtaxing our resources and with robots taking more jobs in our near future, illegal immigration will exponentially add to more serious problems in our country. Clean water, enough energy to heat homes, and our over dependence on the mid-east for oil will only grow if overpopulation isn't addressed and illegal immigration will only grow as well.
19
> overtaxing our resources
Resources are virtually infinite, increasing as the product of man's independent mind. Only a tiny part of our planet is currently resources. Its 8000 mi to the core...
Resources are virtually infinite, increasing as the product of man's independent mind. Only a tiny part of our planet is currently resources. Its 8000 mi to the core...
1
"The academy found, for example, that the willingness of less-skilled immigrants to work at low pay reduced consumption costs — the costs to consumers of goods and services like health care, child care, food preparation, house cleaning, repair and construction — for millions of Americans. This resulted in “positive net benefits to the U.S. economy during the last two decades of the 20th century.” These low-wage workers simultaneously generated “a redistribution of wealth from low- to high-skilled native-born workers.”
Wow, this almost sounds like a solid argument for reducing or eliminating the minimum wage.
Wow, this almost sounds like a solid argument for reducing or eliminating the minimum wage.
17
The answer to this question should be resolved by simply opening up the border to whomever and in whatever numbers would like to immigrate from anywhere in the world. Perhaps even provide an assistance program to get them here. Of course, they should be given the opportunity to work and health/unemployment benefits if they cannot find jobs. Lets say 100 million choose to come, although I think that would be an underestimate. It would provide a real life test. Everyone knows what the answer would be without this study.
I would hope that a sufficient number of highly trained economists would choose to come along to give the sad group that put out this report some wage competition. Based on the quality of the document, some of these losers may be later competing with the guys who come around in the truck and do anything for almost nothing. But it is not these economists who are at the present time competing with people who will work for almost nothing.
I respect a system of legal immigration and the people who come here. I also respect the hard work that illegals are willing to do, but I do not accept that we should allow the lawless system of letting hundreds of thousands each year illegally enter or stay over past their legal visit time. It makes a mockery of our laws, our principles and our sense of fairness for the others who patiently wait for legal entry.
I would hope that a sufficient number of highly trained economists would choose to come along to give the sad group that put out this report some wage competition. Based on the quality of the document, some of these losers may be later competing with the guys who come around in the truck and do anything for almost nothing. But it is not these economists who are at the present time competing with people who will work for almost nothing.
I respect a system of legal immigration and the people who come here. I also respect the hard work that illegals are willing to do, but I do not accept that we should allow the lawless system of letting hundreds of thousands each year illegally enter or stay over past their legal visit time. It makes a mockery of our laws, our principles and our sense of fairness for the others who patiently wait for legal entry.
21
I think you raise a good point. It hardly makes sense to let illegals come so they have to risk their lives to get here, and then say it's a humanitarian attitude to let them stay. If we're going to let them come, we should help them come and make it safe. The current attitude is: "We'll let some people risk their lives. That way not too many people will come, and it won't be a heavy burden on our system. And then we'll tell them how great it is for them to be here."
Not everybody is cut out to go to college. We need people to do manual work, and many of our citizens need those jobs. By allowing immigrants to take them illegally, we benefit, as I think the article showed, the people with college educations and take from those without. Unless America is going to become a country of all college-educated people, hardly possible, this is recipe for trouble.
I agree we need immigrants. As long as this is a country that high-skilled people want to come to, we will be okay. The biggest risk to America now is guns. If gun violence continues to proliferate, many of those talented people may not want to come here anymore. As well as many of the "low skilled" (really differently skilled) workers. That will raise the wages of differently skilled Americans, but make the country poorer as a whole.
What I'm getting at is that we must pursue policies of both sensible immigration control and sensible gun control. We need to become a more cooperative society. Cooperation means making sure workers get fair wages; it also means not "taking the law into our own hands" as the NRA advocates.
Liberals need to recognize the importance of immigration control. It won't be very effective to increase the minimum wage if employers can find someone else to work for less under the table.
I agree we need immigrants. As long as this is a country that high-skilled people want to come to, we will be okay. The biggest risk to America now is guns. If gun violence continues to proliferate, many of those talented people may not want to come here anymore. As well as many of the "low skilled" (really differently skilled) workers. That will raise the wages of differently skilled Americans, but make the country poorer as a whole.
What I'm getting at is that we must pursue policies of both sensible immigration control and sensible gun control. We need to become a more cooperative society. Cooperation means making sure workers get fair wages; it also means not "taking the law into our own hands" as the NRA advocates.
Liberals need to recognize the importance of immigration control. It won't be very effective to increase the minimum wage if employers can find someone else to work for less under the table.
11
I am so bone tired of the imaginary left/right ideological divide in our country. "The left says...", "The right says..." This kind of argument presumes that these two sides actually have coherent positions (they don't) and that somehow or another ideology is behind it (it isn't).
Take the Republicans (please!). They actually have looked the other way while immigration exploded because it suited their clients, the merchant class and that of industrialized farm operations in need cheap labor. Where would the country be without low wage restaurant workers? Making less profit for the owners, that's where.
As for the Democrats, their argument mainly is not about future immigration but what can be done with the millions here at present. They are entirely correct to say that dumping that many people on planes back to home nations would be very difficult, expensive and disruptive. They leave out this: what about the future? Does their position mean that any large enough group can rush our borders and win acceptance by what amounts to mass law breaking?
Immigration has both positive and negative economic effects. For one thing, we are helping to build a better, richer Mexico with money sent home which, in the long term, could benefit us, too. There is no doubt that immigrants help to keep wages down where they compete for work (supply and demand) and there can be no doubt that too much immigration can threaten the social and cultural balance of a nation. It's complicated.
Take the Republicans (please!). They actually have looked the other way while immigration exploded because it suited their clients, the merchant class and that of industrialized farm operations in need cheap labor. Where would the country be without low wage restaurant workers? Making less profit for the owners, that's where.
As for the Democrats, their argument mainly is not about future immigration but what can be done with the millions here at present. They are entirely correct to say that dumping that many people on planes back to home nations would be very difficult, expensive and disruptive. They leave out this: what about the future? Does their position mean that any large enough group can rush our borders and win acceptance by what amounts to mass law breaking?
Immigration has both positive and negative economic effects. For one thing, we are helping to build a better, richer Mexico with money sent home which, in the long term, could benefit us, too. There is no doubt that immigrants help to keep wages down where they compete for work (supply and demand) and there can be no doubt that too much immigration can threaten the social and cultural balance of a nation. It's complicated.
8
> It's complicated.
Modern man is lost without principles. Man's independent mind integrates the concretes of the economy, theoretically and practically.
Modern man is lost without principles. Man's independent mind integrates the concretes of the economy, theoretically and practically.
We desperately need new thinking on employment and pay for lower-skilled, less-educated workers. Whether they are immigrants or not is almost irrelevant. The far larger problem is that not everyone is suited to going to college. Anyone who works in higher ed, especially in community colleges or less selective baccalaureate institutions, has seen students who had zero chance of degree completion. Most of those will flunk out, often after spending a lot of money on numerous remedial classes. When an adult reads at a sixth grade level, there is no way they will finish college, even with a lot of extra help.
So what do we do with those people? Assuming the research cited here is right, and automation is a far larger culprit in job loss than immigration, we can expect more and more low skill jobs to be taken by robots. Not everyone can become a programmer (and if they did, wages for programmers would plummet due to oversupply). What do we do then? Accept a large, permanent underclass? Come up with a national guaranteed minimum income? Expect the government to be the employer of last resort? If so, who pays for those programs? Do we start taxing or penalizing employers for eliminating jobs through automation? We need our policy wonks to be addressing the real elephant in the room (automation) and coming up with solutions to the fact that every year, more people's labor is simply not needed.
So what do we do with those people? Assuming the research cited here is right, and automation is a far larger culprit in job loss than immigration, we can expect more and more low skill jobs to be taken by robots. Not everyone can become a programmer (and if they did, wages for programmers would plummet due to oversupply). What do we do then? Accept a large, permanent underclass? Come up with a national guaranteed minimum income? Expect the government to be the employer of last resort? If so, who pays for those programs? Do we start taxing or penalizing employers for eliminating jobs through automation? We need our policy wonks to be addressing the real elephant in the room (automation) and coming up with solutions to the fact that every year, more people's labor is simply not needed.
7
Profits from automation will be invested in new production requiring more workers. Youre a Luddite who evades the vast increase in textile and clothing workers after steam replaced hand labor. In capitalism,. there is always more work as independent minds use freedom to innovate and produce. Our govt controlled economy
So we don't know what to do with less skilled people and the answer is to import yet more of them here? Really? How does that make sense?
6
No, I am not a Luddite. I'm a well-educated white collar professional who has noticed that not only are blue collar manufacturing jobs being eliminated by automation, but so are white collar ones. Accountants, lawyers, college professors, and doctors who read and interpret medical data are all being displaced by automation too. Meanwhile, businesses that benefit are hoarding cash, not investing it in expansion. Tell me, if automation puts us all out of jobs, why should businesses invest in new production since no one will have money to buy their products? What if increasing production doesn't mean hiring more workers, it just means buying more servers? It's a fact that the fastest growing occupations in the US are jobs like home health aide, which are difficult to automate but pay very little. So how do the benefits of automation flow to the workers who have lost good-paying jobs to robots and been stuck taking low end service work that pays a fraction of what they made before?
2
So many factors have influenced the polarization between the parties that to attribute the trends in the Poole-Rosenthal data to immigration seems, frankly, simplistic. Polarization fell after the Great Depression as the Republicans were forced to accept popular fundamental reforms like Social Security. Then came World War II where partisan conflict was put aside in order to fight a common enemy. When Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 Presidential nomination Republicans were again forced to accept a larger role for government. The passage of civil rights legislation joined together liberals from both parties and drove racist whites to the Republicans as LBJ expected and Nixon exploited.
But no event since the War changed the trajectory of partisan politics more than the election of Ronald Reagan with his "government is the problem" nonsense. Do you really want to argue that the election of Reagan was the result of rising immigration? Or was it Reagan's consolidation of growing anti-black and anti-feminist sentiment with traditional Republican free-market ideologies? I don't see immigration as a major influence on developments in American politics after 1976.
You'll notice, by the way, that all of the recent polarization took place on the Republican side of the aisle. The Democratic Party hardly moved at all on the Poole-Rosenthal scale while the GOP went off the deep end (http://voteview.com). Showing the change in the mean distance hides this important fact.
But no event since the War changed the trajectory of partisan politics more than the election of Ronald Reagan with his "government is the problem" nonsense. Do you really want to argue that the election of Reagan was the result of rising immigration? Or was it Reagan's consolidation of growing anti-black and anti-feminist sentiment with traditional Republican free-market ideologies? I don't see immigration as a major influence on developments in American politics after 1976.
You'll notice, by the way, that all of the recent polarization took place on the Republican side of the aisle. The Democratic Party hardly moved at all on the Poole-Rosenthal scale while the GOP went off the deep end (http://voteview.com). Showing the change in the mean distance hides this important fact.
3
" The passage of civil rights legislation joined together liberals from both parties and drove racist whites to the Republicans as LBJ expected and Nixon exploited. "
IT wasn't the voting rights legislation, it was the racial gerrymandering instituted afterwards that drove lower middle class whites from the Democratic Party. Throw in a Model Cities program here and there and the Democratic Party left the coalition that saw the New Deal programs become law.
IT wasn't the voting rights legislation, it was the racial gerrymandering instituted afterwards that drove lower middle class whites from the Democratic Party. Throw in a Model Cities program here and there and the Democratic Party left the coalition that saw the New Deal programs become law.
Most of the jobs in any economy do not require a PhD.If everyone in the US finished High School, got a college, law, business or STEM degree there would still only be a several million positions for these workers. So accusing Americans of not getting enough education, being lazy is just a rhetorical debate trick.The question that is being dodged is this. Does this nation and its majority of citizens really believe that perhaps 90% of Americans do not deserve a living wage for doing most of the work that enables our civilization to exist - because our 1% can lure 10's of millions of mostly illiterate, the functional equivalent of slaves, into this country? Every year more kinds of jobs are swamped either by desperate immigrants or outsourced to China and Mexico, then those jobs added to the growing list of jobs that supposedly "Americans won't do" - because they no longer pay a living wage. This does effectively take jobs from Americans! And the greedy and contemptuous of the most of us who are not in professional class 10% actually claim to be holier than thou moralists by saying they are open borders "equalizing" wages in the world? Well what that Cosmopolitan equalization dogma Utopia lie really means is they are reducing most Americans to the same no rights slave worker status as the majorities of the oppressed in the 3rd world. And precisely why is that considered progress when it also enables the authoritarian leaders who oppress most of the 3rd world to stay in power?
14
I think we will probably need to be willing to pay more for food and some other products and services so that our citizens will produce them. As I said in my own comment, liberals (I am one) need to recognize the need for better immigration control. It won't do much good to raise the minimum wage if employers can hire someone for less under the table.
12
I call illegal immigration "insourced outsourcing". The jobs stay here but the illegal workers come in to do them. This is worse than outsourcing. If a job goes overseas, we pay for the product when it comes in. If we produce the product here with illegal "immigrant" workers, paid less than it takes to get a legal worker, we end up paying for the entire family via entitlements.
16
I will not go into the argument of whether immigrants help or hurt the economy and pros or cons of legal vs. illegal immigrants. There are ample comments here. However, I would like to point out that there are erstwhile highly successful countries which are now in imminent decline because they do not have any immigration (legal or illegal) - Japan is a prime example. It is a graying nation. Japanese companies are collapsing. The remaining young people are fleeing the country to work in Korea or China. The question is - do we want to be like Japan and fade away into obscurity?
Another point to note is that while we all would like legal immigration, most countries and their populations would never allow laws to be passed to enable legal immigration in reasonable numbers. Immigration has always happened because people "elbowed their way in". This is similar to promotions in the workplace. Nobody ever gets anything if they don't aggressively ask for it.
Another point to note is that while we all would like legal immigration, most countries and their populations would never allow laws to be passed to enable legal immigration in reasonable numbers. Immigration has always happened because people "elbowed their way in". This is similar to promotions in the workplace. Nobody ever gets anything if they don't aggressively ask for it.
6
Would you rather be a graying nation of self sufficient folks or a growing nation of entitlement collectors? Increasing population, in itself, is not beneficial.
10
Japan does have a growing immigrant population from China and the Philippines. Many are also illegal.
1
Japan's "economy" is not in "decline".
The test of a good "economy" is not the "growth" of total GDP.
The test of a good "economy" is the growth of GDP per capita.
Of course, more immigrants mean more people.
More people usually mean more total GDP.
But that does not mean more GDP per capita.
Immigration may lead to a bigger economic pie.
But that does not mean that the slices get bigger.
In fact, usually, the slices get smaller,
because the supposed "growth" gets eaten up by more people.
That contrasts with other phenomena that might or might not "grow" total GDP:
various kinds of fiscal policies,
(including both various kinds of spending "programs"
and various kinds of taxation policies),
various kinds of monetary polices,
various kinds of banking policies,
various kinds of economic regulation,
various kinds of trade policies,
various kinds of employment policies,
(including various kinds of retirement polices),
various kinds of spending on armed forces,
various kinds of policies for education, health and technology.
None of those other phenomena require more people.
In contrast, immigration always means more people.
So, with immigration, unlike the other phenomena,
the resulting growth in total GDP (if any)
must be divided up among more people.
Just compare India and Australia:
India has a far bigger total GDP.
But also far more people,
and consequently a much smaller GDP per capita.
Is there any doubt which of the two has a better "economy"?
The test of a good "economy" is not the "growth" of total GDP.
The test of a good "economy" is the growth of GDP per capita.
Of course, more immigrants mean more people.
More people usually mean more total GDP.
But that does not mean more GDP per capita.
Immigration may lead to a bigger economic pie.
But that does not mean that the slices get bigger.
In fact, usually, the slices get smaller,
because the supposed "growth" gets eaten up by more people.
That contrasts with other phenomena that might or might not "grow" total GDP:
various kinds of fiscal policies,
(including both various kinds of spending "programs"
and various kinds of taxation policies),
various kinds of monetary polices,
various kinds of banking policies,
various kinds of economic regulation,
various kinds of trade policies,
various kinds of employment policies,
(including various kinds of retirement polices),
various kinds of spending on armed forces,
various kinds of policies for education, health and technology.
None of those other phenomena require more people.
In contrast, immigration always means more people.
So, with immigration, unlike the other phenomena,
the resulting growth in total GDP (if any)
must be divided up among more people.
Just compare India and Australia:
India has a far bigger total GDP.
But also far more people,
and consequently a much smaller GDP per capita.
Is there any doubt which of the two has a better "economy"?
5
Like you, and most of the people who read this comment, my ancestors were all immigrants.
Immigration is a very complex issue for many reasons, and dealing with it will require that we ALL compromise on a number of our personal 'absolutes'. I don't like doing that any more than most people do, but compromise lies at the core of civilization, and it’s the glue that's held our country together since day one.
The United States has always been an experiment in democracy. For our democracy to thrive (or even continue), those who haven't done so will need to acknowledge -- and stop -- the destructive tribalism and racism that have been gaining strength here, particularly since the election of our first President with dark skin. If we could all just concentrate on our shared humanity and common interests, we would heal the tribal-racial, self-destructive disease that afflicts our politics, and make it much easier to accept the compromises needed to solve America's immigration problem... and many others.
Immigration is a very complex issue for many reasons, and dealing with it will require that we ALL compromise on a number of our personal 'absolutes'. I don't like doing that any more than most people do, but compromise lies at the core of civilization, and it’s the glue that's held our country together since day one.
The United States has always been an experiment in democracy. For our democracy to thrive (or even continue), those who haven't done so will need to acknowledge -- and stop -- the destructive tribalism and racism that have been gaining strength here, particularly since the election of our first President with dark skin. If we could all just concentrate on our shared humanity and common interests, we would heal the tribal-racial, self-destructive disease that afflicts our politics, and make it much easier to accept the compromises needed to solve America's immigration problem... and many others.
8
The US already has citizens from practically every tribe on the planet. If we can't work out how to get all to coexist constructively here, it bodes ill for the future of the Earth.
4
The real tribalism comes from Latinos who only want most illegals here because such people are Latino.
6
I don't care if the net cost is zero! I'm just asking that they come here legally!
30
As an immigrant, I understand the concerns of native-born citizens. I came here legally. I never harbored the ideology of taking away your jobs, income or any of the things that most Americans feel entitled to. I know that competition might take you out of your comfort zone. Don't worry, we all have been there: the internal feeling of uncertainty when we encounter a foreign person with equal or superior skills competing for the same position that we want. To overcome the fear of immigration, we need to acknowledge that the world is embracing international trade and the movement of talent across borders. Those who adapt and improve their skills will be able to rip the benefits of a growing market. Those who decide to stick and romanticize with industrialization era rhetorics will perish.
There will always be minuses and pluses in terms of immigration. But to look at the long-term pros and cons of the issue, one has to take a look at the past and ask: where would America stand if no immigrants were allowed to be part of this country?
There will always be minuses and pluses in terms of immigration. But to look at the long-term pros and cons of the issue, one has to take a look at the past and ask: where would America stand if no immigrants were allowed to be part of this country?
13
The test of what is good today for America (or any other country) is not automatically what was good 100 or 200 years ago.
4
The original Native Americans would have flourished in peace and harmony with nature without the European invasion forces, diseases, land grabs, broken treaties and general decimation of their cultures. Also, without European, land-grabbing plantation owners in search of free labor, the East India Company would not have been able to set up and profit from their evil triangular slave trade.
1
The report (very expensive if your library doesn't have access) deliberately ignores most of the issues of illegal immigration. The political hacks, very deliberately, mischarachterize Trump and supporters against immigration, when the truth is that they're opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.
27
The thing that is lost in this discussion seems to be that the problem is not the immigrants themselves. The problem is that we have a CORRUPT SYSTEM that abuses both the immigrants as well as American workers.
The immigrants (like prior generations) come to the U.S. seeking refuge or a better life. The problem is (as it ALWAYS has been) is that unscrupulous business people seek to use this system to their own benefit at the cost of all the other stakeholders.
The focus on "balance of payments" in the economy is a distraction. The real problem is who is benefiting and who is losing. And, it is the CAPITAL OWNERS that are always benefiting regardless of what happens to the economy overall.
The immigrants (like prior generations) come to the U.S. seeking refuge or a better life. The problem is (as it ALWAYS has been) is that unscrupulous business people seek to use this system to their own benefit at the cost of all the other stakeholders.
The focus on "balance of payments" in the economy is a distraction. The real problem is who is benefiting and who is losing. And, it is the CAPITAL OWNERS that are always benefiting regardless of what happens to the economy overall.
11
How about owners of NYT considering hiring some much cheaper no-name, no-status, no-nothing reporters (more or less) to write some or most of articles instead of all these above-and-beyond liberal deities currently scribing. Then, I'd like to hear out Edsall, Kristof, Krugman, Friedman, Blow etc.
21
One need only look at the title of the "study" to know it is biased. The issue is illegal immigration, not immigration.
24
It seems easy enough to offset the small cost of first-generation immigrants- just tax those companies that depend on those people to operate. Concerning illegal immigration - why would we want to stop, or send back, someone who literally risks their life to get to America and then works like crazy to succeed here? So we can protect lazy native Americans who can't be bothered to complete a decent education to qualify for a higher paying job? That's dumb.
Americans have to face the fact that if you want higher pay you need to gain knoweldge. That could mean learning enough to be a supervisor, or foreman rather than a grunt worker. Or learning to design things, not just assemble them. The path is there. Many just want a rote job with no thinking involved and then want to be paid as if they actually know something. Not going to happen.
Americans have to face the fact that if you want higher pay you need to gain knoweldge. That could mean learning enough to be a supervisor, or foreman rather than a grunt worker. Or learning to design things, not just assemble them. The path is there. Many just want a rote job with no thinking involved and then want to be paid as if they actually know something. Not going to happen.
3
Do we really want to let in people who declare that our laws do not apply to them? Do you welcome people when they sit in your yard and demand to be let inside your house? If they really took risks, they would stay home and advocate for change where they live.
5
Immigration is a good thing. Most Americans know this. What is the issue here is legal v. illegal immigration and the bending or breaking of our laws by those using the system to take advantage over those who obey our immigration and other laws. It is amazing how the media takes the extreme views and make them what the majority of Americans believe.
Citizenship is something of immense value, especially American citizenship. For while we have all those "Americans" who despise our country let me see if any of them would voluntarily leave it? While those of us born here thankfully are automatically granted this, there are millions who wish to become citizens of this country. But to have an open border policy that allows anyone who can get here to stay here and jump the line towards this is legally and morally wrong. It is. And the majority of Americans who do favor LEGAL immigration would agree with that.
As for the costs. Come and look at any Home Depot here in NYC and look at the shape-up of illegal workers hoping to get picked up for a laborers job at construction. A local contractor friend who only hires legal workers told me they are going to put him out of business soon. They pay no taxes, insurance, social security and the guy who hires him still charges close to my friends. E-Verify would stop that.
Look at ER's, school's and courts and tell me they don't cost us money. Legal controlled immigration YES. Illegal NO.
Citizenship is something of immense value, especially American citizenship. For while we have all those "Americans" who despise our country let me see if any of them would voluntarily leave it? While those of us born here thankfully are automatically granted this, there are millions who wish to become citizens of this country. But to have an open border policy that allows anyone who can get here to stay here and jump the line towards this is legally and morally wrong. It is. And the majority of Americans who do favor LEGAL immigration would agree with that.
As for the costs. Come and look at any Home Depot here in NYC and look at the shape-up of illegal workers hoping to get picked up for a laborers job at construction. A local contractor friend who only hires legal workers told me they are going to put him out of business soon. They pay no taxes, insurance, social security and the guy who hires him still charges close to my friends. E-Verify would stop that.
Look at ER's, school's and courts and tell me they don't cost us money. Legal controlled immigration YES. Illegal NO.
20
"What is the issue here is legal v. illegal immigration..."
That's a "divisive" issue so no one on the staff of the NY Times or within the Democratic Party needs to address it other than by calling you xenophobic and racist. See how that works?
That's a "divisive" issue so no one on the staff of the NY Times or within the Democratic Party needs to address it other than by calling you xenophobic and racist. See how that works?
6
Mr. Edsall --
I think you are the best journalist at the NYT and I sometimes think you are the only journalist at the NYT.
Great analysis of this most recent report and great analysis of the other ideologically-slanted analyses, whose biases you explain and expose.
That said, I think you missed an opportunity to drill down a little deeper into the difficulties income-wise and job-wise of “high school drop-outs," as this group is so indelicately categorized.
The current American high school is in trouble for many reasons, but American high schoolers more inclined to hands-on work than purely abstract thinking are in bigger trouble because they pass through their formative learning years never having their proclivities and needs properly addressed.
To add insult to injury, economists refer to them as “drop-outs.” The injuries mount as these folks have to counter not only their lack of training but also an influx of immigrants who work for lower wages.
Many of Trump's angry supporters have dollar and cents reasons to be angry. He's has skillfully and probably disingenuously tapped that vein of discontent, but I hope the next administration will promote an increase in vocational education — for current high schoolers and also for those who, years ago, just didn't fit in and now could use an upgrade to their skills ... and also their reputation.
I think you are the best journalist at the NYT and I sometimes think you are the only journalist at the NYT.
Great analysis of this most recent report and great analysis of the other ideologically-slanted analyses, whose biases you explain and expose.
That said, I think you missed an opportunity to drill down a little deeper into the difficulties income-wise and job-wise of “high school drop-outs," as this group is so indelicately categorized.
The current American high school is in trouble for many reasons, but American high schoolers more inclined to hands-on work than purely abstract thinking are in bigger trouble because they pass through their formative learning years never having their proclivities and needs properly addressed.
To add insult to injury, economists refer to them as “drop-outs.” The injuries mount as these folks have to counter not only their lack of training but also an influx of immigrants who work for lower wages.
Many of Trump's angry supporters have dollar and cents reasons to be angry. He's has skillfully and probably disingenuously tapped that vein of discontent, but I hope the next administration will promote an increase in vocational education — for current high schoolers and also for those who, years ago, just didn't fit in and now could use an upgrade to their skills ... and also their reputation.
6
At some point parents have to make crystal clear to their kids that no matter what they do in life, they need to have basic knowledge. Most of the kids that do poorly or drop out are not pushed enough by their parents or are just too lazy to do the work. My wife teaches middle school and has found that parents are the big problem - they can't seem to get in their heads that THEY are the key to their kids success. If the parent don't push the kids to do well in school, nothing the teacher does will matter. i know. I hated school and did everything possible to avoid any school work. But my parents pushed me relentlessly and I managed to get by - barely. But I was also pushed to read, and ended up gaining as much, or more knowledge from reading everything in sight so that in the end I have done very well. So I understand the outlook of the kids, but really, it is the parents that have to do the hard work of pushing them and know they are not going to be rewarded or have any gratitude shown for many years down the road.
4
No one who opposes immigration will change their mind out of the goodness of their hearts. We're humans, and not so altruistic. Where we come to our senses is when we see what is in it for us to swing the doors wide open and accept all who are willing to make the journey to our borders regardless of the state of their documents.
We need immigrants. Lots of them. We need them coming here and having babies. Again, lots of them.
By the time I'm old and fully dependent upon a younger generation to drive me around, to treat my ailments, to pay into Social Security and to prepare my food, it is too late for me to give birth to a bunch of farm-hands. We are, each of us, dependent upon the children of other people. And those other, native born, Americans didn't have enough children. If you have crops that need to be picked, you love immigration. If you need a roof on your home, you love immigration. If you want to draw a social security check, you should love it, too.
We need immigrants. Lots of them. We need them coming here and having babies. Again, lots of them.
By the time I'm old and fully dependent upon a younger generation to drive me around, to treat my ailments, to pay into Social Security and to prepare my food, it is too late for me to give birth to a bunch of farm-hands. We are, each of us, dependent upon the children of other people. And those other, native born, Americans didn't have enough children. If you have crops that need to be picked, you love immigration. If you need a roof on your home, you love immigration. If you want to draw a social security check, you should love it, too.
2
We need immigrants but as adults. We don't need anyone having "lots of babies" on a planet careening toward 12 billion people by the end of the century.
there will NEVER be a shortage of workers paying into the social security system even if there is never another infant born on US soil. Never. I wish people could get that through their heads.
there will NEVER be a shortage of workers paying into the social security system even if there is never another infant born on US soil. Never. I wish people could get that through their heads.
12
How many millions Catherine? 50 Million per year. 100 Million? Anyone with sense would see there is a need for some limit because hundreds of millions would take you up if they were not turned back.
9
I suspect that America could advance and prosper without another immigrant
white Hispanic/Latino beauty pageant winning queen Miss Universe like Alicia Machado or a Slavic Czech and Slovenian super model like Ivana and Melania Trump.
Legal immigration into America is too slow and too costly and too inconsistent and too confusing to be worthy of a nation state that is the gift of the heirs of immigrants plus enslaved Africans and colonized Natives.
For most of American history formal and informal immigration policy and practice favored Protestant immigrants from North and West Europe. Thus there are more German Americans than there are any other kind of Americans.
white Hispanic/Latino beauty pageant winning queen Miss Universe like Alicia Machado or a Slavic Czech and Slovenian super model like Ivana and Melania Trump.
Legal immigration into America is too slow and too costly and too inconsistent and too confusing to be worthy of a nation state that is the gift of the heirs of immigrants plus enslaved Africans and colonized Natives.
For most of American history formal and informal immigration policy and practice favored Protestant immigrants from North and West Europe. Thus there are more German Americans than there are any other kind of Americans.
2
"Illegal" immigration is only an excuse for those who have cultural problems with "those people". Trump supporters are against the two young Latino guys who installed my carpet yesterday (one American, the other an immigrant) and everybody knows it. Those guys worked really hard and deserve to be paid well. Do Trump and his supporters represent those two workers? Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with being legal.
3
(Not Mark) You are wrong. It has everything to do with being illegal. I'm not a Trump supporter, but you on the left are totally wrong when you try and paint everyone who wants to stop illegal immigration as being racist. When I hear that I know the person I'm talking to has no ideas of their own and can't really argue their position because they know nothing about it. You just cry "racist!" and hope everyone who disagrees with you goes away. No wonder Trump is so popular.
12
if all we are worrying about are high school dropouts then lets give them a helping hand to get additional education, and if they don't take advantage of that then that's their fault.
2
Where do we house millions of incoming immigrants who arrive annually?
We have a severe housing shortage just about everywhere today.
No affordable housing stock is being added. The cost of rentals are skyrocketing. I think that this is an indirect hit on lower income Americans.
The immigrant 'Inn' is full to overflowing. No mas.
We have a severe housing shortage just about everywhere today.
No affordable housing stock is being added. The cost of rentals are skyrocketing. I think that this is an indirect hit on lower income Americans.
The immigrant 'Inn' is full to overflowing. No mas.
12
T rump and his low information "blue collar" supporters have one thing in common, it seems they all think that they deserve a boost up the ladder without doing the work or preparation for that boost.
T rump showed without a doubt this trait when he showed up for a debate stoned on coke with no thought of preparation for that debate.
His supporters seem to think they deserve a good job in a high tech world while dropping out of school just because they are white Americans.
This article also points out the dilemma that the republican party really faces: On one hand they are the party of capital and business yet they must appear to their base as the defenders of labor. All the while denying laborers a fair wage and a secure job.
T rump is the only logical outcome for this lie they have perpetuated on a vast swath of ignorant, out of touch, mostly rural men and women.
When I heard a T rump supporter with his big red cap asking a reporter to look into why President Obama wasn't at his desk in the Oval Office when the planes flew into the Towers in NYC I knew there to be no doubt about my stubborn prejudices against these people who want our Nation to work only for them.
T rump showed without a doubt this trait when he showed up for a debate stoned on coke with no thought of preparation for that debate.
His supporters seem to think they deserve a good job in a high tech world while dropping out of school just because they are white Americans.
This article also points out the dilemma that the republican party really faces: On one hand they are the party of capital and business yet they must appear to their base as the defenders of labor. All the while denying laborers a fair wage and a secure job.
T rump is the only logical outcome for this lie they have perpetuated on a vast swath of ignorant, out of touch, mostly rural men and women.
When I heard a T rump supporter with his big red cap asking a reporter to look into why President Obama wasn't at his desk in the Oval Office when the planes flew into the Towers in NYC I knew there to be no doubt about my stubborn prejudices against these people who want our Nation to work only for them.
4
And not one word about immigrants being in this country legally or illegally. You got the pulse of the NY Times.
4
A very interesting article for the thoroughness of the economic impact of immigration. I would have liked the study to show the societal impact of immigration and associated economic burden.
4
American born construction workers used to make $20-30 per hour. They now compete for $10-15 per hour jobs. Why any low skilled American worker would support a path to citizenship for illegals is beyond comprehension.
16
There were a couple billion fewer people on earth back when the higher wages existed. A huge excess labor force of course will dilute the going wage. But why shouldn't American standard of living seek equilibrium with that of others' around the world? We aren't inherently better than people of other nations.
4
there will be forces that push us towards equilibrium whether we like it or not. this is what happens when a complex, highly ordered system interfaces with a simpler system. there are flows that happen between them and they are driven by forces that neither system controls. there are clear examples of this from chemistry and ecology.
2
Govt controls the economy, decreasing production and real wages. Foreigners are not a problem. The individualist spirit of 1776 is the solution.
1
One of the more ironic things about the NAS study is the claim that immigration is essential because it adds to the population and without it "economic growth" would be threatened, the old age system would collapse, and a lot of other scary things would happen. But consider this: if the US population were to grow at, say, 1.5% per year, in a few hundred years at most we would have one person per square meter of land in the country. Do the math. Try getting from Berkeley to San Jose then without a helicopter.
7
So a variety of conflicting arguments are simultaneously supported by the facts. But to say that immigration has not driven wages down and decimated unions in the building trades is ludicrous. And to watch so many on the left blindly support unfettered immigration particularly from the South is very discouraging as we watch the ranks of the working poor expand year after year.
7
Well, all the cheap construction labor enabled the creation of even larger, most energy consumptive tract McMansions than would otherwise have been possible. Which are all going to be plowed under when (if?) the planet gets serious about tackling climate change. What a waste.
1
Immigration is good. However, we need immigrants who can carry their own weight, contribute meaningfully to our country.
We have enough uneducated and unskilled people to fill the lower level jobs. They just need to quit being coddled and be made to work some job.
As for uneducated and unskilled immigrants, well, if they keep coming, year after year, generation after generation, our country will have a perpetual class of Americans fighting against them for scarce resources.
As for the undocumented immigrants, they forfeited their chance and our country by ignoring our laws, flaunting them in our faces. They don't deserve our country.
We have enough uneducated and unskilled people to fill the lower level jobs. They just need to quit being coddled and be made to work some job.
As for uneducated and unskilled immigrants, well, if they keep coming, year after year, generation after generation, our country will have a perpetual class of Americans fighting against them for scarce resources.
As for the undocumented immigrants, they forfeited their chance and our country by ignoring our laws, flaunting them in our faces. They don't deserve our country.
10
"As for the undocumented immigrants, they forfeited their chance and our country by ignoring our laws,"
Since you insist on calling them undocumented, well it's only a stupid piece of paper. How could not having that piece of paper cause a forfeiture of anything?
Now if they were here illegally that would be a different story.
Since you insist on calling them undocumented, well it's only a stupid piece of paper. How could not having that piece of paper cause a forfeiture of anything?
Now if they were here illegally that would be a different story.
2
Illegal immigration lowers wages and puts money in the buisiness owners hands. I'm sure that's great for GDP and growth and the stock market, but that's not great for the average American. Just try to hire a drywall crew where the employees are legal immigrants and not just the owner.
I'm for comprehensive immigration reform that is actually comprehensive. Give every illegal immigrant a green card, make it so that hiring illegal immigrants means you go straight to jail, and prevent any more illegal immigrants from entering our country. Then, raise the minimum wage. We can increase legal immigration, but it has to be done correctly.
I'm for comprehensive immigration reform that is actually comprehensive. Give every illegal immigrant a green card, make it so that hiring illegal immigrants means you go straight to jail, and prevent any more illegal immigrants from entering our country. Then, raise the minimum wage. We can increase legal immigration, but it has to be done correctly.
1
When anyone, business or government, can hire people at a fraction of what a job used to require, there's trouble for everyone. This "whoever's cheapest" paradigm has driven wages and working conditions for millions of Americans into the basement. From higher ed, where adjunct faculty are teaching up to 80% of college courses, and getting paid little more than minimum wage and in most cases, no benefits at all, to the itinerant under-paid laborers who show up after your contractor has carried away your signed remodel contract, the quality of life for everyday workers in all professions has plummeted as the result of unhinged immigration.
14
What's offensive about this entire debate is the bipartisan consensus that underpaying the most vulnerable workers, immigrant or "native," is a laudable project of benefit to the country (so the "higher-skilled" can get cheaper yard work/housework/lunch?). Considering that nearly half the country makes $15 or less per hour ("competing workers"), it's no wonder that many people are looking to the specious nostrums of demagogues. At least this study undermines the dishonesty of the widely held belief that racism could be the only reason why someone would be suspicious of an open immigration policy. I'll be curious as to how long the consensus will hold as more and more "high-skilled" (and lower paid) foreign workers replace "native" consultants, techies, attorneys, financial analysts, and the like. We're all just a global labor market, right?
9
Immigration is a right, like speech, press, peacable assembly and property. It is not the initiation of force. It attracts independent people, benefiting each American with their optimism,courage, productiveness and rationality. Laws against immigration violate individual rights, the protection of which is the only rational purpose of govt. Immigration is a benefit in capitalism but not in an economy controlled by govt which has welfare and regulations on business. Immigrants to a rational culture usually accept those rational values, as in the 19th century. But immigrants to a nihilist culture, ie, the modern US, will be encouraged to retain their traditionalism and vote against individual rights. As part of a transition back to America's Enlightenment politics of individual rights, immigrants could be banned from receiving govt benefits (except protection by police and courts).
Low wage immigrants, legal and otherwise, tend to be highly mobile owing to their circumstances, needs and ambition. They are often the preferred hire for small businesses involved in construction, restaurants, low skill factory and other businesses that operate near the minimum wage level. This competition for jobs exacerbates the high unemployment rates for urban minority workers who are less mobile and more isolated with respect to where the jobs are. And in those cases where the local urban applicant has a police record, even for minor victimless crimes, the employer will tip towards the less encumbered immigrant applicant. So many of the white conservative backers of the anti immigrant movement are in a bind. If they are successful in reducing the inflow of immigrants that they object to, they will have to hire more local minorities that they detest.
1
1. My grandparents came to the USA from three different European countries. They all learned to speak English asap. These immigrant grandparents became fully assimilated Americans. (Though many old-country food preferences and holiday traditions were passed on to us grandkids.)
2. Several years ago my church assisted in the resettlement here in the midwest of several families from Bosnia. As I took my turn driving these immigrants to and from their English classes for a few months it was great to see them become functional in their new language. I think their transition lasted about 12 weeks.
3. A friend who teaches kindergarten is able to get Mexican kids functional in English within a few months but she complains about how hard it is to communicate with their parents. Perhaps adult Mexican immigrants would be more readily accepted if they were more willing to become functional in English.
2. Several years ago my church assisted in the resettlement here in the midwest of several families from Bosnia. As I took my turn driving these immigrants to and from their English classes for a few months it was great to see them become functional in their new language. I think their transition lasted about 12 weeks.
3. A friend who teaches kindergarten is able to get Mexican kids functional in English within a few months but she complains about how hard it is to communicate with their parents. Perhaps adult Mexican immigrants would be more readily accepted if they were more willing to become functional in English.
5
All economists will agree an expanding GNP requires a growing pop. On one hand Japan's GNP has shrunk, due to a very closed society with little immigration. On the other hand China took draconian measures 40 years ago to control pop, and the results were spectacular. Although some may argue the US trade initiatives had a lot to do with it.
But here in the US we have a below par GNP growth rate, could it be we have exceeded the point of diminishing returns?
Congress set the immigration quota at 675,000 per year in 1995. Refugees are exempt from that number, but let's call it a million. The US birthrate in the past twenty years has been between 1.9 to 1.98, far below the replacement rate of 2.1.
In 1995 US pop was 266 million, last year it was 319 million, or 53 million higher. 20 million was "planning" by the government, the rest? It wasn't because we were making babies.
Something doesn't add up. Think about this for awhile. The current US population aged 5 and under is about 48% non-white.
Immigration reform is bad terminology, population planning is more political correct, especially when the viewpoint are so extreme.
But here in the US we have a below par GNP growth rate, could it be we have exceeded the point of diminishing returns?
Congress set the immigration quota at 675,000 per year in 1995. Refugees are exempt from that number, but let's call it a million. The US birthrate in the past twenty years has been between 1.9 to 1.98, far below the replacement rate of 2.1.
In 1995 US pop was 266 million, last year it was 319 million, or 53 million higher. 20 million was "planning" by the government, the rest? It wasn't because we were making babies.
Something doesn't add up. Think about this for awhile. The current US population aged 5 and under is about 48% non-white.
Immigration reform is bad terminology, population planning is more political correct, especially when the viewpoint are so extreme.
"The current US population aged 5 and under is about 48% non-white."
Why would you highlight that particular factoid? Got a problem with it?
Why would you highlight that particular factoid? Got a problem with it?
1
@RealityCheck: "Why would you highlight that particular factoid? Got a problem with it?"
Apparently he was just stating a fact. Do you have a problem with that?
Apparently he was just stating a fact. Do you have a problem with that?
3
The issue, as many other posters have said, is largely illegal immigration. People who are here illegally should not be allowed to stay.
As a solution, I favor a requirement that all businesses make use of e-Verify and that employers (including people who employ nannies, maids and lawn services) who have hired illegal immigrants should be required to pay a hefty fine. That would be a fine dent in the problem along with deportations. Regardless of the so-called benefits to the economy, there are also a great many costs in terms of education, health care, the criminal justice system and in low wages for the American citizens and legal residents who can least afford them.
I am no fan of Donald Trump and I highly doubt he would take effective action against immigration. I know Hillary Clinton will not. But the candidate who can say it and actually do it next round will probably win.
As a solution, I favor a requirement that all businesses make use of e-Verify and that employers (including people who employ nannies, maids and lawn services) who have hired illegal immigrants should be required to pay a hefty fine. That would be a fine dent in the problem along with deportations. Regardless of the so-called benefits to the economy, there are also a great many costs in terms of education, health care, the criminal justice system and in low wages for the American citizens and legal residents who can least afford them.
I am no fan of Donald Trump and I highly doubt he would take effective action against immigration. I know Hillary Clinton will not. But the candidate who can say it and actually do it next round will probably win.
36
Uh, did you read the article?
Edsall quotes the Academy's statement that immigrant helps the U.S. "avoid the problems facing other economies that have stagnated as a result of ... an aging work force...." In other words, immigrants are on average younger than our native population.
Edsall does not indicate whether the Academy considered the effect of immigration on the solvency of Social Security or Medicare. (The report is available on-line, but you have to pay for it, and the table of contents doesn't refer to Social Security or Medicare.)
To the considerable extent that immigrants (legal or illegal) hold jobs and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, immigration is contributing to the solvency of both programs. Furthermore, those illegal immigrants who pay into those programs are unlikely ever to collect from them.
In other words, immigration transfers income from working immigrants to mostly non-working senior citizens, both native-born and otherwise. Given the importance of Social Security and Medicare to our social safety net, and given the significant long-term solvency issues facing both programs, it would seem that this benefit of immigration is worth analysis.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Edsall does not indicate whether the Academy considered the effect of immigration on the solvency of Social Security or Medicare. (The report is available on-line, but you have to pay for it, and the table of contents doesn't refer to Social Security or Medicare.)
To the considerable extent that immigrants (legal or illegal) hold jobs and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, immigration is contributing to the solvency of both programs. Furthermore, those illegal immigrants who pay into those programs are unlikely ever to collect from them.
In other words, immigration transfers income from working immigrants to mostly non-working senior citizens, both native-born and otherwise. Given the importance of Social Security and Medicare to our social safety net, and given the significant long-term solvency issues facing both programs, it would seem that this benefit of immigration is worth analysis.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
1
Great op-ed, with excellent source material. A few facts to consider:
1. As of December 2015, we had 26 million foreign born workers in the U.S. labor force. CBO estimated at that time we were 2.5 million from full employment. So if they are crowding out U.S. workers, it isn't very many.
2. Foreign-born workers increased from 5.2% of the workforce in 1970 to about 17% of the workforce in 2015. Yet at various points during that period we've been at full employment.
3. We added nearly 10 million foreign-born workers since 2000, and U.S. net worth roughly doubled, from $44 to $89 trillion.
Nearly everyone gets lower prices in restaurants, hotels, and at the supermarket due to low-skill immigrants, and our companies get highly skilled STEM workers that teach our workers.
Yes, there is some adverse impact on low-skilled domestic workers, who have a higher unemployment rate and lower labor force participation rate. So Mrs. Clinton's proposal to pay for their college educations should be exactly what the doctor ordered.
Building walls isn't the answer. Arguing against immigration is mainly an emotional, not factual matter, as the evidence is that it's a net win for the vast majority of people.
1. As of December 2015, we had 26 million foreign born workers in the U.S. labor force. CBO estimated at that time we were 2.5 million from full employment. So if they are crowding out U.S. workers, it isn't very many.
2. Foreign-born workers increased from 5.2% of the workforce in 1970 to about 17% of the workforce in 2015. Yet at various points during that period we've been at full employment.
3. We added nearly 10 million foreign-born workers since 2000, and U.S. net worth roughly doubled, from $44 to $89 trillion.
Nearly everyone gets lower prices in restaurants, hotels, and at the supermarket due to low-skill immigrants, and our companies get highly skilled STEM workers that teach our workers.
Yes, there is some adverse impact on low-skilled domestic workers, who have a higher unemployment rate and lower labor force participation rate. So Mrs. Clinton's proposal to pay for their college educations should be exactly what the doctor ordered.
Building walls isn't the answer. Arguing against immigration is mainly an emotional, not factual matter, as the evidence is that it's a net win for the vast majority of people.
As this article makes clear, the argument is NOT between those who want no immigration and those who want unlimited immigration. It seems to be between those who want lawful immigration and those who want more immigration than the law currently permits. We might see both sides as enlightened and reasonable, if it were not for the nasty & hateful rhetoric that DJT uses to frame his position.
3
Those who want "more immigration than the law permits" include the misty eyed open borders folks. There are 6 billion humans on the planet, I believe. I do NOT want 6 billion people moving to the US, or even to North America. Even if you don't mind the damage to qualify of life for your fellow citizens, what about the calamity for wilderness areas and what little wildlife remain here?
6
"We might see both sides as enlightened and reasonable, if it were not for the nasty & hateful rhetoric that DJT uses to frame his position."
The left would not acknowledge illegal immigration long before DJT was running for president. Calling someone who wants more control over their countries borders xenophobic and racist was in fashion long before DJT thought about running for president.
The left would not acknowledge illegal immigration long before DJT was running for president. Calling someone who wants more control over their countries borders xenophobic and racist was in fashion long before DJT thought about running for president.
4
Do so-called "enlightened" immigration policies include illegal immigration? If so, what do we have immigration laws for? Trump and his supporters simply want existing laws enforced, nothing more.
29
That's the problem - Trump and his supporters want "nothing more."
Enforcing existing immigration laws sounds good in the abstract, but not so good in some specific cases. The classic example is the child brought here illegally by parents, when the child was too young to have a say - maybe even as an infant. The child goes to school, learns English, gains skills, and applies for college or a job - and only then gets caught as an illegal immigrant.
Trump says the child must be deported, no ifs, ands, or buts - the law is the law.
As a lawyer, I certainly have an ear for the argument that laws are meant to be applied. But as a human being, I also have an ear for the exceptional case where application of the law is unfair, unwise, or excessively harsh.
Trump's "the law is the law" line forecloses the possibility of the exceptional case. When the law squeezes out all possibility of exceptions, of consideration of individual circumstances, it loses its purpose of achieving a just society.
Our civil and criminal law are rife with exceptions built right into the law - statutes of limitations, for example, say that if enough time passes, the law ignores the wrongful act.
Immigration law, unfortunately, does not provide for exceptions in important areas, like the infant immigrant. That is not "enlightened." It is not just. And it does not make us a better society.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Enforcing existing immigration laws sounds good in the abstract, but not so good in some specific cases. The classic example is the child brought here illegally by parents, when the child was too young to have a say - maybe even as an infant. The child goes to school, learns English, gains skills, and applies for college or a job - and only then gets caught as an illegal immigrant.
Trump says the child must be deported, no ifs, ands, or buts - the law is the law.
As a lawyer, I certainly have an ear for the argument that laws are meant to be applied. But as a human being, I also have an ear for the exceptional case where application of the law is unfair, unwise, or excessively harsh.
Trump's "the law is the law" line forecloses the possibility of the exceptional case. When the law squeezes out all possibility of exceptions, of consideration of individual circumstances, it loses its purpose of achieving a just society.
Our civil and criminal law are rife with exceptions built right into the law - statutes of limitations, for example, say that if enough time passes, the law ignores the wrongful act.
Immigration law, unfortunately, does not provide for exceptions in important areas, like the infant immigrant. That is not "enlightened." It is not just. And it does not make us a better society.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
2
More than 95 percent of the world's infants manage to grow up outside of the United States. Not everyone considers this a tragedy. We require the children of tourists and green card holders to home with their parents when their visas expire. Mo one considers this a tragedy.
3
I wish the cost of transportation and communications would come near to the vanishing point that Robert Shiller says is happening. (maybe so at Yale, but not in the vast hinterlands of the USA). Instead, I find the cost of communication leap-frogging over other price increases. What I pay for cable, internet access and phone, no matter with whom or how I configure it is astonishingly high. These services are, in effect, monopolized [remember in the early days when local communities signed up just a single service provider of cable TV] and sold in predetermined package deals. In reality I only want to pay for 12 or 15 channels on cable TV. the others I don't watch, or want to watch, especially ESPN and all the sports channels. Yet I am forced to pay for them. Likewise, I have very few choices for broadband internet access.
9
> These services are, in effect, monopolized
Your statist evasion of statism is noted. Your "solution," more statism, will increase prices.
Your statist evasion of statism is noted. Your "solution," more statism, will increase prices.
No matter how much immigration brings benefits to the country, it also has costs. The huge Mexican immigration has helped destroy unions in many field, meat packing and construction are two examples. If you are a white collar worker, you may benefit, but if you are blue collar it is one more more thing going against you.
84
So Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Democratic party thinks it is important to have as little enforcement of immigration laws as possible, even though it hurts poor people of US birth, including millions of US-born Hispanics and African-Americans; because it benefits business owners and the professional class, and that's what really matters.
Now THAT's Deplorable.
Now THAT's Deplorable.
24
Perhaps if you live in the RW echo chamber, this is true. However, in reality, we have more border enforcement agents under Obama than under any other previous President, along with fewer illegals entering into the United States.
No Democrat is running on open borders. However, if anyone opposes a 55 ft. wall and rounding up 11 million people in boxcars, today's Republicans will consider you an open-border proponent. We simply cannot have an honest debate about this thanks to the GOP rhetoric.
No Democrat is running on open borders. However, if anyone opposes a 55 ft. wall and rounding up 11 million people in boxcars, today's Republicans will consider you an open-border proponent. We simply cannot have an honest debate about this thanks to the GOP rhetoric.
1
Surely this suggestion is mistaken? Deportations have been increasing under Obama?
What everyone but economists, columnists, and tenured professors - all safely in the 1% - knows is the real reason the Limousine Liberal NIMBY 1% are so pro-immigration is that they personally benefit from it, feel contempt for working class Americans, and know they themselves will never feel the affects of it.
23
Who are the natives? Have the this reports results been true since Jamestown and Plymouth?
3
Please. A nation has a right to control its borders and decide how many immigrants to allow in. You can shout Jamestown and Plymouth all you want but that doesn't change the fact we have borders that we are allowed to control.
In terms of who are the natives, every person in the Western Hemisphere (except for certain portions of Africa) are immigrants. So give your house up to the newest illegal immigrants to the US, it's only right.
In terms of who are the natives, every person in the Western Hemisphere (except for certain portions of Africa) are immigrants. So give your house up to the newest illegal immigrants to the US, it's only right.
4
Duh. The issue isn't immigration, but ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Nations are defined, in part, by borders. To the extent that our nation defines who we are, illegal immigration costs us everything.
27
Of course, immigrants, documented or not, do contribute to the American economy and beyond (its well-being and entrepreneurship, among so many other cultural values and diversity), enriching all of us. Whoever thinks or says otherwise is ignorant of the facts, or prejudiced and unwilling to find out the truth. Trouble with republicans is their rigid ideology countering facts and logic, and compassion, willfully blind to the obvious, hypocritical at best, discriminatory at its worst. Lets wake up folks and do accept the truth, and be glad you have people willing and able to do menial jobs you may feel beneath your self-respected ego to do (if able). We need to educate ourselves, and embrace the new reality upon us: a rich diversity, and a grateful policy of inclusion. Be happy, for a change. And if you really want to be informed, please do yourself a favor, dump "Fox Noise" and the row of rogue artists doing their best to confuse you; alternative sources of News do exist, however surprised you may be about it.
10
Most NY Times "picks" are about being in favor of illegal immigration. To read some comments we are all immigrants, etc. that is not the point. All these false equivalences. Like refusing more Syrians is compared to denying entry to Jews in WW2. It is NOT.
Why would citizens respect any laws when outsiders don't respect the one that says: you cannot stay, even if you stage protests. We are becoming a nation of illiterates when the word illegal becomes: undocumented immigrants.
Why would citizens respect any laws when outsiders don't respect the one that says: you cannot stay, even if you stage protests. We are becoming a nation of illiterates when the word illegal becomes: undocumented immigrants.
7
"Be happy, for a change. And if you really want to be informed, please do yourself a favor, dump "Fox Noise" "
I don't read Fox Noise - but you really can't tell professionals like myself who have been prematurely put out to pasture by a bunch of kids from India working under abusive conditions as guest workers to "be happy for a change." You are totally and willfully tone deaf to the problem.
There are 7 BILLION people on the planet all looking for a way into the "first world" economy. Letting them all in will ensure that the ENTIRE world becomes a third world economy - overnight.
Your sort will only wake up when YOU find yourself impoverished by the glutting of the market. Think you're safe because you are a so-called professional? Guess again.
I don't read Fox Noise - but you really can't tell professionals like myself who have been prematurely put out to pasture by a bunch of kids from India working under abusive conditions as guest workers to "be happy for a change." You are totally and willfully tone deaf to the problem.
There are 7 BILLION people on the planet all looking for a way into the "first world" economy. Letting them all in will ensure that the ENTIRE world becomes a third world economy - overnight.
Your sort will only wake up when YOU find yourself impoverished by the glutting of the market. Think you're safe because you are a so-called professional? Guess again.
6
Thank you so much for such an open-minded, and respectful, reply to my comments. Who do you think will take care of you, of us oldies, when our time to be put out to pasture comes? And it is always premature, to our loss and regret. Sure hope, for our own good, that our minds go before the 'pasture thing', as it may deplete the meager savings of our children. This is, indeed, a brave new world, requiring constant adjustments in education and training, as nothing can be taken for granted anymore. The only constant is the suffering of those of us left behind. And yet, when compared to the misery of those in war zones, maimed and killed indiscriminately by institutionalized violence, how lucky could we be? Ought we not be appreciative of what we have, and who we are? Although some may not appreciate things until they are gone, or lost. And New York, from where you roam, is a beautiful state to live, in spite of the noise, and the things we take for granted. We live in a globalized economy, and a fast-paced information technology, undoubtedly unfair to some; but let us not blame it on immigrants, a scapegoat if I ever saw one. Look at automation and robotic jobs instead. Complex, isn't it? This, not to detract the harm experienced by individuals caught in the middle, yourself included.
Unless the distinction is made between legal and illegal immigration, this is not an honest debate. A statement like: "Conservatives calling for more restrictions on immigration..." when most conservatives are simply calling for enforcement of existing laws is nothing but another example of NYT's tendency to avoid addressing the issues and instead simply preach to their choir.
17
Dollars are lost in this article. Here you go.
For every 1,000,000 illegal aliens, it cost the US $100 billion. $100,000 each is the conservative costs. Does not include their college education costs.
For every 1,000,000 illegal aliens, it cost the US $100 billion. $100,000 each is the conservative costs. Does not include their college education costs.
17
I live in fear of medical bills. I have insurance, and have gone through tough times without insurance in the past. Even with insurance medical bills can be staggering.
I feel livid when a visit to the emergency costs me thousands of dollars but costs illegal immigrants nothing. Can the New York Times publish an article about the strain on communities with large numbers of illegal immigrants? Because the wealthy may be benefiting, but it is hurting everyone else. What's cheaper lawn care when compared to overcrowded classrooms and emergency rooms? What's cheaper restaurant visits when construction jobs and nanny jobs are all taken and wages pushed despicably low?
Have a thought for the American citizens who are suffering because of illegal immigration.
I feel livid when a visit to the emergency costs me thousands of dollars but costs illegal immigrants nothing. Can the New York Times publish an article about the strain on communities with large numbers of illegal immigrants? Because the wealthy may be benefiting, but it is hurting everyone else. What's cheaper lawn care when compared to overcrowded classrooms and emergency rooms? What's cheaper restaurant visits when construction jobs and nanny jobs are all taken and wages pushed despicably low?
Have a thought for the American citizens who are suffering because of illegal immigration.
24
Not only that but the strain on schools which must accommodate students that don't know English.
9
You can get "free" care, too. Just drop your insurance policies and take what you can get for free.
3
The problem in the US is that we have not enforced our immigration laws. The Democrats refuse to enforce them as they are trying to change the demographics of America so that they will have a core of voters who depend on all the benefits the Democrats give them will vote for the Democrats without even thinking. The Democrats would not even vote to pass a law which ends the corruption in Child Tax Credit for fear it would hurt illegal immigrants. That is how the Democrats view our laws and how they refuse to enforce them.
The Democrats who continually ignore illegal immigration are really in the Elite - they don't have to live among them, it is the rest of use who get murdered and raped by criminal illegal aliens that the Democrats protect.
We have laws about immigration, it would be nice if we enforced them instead being like Obama with his end-run around the law with DACA and DAPA. It is an awful thing when the President of the United State also refuses to enforce the laws of this country.
The Democrats who continually ignore illegal immigration are really in the Elite - they don't have to live among them, it is the rest of use who get murdered and raped by criminal illegal aliens that the Democrats protect.
We have laws about immigration, it would be nice if we enforced them instead being like Obama with his end-run around the law with DACA and DAPA. It is an awful thing when the President of the United State also refuses to enforce the laws of this country.
21
We all should agree that the presence of 12 million persons without legal status is a problem. We do need to regularize the status of most of those people. I do believe that it would be a mistake to stand back and allow the next group of 12 million people to illegally enter the USA after we legalize the current group. Based on that it does make sense to further strengthen border enforcement. If you believe in stronger border enforcement, and you should, does that mean we need to expand the wall on our border?
8
'We do need to regularize the status of most of those people.'
The problem is that you are describing exactly what happened w/the 1986 amnesty. We were told that there were about 1-1.2 million illegal aliens who would be legalized. Turns out to be close to 3 million with MASSIVE fraud. The enforcement we were promised never came.
This is the same deal we were offered in 2013: Amnesty NOW; enforcement down the road , maybe, and by then there'd be millions more to legalize. No one in his right mind would agree to that.
Immigration adversely affects the environment, schools, neighborhoods, and jobs, especially for working-class people. Even toney Fairfax County schools are starting to feel the pinch as ESL eats up $$$ that would ordinarily go to keeping the schools among the best in the nation for years. The TJ School for Science and Technology can't replace old science equipment because ESL is mandated, new science equipment isn't.
We don't need a wall but we do need E-Verify and the WILL to use it and otherwise enforce our immigration laws.
I used to be a Democrat but left the party over the issue of immigration. This year I will vote for Trump, not because he's my dream candidate but because Hillary promises 4 more years of non-enforcement and you can't repeal people, nor can you keep spending money you don't have on social services. Immigration is largely corporate and elite welfare - privatize profits and socialize costs. The average worker & taxpayer pays the cost.
The problem is that you are describing exactly what happened w/the 1986 amnesty. We were told that there were about 1-1.2 million illegal aliens who would be legalized. Turns out to be close to 3 million with MASSIVE fraud. The enforcement we were promised never came.
This is the same deal we were offered in 2013: Amnesty NOW; enforcement down the road , maybe, and by then there'd be millions more to legalize. No one in his right mind would agree to that.
Immigration adversely affects the environment, schools, neighborhoods, and jobs, especially for working-class people. Even toney Fairfax County schools are starting to feel the pinch as ESL eats up $$$ that would ordinarily go to keeping the schools among the best in the nation for years. The TJ School for Science and Technology can't replace old science equipment because ESL is mandated, new science equipment isn't.
We don't need a wall but we do need E-Verify and the WILL to use it and otherwise enforce our immigration laws.
I used to be a Democrat but left the party over the issue of immigration. This year I will vote for Trump, not because he's my dream candidate but because Hillary promises 4 more years of non-enforcement and you can't repeal people, nor can you keep spending money you don't have on social services. Immigration is largely corporate and elite welfare - privatize profits and socialize costs. The average worker & taxpayer pays the cost.
10
My answer to Mr. Edsall's question is, "Plenty." Although, we keep hearing the same mantra that,"When immigrants enter the labor force, they increase the productive capacity of the economy and raise GDP.” However, this occurring is far into the future. The statement is questionable, based upon the fact the majority of immigrant parents do not know ENGLISH, nor do their children. The immigrating families have large numbers of children who have never attended school, hence need special education programs and the same as their parents. The immigrants coming from the Middle East fight against assimilate because their religious beliefs are so imprinted within their DNA that, even if born into this country they rise up against the countries which have provided them safety in their of need. The new out-reach to the immigrants of Muslim culture and religion is a very big mistake for North America. These are not the immigrants we should be accepting. Open out immigration gates to South Americans, Northern Europe and Mexicans. NO Muslims - nothing but trouble; if not today, we have to guard ourselves forever from the homegrown terrorists.
16
The law of supply and demand cannot be wished away, it is a fact that no amount of denial or happy thoughts will ever change.
The US has no need of any more low skilled workers, not now, not ever again, when we do not have living wage jobs for our own low skilled citizens.
There are many Americans, of which I am one, who think that our own low skilled citizens should come first, especially African Americans, who not only did not break any laws to come here, but whose ancestors came here in chains.
But since to even mention this means to be called a 'racist' by the Left, my question for them is this: Why is it racist to want to put the descendants of slaves at the head of the line?
The US has no need of any more low skilled workers, not now, not ever again, when we do not have living wage jobs for our own low skilled citizens.
There are many Americans, of which I am one, who think that our own low skilled citizens should come first, especially African Americans, who not only did not break any laws to come here, but whose ancestors came here in chains.
But since to even mention this means to be called a 'racist' by the Left, my question for them is this: Why is it racist to want to put the descendants of slaves at the head of the line?
23
> The US has no need of any more low skilled workers, not now, not ever again, when we do not have living wage jobs for our own low skilled citizens.
End the production-decreasing octopus of govt economic controls. Capitalism always has more jobs than workers. There is always a better way or a better thing to produce.
Capitalism protects innovation. Govt controls ban and punish it. Man's independent mind is the basic cause of production. Immigrants bring minds, not merely bodies.
End the production-decreasing octopus of govt economic controls. Capitalism always has more jobs than workers. There is always a better way or a better thing to produce.
Capitalism protects innovation. Govt controls ban and punish it. Man's independent mind is the basic cause of production. Immigrants bring minds, not merely bodies.
1
I would say American low-skill workers better get competitive, then.
As mentioned in another comment, I had the opportunity to compare young white American men with young Mexican men as two different landscape contractors were doing my yard this summer. I don't know if the Mexicans were legal or not; I suspect a mix. The white men were sons of an upscale suburb.
The Mexican men worked harder by orders of magnitude, did a much neater, more thorough job and were pleasant and professional. The young white men worked begrudgingly, took breaks, were surly when offered cool bottled water in 90-degree heat and otherwise unimpressive. Sorry but next year's work is entirely going to the firm that employs the Mexican people. I'm happy to give them the work. and btw they worked till 10 p.m. in that heat after a full stint on a day job, whereas the slacker "American" youths were only putting in five or so hours a day at most.
As mentioned in another comment, I had the opportunity to compare young white American men with young Mexican men as two different landscape contractors were doing my yard this summer. I don't know if the Mexicans were legal or not; I suspect a mix. The white men were sons of an upscale suburb.
The Mexican men worked harder by orders of magnitude, did a much neater, more thorough job and were pleasant and professional. The young white men worked begrudgingly, took breaks, were surly when offered cool bottled water in 90-degree heat and otherwise unimpressive. Sorry but next year's work is entirely going to the firm that employs the Mexican people. I'm happy to give them the work. and btw they worked till 10 p.m. in that heat after a full stint on a day job, whereas the slacker "American" youths were only putting in five or so hours a day at most.
1
The solution is not complicated. Revert the income tax rates back to 1968 levels and provide programs such as free tuition to college and trade schools to those who academically qualify and thus helping them earn a better wage and helping the country to better compete in the future.
1
This study appears to support the majority of the literature: that immigrants are a net benefit overall, but the gains are not evenly distributed.
The majority of losers are people without a high school diploma. However, this is not an argument against immigration. This is an argument that we fix our educational problems.
The majority of losers are people without a high school diploma. However, this is not an argument against immigration. This is an argument that we fix our educational problems.
1
> fix our educational problems.
End socialist (public) and Progressive (anti-conceptual) schools. Teach students how to focus their minds onto concrete reality. Ignore society.
End socialist (public) and Progressive (anti-conceptual) schools. Teach students how to focus their minds onto concrete reality. Ignore society.
Nice fact and data packed summary of study released by the National Academy of Sciences. However, public opinion on immigration are not based on scholarly analysis but more by day to day perceptions. Immigration is one of the abstract 'They" in the "Us vs Them" thinking logic that we apply. Americans are torn between the hoary ideal of "We are a Nation of immigrants" and a perceptional reality of "They are taking jobs from Us".
Public opinion strongly favors curbing illegal immigration. Infact, people with recent legal immigration roots favor controls too. No one has bothered to poll them. They stood in line and feel others should too.
Public opinion has never been against the entry of high skilled legal immigrants (and that includes Mr. Trump and let's not forget two of his spouses came that way!) Many members of NAS who authored this report likely have recent legal immigrant roots. Has the media bothered to peep in our universities, research institutions, medical schools and hospitals, Silicon Valley, Wall Street banks, Spelling Bee and INTEL's science competitions and noticed the significant presence of participants with recent legal immigrant roots? All that speaks volumes for the positive side of American public opinion.
Public opinion has always favored refugees.Jews fleeing Nazism, Vietnam boat people, Cubans and East Europeans fleeing Communism,etc.
Let's not club controlled legal and uncontrolled illegal immigration together
Public opinion strongly favors curbing illegal immigration. Infact, people with recent legal immigration roots favor controls too. No one has bothered to poll them. They stood in line and feel others should too.
Public opinion has never been against the entry of high skilled legal immigrants (and that includes Mr. Trump and let's not forget two of his spouses came that way!) Many members of NAS who authored this report likely have recent legal immigrant roots. Has the media bothered to peep in our universities, research institutions, medical schools and hospitals, Silicon Valley, Wall Street banks, Spelling Bee and INTEL's science competitions and noticed the significant presence of participants with recent legal immigrant roots? All that speaks volumes for the positive side of American public opinion.
Public opinion has always favored refugees.Jews fleeing Nazism, Vietnam boat people, Cubans and East Europeans fleeing Communism,etc.
Let's not club controlled legal and uncontrolled illegal immigration together
4
Republicans keep shedding crocodile tears for blacks who are allegedly hurt by competition with illegals. But a 2015 Pew survey showed that three-fourths of black Americans (and not quite 2/3 of whites) say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain requirements are met. Blacks are just as likely as Hispanics to oppose Trump’s wall. Maybe it’s just a reaction that the enemy of my (racist) enemy is my friend. But Asian-Americans, whose economic situation should make them more amenable to the GOP, were even more heavily polarized in 2012 than Hispanics, only 21% supporting Romney.
As is the case with globalization more generally, while net economic impact may indeed be positive, there are clearly winners and losers. We have ample evidence, both from this study and many others, that the overall "winners" in the US over the past 40 years have been those already at the top of the income distribution. Therefore, it would make most sense to raise their effective taxes more, and use it to fund programs to help the "losers" overcome their very real problems.
4
> overall "winners" in the US over the past 40 years have been those already at the top of the income distribution.
They win by creating and organizing mass production, benefiting all with better and lower cost products. Your destructive envy (or nihilism) is noted. The most productive people should be respected. Even Stalin had Heros Of Production. But modernist intellectuals are nihilist.
They win by creating and organizing mass production, benefiting all with better and lower cost products. Your destructive envy (or nihilism) is noted. The most productive people should be respected. Even Stalin had Heros Of Production. But modernist intellectuals are nihilist.
Edsall is one of the few writers who think about an issue, present both sides, and provide supporting data.
Three points:
1. Government expansion - "For the 2011-2013 period, the net cost ... of first generation adults is, on average, about $1,600 each." Note the significant expansion of government redistribution over the last 100 years which now encompasses 63% or $2.4 tn of our budget.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-federal-budget-expenditures-are...
Greater redistribution means larger incentive for poor immigrants and greater cost for government.
2. Free Trade - While this article discusses immigration, consider the similarity to free trade. Like immigration, greater trade (either within a country in the case of immigration or between countries in the case of free trade) benefits each party by allowing them to specialize. However, David Autor of MIT likewise suggests that trade produces winners and losers.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/03/david_autor_on_1.html
The difference is political since though immigration is viewed differently by the right and left (in part for racial reasons), trade is recently disliked by both sides.
3. Dem Dilemma - " "Research suggests that previous immigrants suffer more of the adverse wage effects than do natives." This misses the point by focusing only on private costs. Given the expansion in redistribution, however, (which Dems favor) both new and previous immigrants may prefer Dem policies.
Three points:
1. Government expansion - "For the 2011-2013 period, the net cost ... of first generation adults is, on average, about $1,600 each." Note the significant expansion of government redistribution over the last 100 years which now encompasses 63% or $2.4 tn of our budget.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-federal-budget-expenditures-are...
Greater redistribution means larger incentive for poor immigrants and greater cost for government.
2. Free Trade - While this article discusses immigration, consider the similarity to free trade. Like immigration, greater trade (either within a country in the case of immigration or between countries in the case of free trade) benefits each party by allowing them to specialize. However, David Autor of MIT likewise suggests that trade produces winners and losers.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/03/david_autor_on_1.html
The difference is political since though immigration is viewed differently by the right and left (in part for racial reasons), trade is recently disliked by both sides.
3. Dem Dilemma - " "Research suggests that previous immigrants suffer more of the adverse wage effects than do natives." This misses the point by focusing only on private costs. Given the expansion in redistribution, however, (which Dems favor) both new and previous immigrants may prefer Dem policies.
2
> David Autor of MIT likewise suggests that trade produces winners and losers.
I suggest that 2+2=4. Trade benefits all in the non-Pragmatist, non-statistical, non-govt-economic-controls long run. Trade is good. Subsistence farms are bad.
I suggest that 2+2=4. Trade benefits all in the non-Pragmatist, non-statistical, non-govt-economic-controls long run. Trade is good. Subsistence farms are bad.
Start taxing remittances.
No more low skilled immigration, period.
Let's bring in 1000's of doctors and other highly paid professionals to compete and lower our medical and other costs. How about that?
Start enforcing our immigration laws.
No free education or services for illegals, which is a huge incentive to come.
Eliminate anchor babies. No more family chain migration.
An immigration moratorium would be prudent.
Trump has the potential to win this election on immigration issues alone.
Get Americans working first.
No more low skilled immigration, period.
Let's bring in 1000's of doctors and other highly paid professionals to compete and lower our medical and other costs. How about that?
Start enforcing our immigration laws.
No free education or services for illegals, which is a huge incentive to come.
Eliminate anchor babies. No more family chain migration.
An immigration moratorium would be prudent.
Trump has the potential to win this election on immigration issues alone.
Get Americans working first.
15
It's hard for me to believe that the real resistance to immigration stems from an economic base. If it was, in fact, the case, one would expect Donald Trump to be attracting support from all working class ethnicities equally. He's not.
Still, to the extent that it is an economic displacement problem, there is an easy way to defuse it: Guarantee every native-born American who wants to work a living-wage job.
A number of economists have described in detail how such a guarantee might be effected. All that's lacking is a congress willing to read up on their proposals.
Still, to the extent that it is an economic displacement problem, there is an easy way to defuse it: Guarantee every native-born American who wants to work a living-wage job.
A number of economists have described in detail how such a guarantee might be effected. All that's lacking is a congress willing to read up on their proposals.
> Guarantee every native-born American who wants to work a living-wage job.
Capitalism produces more jobs than workers.
>A number of economists have described in detail how such a guarantee might be effected.
With guns or freedom?
Capitalism produces more jobs than workers.
>A number of economists have described in detail how such a guarantee might be effected.
With guns or freedom?
The most interesting thing about this article is how Trump and the rest cherry pick the data, to amplify the at most TINY effect of immigration on the low wages of low-skilled workers as if it's the only cause. And it's also interesting how these articles always bring out the masses of commenters to crow about this insignificant effect and blow it up out of all proportion, and to use it to justify draconian and inhumane immigration policy.
In fact, the article says that the effect of immigration pales in comparison with all the rest of the reasons wages at the bottom are depressed:
"The effects of immigration range from 0 to a few percentage points and are swamped by the impacts of slowdown in U.S. education supplies, technological change, and eroding labor market institutions (unions, minimum wages, rising outsourcing/fissuring of the workplace)."
Don't these people read, or think?
Cleary they don't, do they, and this is the reason they deny global warming, too. In that case they pick outliers on behalf of polluters, and here, cherry-pick data for the haters who enjoy amping up this "us versus them" vibe, and they can count on voters not doing their homework.
Well done, Trump et all. You have helped nominate demagogue whipping up anti-immigrant fervor so that we are on the cusp of deporting 11 million immigrants, disrupting families, neighborhoods, and society as a whole for no good reason.
In fact, the article says that the effect of immigration pales in comparison with all the rest of the reasons wages at the bottom are depressed:
"The effects of immigration range from 0 to a few percentage points and are swamped by the impacts of slowdown in U.S. education supplies, technological change, and eroding labor market institutions (unions, minimum wages, rising outsourcing/fissuring of the workplace)."
Don't these people read, or think?
Cleary they don't, do they, and this is the reason they deny global warming, too. In that case they pick outliers on behalf of polluters, and here, cherry-pick data for the haters who enjoy amping up this "us versus them" vibe, and they can count on voters not doing their homework.
Well done, Trump et all. You have helped nominate demagogue whipping up anti-immigrant fervor so that we are on the cusp of deporting 11 million immigrants, disrupting families, neighborhoods, and society as a whole for no good reason.
3
"The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration" is very impressive in it scope - 509 pages, and its origin, The National Academy of Science. I am also impressed by the authors' skill in manipulating the data, slanting the presentation and otherwise deceiving the reader into accepting the position that the authors undoubtably maintained even before they conducted their "research". Almost fooled me. Shame on the Academy.
6
America has been so polarized over immigration, legal as well as illegal. The HB-1 visas are all legal for the so-called STEM workers. This is intended to bring in people with advanced degrees--many whom completed undergraduate University or those who continued to achieve post grad degrees here and received updated visa status to work in highly skilled jobs. Then of course are those that either overstayed initial tourist visas or physically sneaked across the border from Mexico.
Either situation stirs resentments from a large minority of US citizens. But this is nothing new in our history. All immigrants from before the Civil War have had to fight for legitimacy, acceptance, and become part of the "melting pot". Most all people and experts have agreed that this has been a vital component in our national strength. Thus the ethnic, racial, economic competition, and sheer numbers which have been truly massive at times is a repeating cycle since literally the beginning.
The big question now is whether any middle ground can be implemented with the undocumented Hispanic population.
Either situation stirs resentments from a large minority of US citizens. But this is nothing new in our history. All immigrants from before the Civil War have had to fight for legitimacy, acceptance, and become part of the "melting pot". Most all people and experts have agreed that this has been a vital component in our national strength. Thus the ethnic, racial, economic competition, and sheer numbers which have been truly massive at times is a repeating cycle since literally the beginning.
The big question now is whether any middle ground can be implemented with the undocumented Hispanic population.
1
While the undocumented Hispanic people are the main targets of rage, there are several other groups, particularly Muslims regardless of which country they come from that are equally unwelcome. Human Color remains a distinctive hate point although only a small percentage of the anti-immigrant movement will dare admit it. The unusual aspect of all this is that the leading crusaders to stop any more people of color, or of the Muslim faith primarily comes from the republican party. I realize that many of the "under educated"(Trump's term not mine) that come from both major parties are also angry about the border issue.
That's why good leaders recognize and strive to heal these wounds rather than spend all their time lighting fires, hoping to start the Human Forrest ablaze. Apparently the more death and destruction that can be brought out of their tool kits, the more votes they hope to gain.
As evidenced by the treatment of President Obama, the republicans have no other methods to garner votes. He beat them soundly and will be remembered forever. Trump and republican leaders, nothing but footnotes if that.
That's why good leaders recognize and strive to heal these wounds rather than spend all their time lighting fires, hoping to start the Human Forrest ablaze. Apparently the more death and destruction that can be brought out of their tool kits, the more votes they hope to gain.
As evidenced by the treatment of President Obama, the republicans have no other methods to garner votes. He beat them soundly and will be remembered forever. Trump and republican leaders, nothing but footnotes if that.
It appears that the cost is based on a single employable person. What are the costs comparison if an entire family (2 adults/2 children) enters illegally? Aren't boarder states the primary payers of the cost of public education & health care? In my area the average cost per pupil for public education is 12-14k per child. It would be useful to see a long term analysis of the costs/benefits if an entire family spends a lifetime developing into productive members of our society. I do think that the federal government should reimburse border states for 100% of the costs of legal & illegal immigration.
8
This article has the trappings of detail and thoughtfulness, but fails on both dimensions because it refuses to profile the various immigrant groups. The Economist carried a stunning article last year with statistics on just how different these groups are. Yes. The standard stereotypes are quite accurate. Asian immigrants do very well overall and clearly bring badly needed skill sets - Filipino nurses, Indian doctors in underserved areas, etc. Their children do even better. Illegal immigrants, especially those from Mexico and Central America, bring a strong work ethic. However, their offspring struggle into third and even fourth generations, primarily due to much lower educational attainment. If the pro-immigration side points to "the infusion of human capital" and "capacity for technological change" then why aren't immigration policies designed to reinforce those positive characteristics. If fairness to Mr. Trump, whom I in no way support, this isn't the sort of immigration that he's railing against.
6
Is it possible that the attainment levels of different immigrant groups are a function of IQ. It is well known that Asian-Americans have an average IQ of 115 while Hispanic-Americans have an average IQ of 90. For comparison, European-Americans have an average IQ of 100 while African-Americans have an average IQ of 85.
1
What is never discussed in our current immigration debate is mass immigration's effect on the environment and sustainability. Most of those immigrating to the US come from much poorer countries and thus have a much lower resource consumption per capita. By virtue of immigrating to the US, immigrants will consume more resources and produce more carbon and pollution. So one can argue that mass immigration is bad for environmental sustainability.
Related environmental issues like sprawl, wildlife habitat loss, crowding and increased pollution all increase with mass immigration. These are also quality of life issues that are negatively impacted by mass immigration.
If the Democratic party were really serious about climate change and all of our other existential environmental problems, they would be all for heavy restrictions on immigration. Ultimately, we will not be able to solve these problems if we are unwilling to confront overpopulation.
Related environmental issues like sprawl, wildlife habitat loss, crowding and increased pollution all increase with mass immigration. These are also quality of life issues that are negatively impacted by mass immigration.
If the Democratic party were really serious about climate change and all of our other existential environmental problems, they would be all for heavy restrictions on immigration. Ultimately, we will not be able to solve these problems if we are unwilling to confront overpopulation.
8
Undoubtedly immigration increases aggregate GDP, as it increases the population. But that is not a measure of welfare of any single person or family (although might advantage the investor class via higher corporate profits).
And it seems from these studies and others that immigration probably raises per capita GDP -- something approximating average individual or family income. The same kind of effect as with free trade.
Of course, within that higher average there are outright winners and losers--immigration does in fact hurt some Americans. Again, same with free trade (they are really two sides of the same coin--either outsource the jobs or import the labor).
However, lost in all this dollars and sense talk is the fact that these economic rationales for immigration won't suddenly change tomorrow or in 50 or 100 years.
So my question to supporters of liberalized immigration is, once the country doubles in population (and also demographically turns on its head and is majority Hispanic), there still will be the same argument for more immigration. By 2200 or whenever, will you be content with a billion people within our borders or want more, more and ever more?
Personally, I think that this is nuts. We need to start living SUSTAINABLY today. That means 0 population growth. Yes, we can always import more people--indefinitely--but the question is are we trading our culture, our way of life, our quality of life and our natural environment for short term economic gain?
And it seems from these studies and others that immigration probably raises per capita GDP -- something approximating average individual or family income. The same kind of effect as with free trade.
Of course, within that higher average there are outright winners and losers--immigration does in fact hurt some Americans. Again, same with free trade (they are really two sides of the same coin--either outsource the jobs or import the labor).
However, lost in all this dollars and sense talk is the fact that these economic rationales for immigration won't suddenly change tomorrow or in 50 or 100 years.
So my question to supporters of liberalized immigration is, once the country doubles in population (and also demographically turns on its head and is majority Hispanic), there still will be the same argument for more immigration. By 2200 or whenever, will you be content with a billion people within our borders or want more, more and ever more?
Personally, I think that this is nuts. We need to start living SUSTAINABLY today. That means 0 population growth. Yes, we can always import more people--indefinitely--but the question is are we trading our culture, our way of life, our quality of life and our natural environment for short term economic gain?
12
This essay is far more balanced than the typical essay on immigration in the NY Times. And at least it discusses the issue itself, not the tangential issues that have engulfed the campaign between Clinton and Trump.
Nevertheless, academics belong to a stratum of society that is advantaged by illegal immigration, in contrast to unskilled American workers whose wages fall because of competition with illegal immigrants.
Even in academia, tribalism prevails. Most academics are liberal and see illegal immigration as benefitting the US economy.
My perspective is quite different. Although illegal immigration does drive down wages, it also results in diversion of resources because of too much population growth over the long term.
By long term, I mean over decades. US population more than doubled since 1950 California population almost quadrupled in that period.
Population growth is making planet earth more and more crowded. It is one of the causes of global warming, a fact seldom admitted by liberals. And other things being equal, population growth will increase the gap between rich and poor.
One can see extreme cases by visiting third world countries like India, the Sudan, countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
High birth rates in the Middle East are one of the reasons for political instability.
It seems prudent for the US to encourage small family size in international affairs. And controlling population growth in the US is impossible without ending illegal immigration.
Nevertheless, academics belong to a stratum of society that is advantaged by illegal immigration, in contrast to unskilled American workers whose wages fall because of competition with illegal immigrants.
Even in academia, tribalism prevails. Most academics are liberal and see illegal immigration as benefitting the US economy.
My perspective is quite different. Although illegal immigration does drive down wages, it also results in diversion of resources because of too much population growth over the long term.
By long term, I mean over decades. US population more than doubled since 1950 California population almost quadrupled in that period.
Population growth is making planet earth more and more crowded. It is one of the causes of global warming, a fact seldom admitted by liberals. And other things being equal, population growth will increase the gap between rich and poor.
One can see extreme cases by visiting third world countries like India, the Sudan, countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
High birth rates in the Middle East are one of the reasons for political instability.
It seems prudent for the US to encourage small family size in international affairs. And controlling population growth in the US is impossible without ending illegal immigration.
9
American National Academy of Sciences issues Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration Report 2016?
I fail to see how such a report can honestly be made in the first place. Certainly the report seems to act as if America has been nothing more, and in the words of Oscar Wilde, than a nation of immigrants which have gone from barbarism to decadence with no civilization in between, which is to say the report seems to suggest there is no American civilization worth preserving, merely a constant pack of immigrant barbarians over the years which must through purely economic means be prevented from decadence.
Compare this with how an Israeli or Frenchman or Japanese might view the problem: They would try to factor in the cost of disruption to their culture and try to foresee future cultural developments. The U.S. report seems to suggest neither a culture worth preserving nor any culture worth making in the future. We have merely quantities--immigrants--and questions of how an economic machine can provide for quantities. It seems positively Soviet in its pure capitalism/communism calculation and how best to bring various races, ethnic groups, cultures under a single and just economic machine. Ironic how the U.S. had the cold war with Russia but both nations essentially in their vastness and diversity and incapability apparently of creating a single culture have been forced instead to the purely economic/scientific rationale to prevent decadence, collapse of civilization.
I fail to see how such a report can honestly be made in the first place. Certainly the report seems to act as if America has been nothing more, and in the words of Oscar Wilde, than a nation of immigrants which have gone from barbarism to decadence with no civilization in between, which is to say the report seems to suggest there is no American civilization worth preserving, merely a constant pack of immigrant barbarians over the years which must through purely economic means be prevented from decadence.
Compare this with how an Israeli or Frenchman or Japanese might view the problem: They would try to factor in the cost of disruption to their culture and try to foresee future cultural developments. The U.S. report seems to suggest neither a culture worth preserving nor any culture worth making in the future. We have merely quantities--immigrants--and questions of how an economic machine can provide for quantities. It seems positively Soviet in its pure capitalism/communism calculation and how best to bring various races, ethnic groups, cultures under a single and just economic machine. Ironic how the U.S. had the cold war with Russia but both nations essentially in their vastness and diversity and incapability apparently of creating a single culture have been forced instead to the purely economic/scientific rationale to prevent decadence, collapse of civilization.
5
At least Thamas Edsall is trying to address the question: How much does immigration (including illegal immigration) cost us?
This is a cut above most NY Times commentary because it focuses on actual issues on which Clinton and Trump differ.
But it is also difficult to answer the question, because it is virtually impossible to measure "cost" without making preliminary value judgments.
Social scientists often hide these value judgments. Thus economists talk about GDP or GDP per capita, or real GDP per capita, assuming that these are the variables that measure "economic growth."
Yet these measurements do not really get at "quality of life."
Take for example the GDP produced by hunters and gatherers living from food gathered on a Savannah. As long as each works alone, there is no economic activity, so no GDP, per capita or otherwise.
So does this mean that hunterer-gatherer life has no value? That is not, in spite of the teachings of economics, the choice that everyone willingly makes.
After Henry David Thoreau tried to "live off the land," and achieved a near zero GDP existence. Was Thoreau wrong to make that choice?
Or at the other extreme, we have the city of Norilsk in Siberia, in which the environment is being destroyed to mine Nickel and other commodities. In Norilsk, the GDP per capita is pretty high but quality of life is so bad that Russia does not allow tourists to visit.
Equating GDP with quality of life is disastrously wrong.
This is a cut above most NY Times commentary because it focuses on actual issues on which Clinton and Trump differ.
But it is also difficult to answer the question, because it is virtually impossible to measure "cost" without making preliminary value judgments.
Social scientists often hide these value judgments. Thus economists talk about GDP or GDP per capita, or real GDP per capita, assuming that these are the variables that measure "economic growth."
Yet these measurements do not really get at "quality of life."
Take for example the GDP produced by hunters and gatherers living from food gathered on a Savannah. As long as each works alone, there is no economic activity, so no GDP, per capita or otherwise.
So does this mean that hunterer-gatherer life has no value? That is not, in spite of the teachings of economics, the choice that everyone willingly makes.
After Henry David Thoreau tried to "live off the land," and achieved a near zero GDP existence. Was Thoreau wrong to make that choice?
Or at the other extreme, we have the city of Norilsk in Siberia, in which the environment is being destroyed to mine Nickel and other commodities. In Norilsk, the GDP per capita is pretty high but quality of life is so bad that Russia does not allow tourists to visit.
Equating GDP with quality of life is disastrously wrong.
3
Please, quit insulting my intelligence. Since the mid-1990s, the US has allowed the entry of approximately 1 million legal immigrants per year. That equates to approximately 21 million legal immigrants (1995-2016). The number of illegal immigrants in this country now stands at approximately 12 million. Putting aside any positive contributions legal and illegal immigrants might make to the economy, their presence has suppressed wages; without the millions of workers within the total of legal and illegal immigrants, US companies, large and small, would have to compete for workers and that would drive up wages. Last note....since the early 1970s, the US birth rate has not met replacement requirements. That's a fact. As such, over a period of 40 years the US would not have had, without illegal and legal immigration, the population necessary to grow the economy (i.e., consumption demand; labor). So, the two (illegal and legal immigration) might have a positive impact on the economy, but they undeniably have contributed to suppressing wages and benefits, as employers have not had to compete as aggressively for labor.
10
Which has cost us more, illegal immigration or transferring jobs overseas?
To my mind, illegal immigration has cost more jobs among the poorly educated whereas job transfer has cost more jobs in the middle class.
To my mind, illegal immigration has cost more jobs among the poorly educated whereas job transfer has cost more jobs in the middle class.
11
i was delighted to read yet another fine bit of research by dr. edsall ... although i have to ask that in the future he not make the argument for causality by pattern matching two graphs (here, of immigration and political polarization). do a world depression, world war and global reconstruction count for nothing?
here is a more important crux. to quote the report:
"The inflow of labor supply has helped the United States avoid the problems facing other economies that have stagnated as a result of unfavorable demographics, particularly the effects of an aging work force and reduced consumption by older residents."
this is economic doctrine that comes straight out of adam smith's "wealth of nations" -- economic prosperity depends on a growing population. and, if birthrate cannot supply the influx of "barbarians" that require costly schooling and care to nurture and socialize, society turns to an influx of immigrants who provide the same benefits with similar social costs of support and acculturation.
we see in global human population growth the same contemporaneous global "immigration" effects: wealth transfer to capital owners, impoverishment of labor, a weakened middle class, social fragmentation, increased present day welfare costs.
eventually global population growth will falter: future domestic and global population growth will stagnate. what then? find a report that forecasts the effects of zero immigration and you may have your answers.
here is a more important crux. to quote the report:
"The inflow of labor supply has helped the United States avoid the problems facing other economies that have stagnated as a result of unfavorable demographics, particularly the effects of an aging work force and reduced consumption by older residents."
this is economic doctrine that comes straight out of adam smith's "wealth of nations" -- economic prosperity depends on a growing population. and, if birthrate cannot supply the influx of "barbarians" that require costly schooling and care to nurture and socialize, society turns to an influx of immigrants who provide the same benefits with similar social costs of support and acculturation.
we see in global human population growth the same contemporaneous global "immigration" effects: wealth transfer to capital owners, impoverishment of labor, a weakened middle class, social fragmentation, increased present day welfare costs.
eventually global population growth will falter: future domestic and global population growth will stagnate. what then? find a report that forecasts the effects of zero immigration and you may have your answers.
2
While the article shows the net costs to state and local governments, it is remiss by failing to include the net benefit to federal budgets which offsets a significant portion of the state and local shortfalls. Illegal immigrants, in particular, often pay into Social Security, Medicare and unemployment money they will never take out.
1
It is highly offensive to assume illegal immigrants will not receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. This assumes that after working a lifetime in low wage jobs many of these people will have no income and be forced to live on the streets. Democrats who care will push strongly that these people receive the benefits they paid into.
Arguing they pay into these retirement programs but will not receive benefits advocates that these people should be exploited and then abandoned when they can no longer work.
Arguing they pay into these retirement programs but will not receive benefits advocates that these people should be exploited and then abandoned when they can no longer work.
1
" Illegal immigrants, in particular, often pay into Social Security, Medicare and unemployment money they will never take out."
On the other hand, many illegal aliens work for cash "under the table" and contribute nothing at all to Social Security, Medicare or unemployment funding.
On the other hand, many illegal aliens work for cash "under the table" and contribute nothing at all to Social Security, Medicare or unemployment funding.
5
The study was short-sighted, but unfortunately so because the data does not exist to examine scientifically the impact of immigration beyond one generation and not before WWII. Yet, for example, the case can be made that one of America's largest exports, motion pictures, is due to immigration of Jews to America from Eastern Europe a century ago. And it is fact that poor Irish immigrants in the second half of the nineteenth century produced two US Presidents a century later.
1
As many cogent readers have pointed out, the study and/or this column is a failure because it does not discern between legal and illegal immigration. And any benefit/harm analysis on its face overlooks intangibles. IE: yesterday while shopping for jeans I had to listen to an onslaught of announcements in Spanish. In America!!! In CA our public schools are painted as failing: they are not, many are excellent. But the median is drawn down drastically because of so many ESL kids from third world, illegal families. Many formerly nice working class areas have turned into crowded, spanish-speaking third world ghettos of illegals, which removes a huge housing stock out of the radar of Americans desperately in need of affordable housing. I am a life-long liberal democrat-- except on this one issue. Does my acknowledgement of the true cost of the invasion we have been dealing with for 40 years mean I am a racist? Think again.
7
Why just we don't get rid of the illegal in front of immigration anyway if Hillary becomes president. That's basically what she said. And I'm a Hillary supporter but I can't disagree with her anymore on immigration
1
It drives me crazy to keep hearing that immigrants drive down wages.
The people who take advantage of workers by paying them less are the ones who drive down wages.
The people who take advantage of workers by paying them less are the ones who drive down wages.
1
How many immigrants, legal or otherwise, work in Trump-branded propties? How many worked on construction crews as these properties were being built? How many immigrants tend the grounds and landscaping chores at Trump's Palm Beach resort?
While Edsall's column today is interesting, it suffers from being overly academic. Can't the news media instead focus on the candidates and, say, Members of Congress and how they utilize immigrant labor in their homes and properties? I will wager that Trump, Clinton, and the majority of Senators and House members can fulminate all day long while also taking full advantage of low wage work crews, maids, nannies and drivers.
While Edsall's column today is interesting, it suffers from being overly academic. Can't the news media instead focus on the candidates and, say, Members of Congress and how they utilize immigrant labor in their homes and properties? I will wager that Trump, Clinton, and the majority of Senators and House members can fulminate all day long while also taking full advantage of low wage work crews, maids, nannies and drivers.
2
Interesting that the cost of immigration is measure in jobs and some aggregate valuation of "the economy".
Someone needs to look at schools. There's always so much hand-wringing about our declining student performance, with resulting relentless curricular changes, and lots and lots of blame heaped on teachers who are perceived to be poor performing because students are poor performing.
Try teaching in a high school where over 70 percent of the students are either in ESOL or have recently exited from it. All of our classes and most of the reading material has had to be leveled down by at least four or five grade levels.
So who's measuring the opportunity cost to native born American students who have to sit through significantly simplified coursework, where the educational focus is to make sure the bottom performing students can pass some standardized test? What's the opportunity cost to us as a nation when our funding is not going to top performers, but rather more and more to teaching English to newly arrived 17 year-olds?
And who is footing this bill that is delivered via real estate taxes? Middle class people who own their homes who've seen their real estate taxes go up and up to pay for the thousands of new students who are living with friends and distant relatives who pay nothing. Who's measuring this cost, and more to the point, who's being stuck with the bill for it?
Someone needs to look at schools. There's always so much hand-wringing about our declining student performance, with resulting relentless curricular changes, and lots and lots of blame heaped on teachers who are perceived to be poor performing because students are poor performing.
Try teaching in a high school where over 70 percent of the students are either in ESOL or have recently exited from it. All of our classes and most of the reading material has had to be leveled down by at least four or five grade levels.
So who's measuring the opportunity cost to native born American students who have to sit through significantly simplified coursework, where the educational focus is to make sure the bottom performing students can pass some standardized test? What's the opportunity cost to us as a nation when our funding is not going to top performers, but rather more and more to teaching English to newly arrived 17 year-olds?
And who is footing this bill that is delivered via real estate taxes? Middle class people who own their homes who've seen their real estate taxes go up and up to pay for the thousands of new students who are living with friends and distant relatives who pay nothing. Who's measuring this cost, and more to the point, who's being stuck with the bill for it?
6
As I recall, there was a meat processing plant in one of the Dakotas or Iowa, that was raided because of all the illegal workers; afterwards it shut down because the owners couldn't find enough legal people to do the work.
2
At. That. Price. Before they busted the unions, there were plenty of people to do that work and support a family at a liveable wage.
7
The sad, yet terribly true fact, is that the culture of 'Meat Processing Plants' has become one of barbarity and sadism.
MPP is just another way of saying animal torture for the amusement and to the bravado of the workers.
Can you imagine slaughtering sentient beings for a living? The inherent cruelty permeates our culture.
At least in the UK, there are laws to protect the animals on factory farms.
The USDA must create and enforce the same, if not better, laws for the humane treatment of these beings.
The workers would then be able to kill with kindness.
MPP is just another way of saying animal torture for the amusement and to the bravado of the workers.
Can you imagine slaughtering sentient beings for a living? The inherent cruelty permeates our culture.
At least in the UK, there are laws to protect the animals on factory farms.
The USDA must create and enforce the same, if not better, laws for the humane treatment of these beings.
The workers would then be able to kill with kindness.
No wonder people support Trump despite his personality. He speaks to the anger of American people regarding uncontrolled "free trade", uncontrolled illegal (and increasingly legal) immigration, and politicians who are simply corporate sponsored lawmakers.
7
If clinton wins, the entire executive branch of the US government will become nothing more than a wholly owned subsidiary of the clinton foundation.
2
According to a study released by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine immigration drains the government in the short run, sapping as much as $296 billion a year from federal, state and local taxpayers while depressing wages.
The data show that immigrants take more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Although immigrants do boost the size of the economy, the gains are heavily skewed toward the immigrants themselves and to wealthy investors not to native-born workers who end up competing with the new arrivals.
Spin that Mr Edsall!
The data show that immigrants take more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Although immigrants do boost the size of the economy, the gains are heavily skewed toward the immigrants themselves and to wealthy investors not to native-born workers who end up competing with the new arrivals.
Spin that Mr Edsall!
9
"While the most common assumption is that a larger work force drives down wages, in practice, “when you look at the evidence, larger population normally increases productivity,” Card wrote."
What is it NYTimes, productivity is not the same as wages. Why such a misleading statement? Comparing two different items. Productivity does go up, because those with work want to hold on to it, if there is more competition. This does not mean wages go up.
What is it NYTimes, productivity is not the same as wages. Why such a misleading statement? Comparing two different items. Productivity does go up, because those with work want to hold on to it, if there is more competition. This does not mean wages go up.
7
there is one immutable conclusion to be drawn from both this opinion piece and the report it cites...Stay in School!
Perhaps then for voters not yet decided on who has a better policy on immigration -- Trump or Clinton or whoever at a more local level -- they should look to a candidate's education policy and see which proposes to do more to improve the educational opportunities for Americans and therefore our future economic success at both a personal and national level.
Perhaps then for voters not yet decided on who has a better policy on immigration -- Trump or Clinton or whoever at a more local level -- they should look to a candidate's education policy and see which proposes to do more to improve the educational opportunities for Americans and therefore our future economic success at both a personal and national level.
2
Government worshiping progressives always claim that all problems could be solved if only their great god government had more money from higher taxes. Here in NJ, special state funding allows inner city schools to spend as much per pupil as the most affluent suburbs, but that does not stop these schools from having the lowest test scores and graduation rates in the state. As long as some groups have a culture that values sports and hip-hop music above education no amount of funding will make them want to learn.
2
Now a study should be completed on illegal immigration.
7
Too bad "nativists" only take advantage of our real natives. Like Standing Rock, ND, where selfish business concerns are poisoning the water, and digging up holy ground, to NO BENEFIT for our country, but only for themselves.
2
Oh Economists...spinning away....be sure to follow their money...who supports and pays them. That's how you know where they are coming from. Aren't they so smart...totally missed the housing bubble. Economics is simply the ideology of money. There are different points of view, depending on whose money is at issue.
Everything is supply and demand. The more supply you have, the cheaper you get what you are paying for. Any questions? You don't need a PHD for that.
Everything is supply and demand. The more supply you have, the cheaper you get what you are paying for. Any questions? You don't need a PHD for that.
6
I have asked before and I am asking again for the NY Times editorial board or one of the opinion writers to explicitly support illegal immigration and the retention of illegal aliens in the United States. In that editorial or opinion article I would expect that the reason(s) that illegal immigration is a benefit to American Society be listed and explained. If the reason is that illegal immigration made legal is good for the Democratic Party, the editorial board or writer should say so. The NY Times editorial board prefers Democratic Party officeholders at every level of government. The legalization of 11 million or more needy and dependent voters would assure Democratic Party domination of at least national politics in perpetuity. If the belief is that only the Democratic Party should govern, then that should be the reason that Democratic Party partisans, like Mr. Edsall support illegal immigration. Please have the courage of your convictions and state the obvious.
6
The article focuses mostly on low wage jobs, but let's not forget that many higher paying jobs, especially in technology, have gone to H2B visa holders such that the average pay for such jobs has decreased by more than half over the last 10 years.
Then there are immigrants who arrive legally and simply stay, taking jobs for which they were not originally granted a visa.
To me, immigration is not a problem for either party; the Democrats want to increase their constituents, the Republicans want low wage workers. Status quo benefits both sides, so nothing gets done.
Then there are immigrants who arrive legally and simply stay, taking jobs for which they were not originally granted a visa.
To me, immigration is not a problem for either party; the Democrats want to increase their constituents, the Republicans want low wage workers. Status quo benefits both sides, so nothing gets done.
5
"Conservatives calling for more restrictions on immigration..."
Is that a funny way of saying Conservatives that want to see existing immigration law enforced?
Is that a funny way of saying Conservatives that want to see existing immigration law enforced?
7
Now do the same analysis with the h-1b immmigration
7
This topic will be mute soon once Donald Trump is elected.
2
I understand that it suits the sensibilities of many to lump together legal and illegal immigration.
But to many it seems like an attentional avoidance of the topic.
In fact, I would imagine it's that kind of thing that fuels many Trump supporters, who believe they can't trust the media.
The media need to be as clear and transparent as politicians--please don't add to the paranoia that's fueling Trump.
But to many it seems like an attentional avoidance of the topic.
In fact, I would imagine it's that kind of thing that fuels many Trump supporters, who believe they can't trust the media.
The media need to be as clear and transparent as politicians--please don't add to the paranoia that's fueling Trump.
3
For the billionth time, make a distinction between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration. The fact that NYT adamantly refuses to make that critical distinction in every one of the daily articles it runs on this issue should tell you that they are conflating the ILLEGAL with the LEGAL as a smokescreen for their agenda.
Commenters repeatedly point this out, but the distinction continues to be deliberately ignored. You figure out why.
Commenters repeatedly point this out, but the distinction continues to be deliberately ignored. You figure out why.
15
Nothing upsets people more than people cutting in line. We live in a society that has clearly defined laws and rules. To simplify the matter , why is it so hard to understand that when you enter the country without legal permission you take the place of the person who is following the rules. Are those line cutters more importantl than the people doing it the right way? It seems that me that if you are willing to break the law with no consideration for others you are likely to do that again.
9
There are two aspects to immigration as I see it.
The first is those who cross the border from Mexico who are poor and generally take jobs that require lower skills. Often this happens even if the person is well educated, but their skills do not immediately transfer to the US. An example of this is doctors and lawyers who have fled persecution or crime in their own country and must work immediately to support themselves.
The second is the pool of those who win H1b visas or visas tied to investment in a company that will ostensibly employ a certain number of US citizens. Those who enter with H1b visas often take jobs from US citizens who are well educated. Those who enter, often with their families, under the visas tied to inventing in the US often buy small businesses that were good places to work and shop. They quickly eliminate the few remaining US employees, and the business gradually goes downhill. The staff may no longer speak English sufficiently well to serve the original customers. The quality of the merchandise changes for the worse. Both result in the customers leaving. Eventually the business fails or the owner sells it and moves on. One more store is left vacant and a number of people are unemployed, but the original "investor" has his Green Card for the family.
The first is those who cross the border from Mexico who are poor and generally take jobs that require lower skills. Often this happens even if the person is well educated, but their skills do not immediately transfer to the US. An example of this is doctors and lawyers who have fled persecution or crime in their own country and must work immediately to support themselves.
The second is the pool of those who win H1b visas or visas tied to investment in a company that will ostensibly employ a certain number of US citizens. Those who enter with H1b visas often take jobs from US citizens who are well educated. Those who enter, often with their families, under the visas tied to inventing in the US often buy small businesses that were good places to work and shop. They quickly eliminate the few remaining US employees, and the business gradually goes downhill. The staff may no longer speak English sufficiently well to serve the original customers. The quality of the merchandise changes for the worse. Both result in the customers leaving. Eventually the business fails or the owner sells it and moves on. One more store is left vacant and a number of people are unemployed, but the original "investor" has his Green Card for the family.
10
There is not just a left/right division on the desirability of immigration - it is mainly a class division with ethnic contribution. The Republican big-money and general employer wing favors immigration because it makes cheap labor available and expands markets. The working-class wing has rebelled and is supporting Trump partly for sound economic reasons (of self-interest) as well as xenophobia. Trump's position has presumably drawn some voters who would otherwise be Democratic. Is Trump's position, and resistance to immigration in general, left or right? Any politicians of either party who support immigration can draw on support from employers in general (for some of whom, such as growers, immigration is absolutely vital), and Democrats draw support from non-immigrant Latinos who are sympathetic for ethnic reasons. As for many issues, the two-party system makes for a confusing mix of alliances.
14
It is NOT xenophobia, and it's time for lefties to stop saying so (it's just a $5 word they like thinking is "intellectual" and therefore others won't know what it means!). Nobody is opposed to hispanics or latinos. It's not about race, because they identify as WHITE (and are no darker than Italians or Greek Americans anyhow). We'd feel exactly the same way if they came from Quebec and insisted on speaking French and refusing to learn English.
This is BEYOND left or right. It's about secure borders, and the rule of LAW. The Democrats want to pretend we have no borders and no laws. Read Hillary's WORDS. She wants to welcome people who break our laws, who have no respect for laws -- and reward them. That is intolerable.
This is BEYOND left or right. It's about secure borders, and the rule of LAW. The Democrats want to pretend we have no borders and no laws. Read Hillary's WORDS. She wants to welcome people who break our laws, who have no respect for laws -- and reward them. That is intolerable.
10
Americans love LEGAL immigration and never like law-breakers, especially the Washington, D.C. variety.
1
Many immigrants are very good workers and have contributed, and continue to contribute, to this nation. However, it is the perception of many Americans, and rightfully so, that the majority of immigrants enter this country, whether legally or illegally, and immediately are placed on the welfare rolls. That is costing the taxpayers several hundred billion dollars each year.
10
I have read analysis of this report by five newspapers, and this one is by far the most balanced. This election season has rendered the US press political lackeys, insulting to the intelligence of their readers, undermining to the country's political process, a self-inflicted blow to press survival in the digital age.
Thanks, Mr. Edsall. I had begun to completely abandon the US intelligentsia in a season of universal crudeness.
Thanks, Mr. Edsall. I had begun to completely abandon the US intelligentsia in a season of universal crudeness.
2
There are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, people who come to the US on various Visas (like the 9/11 bombers), asylum seekers and refugees. Refugees are people most thoroughly vetted and have multiple security screenings. These are all legal distinctions and this column should have spelled that out since it seems they don't teach these distinctions in schools anymore. Most people who come here from other countries are hard working and appreciate the opportunity and so create a good life here. The first generation often struggles but their children start businesses and enrich the economy. We should probably also acknowledge that North America was not discovered, but invaded. We killed millions of people already living here. If you are not Native American then you are descended from immigrants.
"We" didn't kill anyone. And I'm not descended from *immigrants*, I'm descended from *settlers*. Settlers move into an area that is largely uninhabited and in which there is no preexisting "system" to process & assimilate them. Immigrants move into an already established system of laws and a dominant culture and need to adapt & assimilate.
3
What Mr. Edsall - and the authors of the report he discusses - ignore is the difference between legal and illegal immigration. While there are a few people who want to restrict legal immigration, the vast majority of those allegedly opposed to immigration are only opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.
It is the illegal immigrants who are most often poorly educated and who therefore reduce wages for unskilled native born Americans. And they are also disproportionately a burden, rather than a contributor, to the US taxpayer.
Until someone does a study that differentiates between legal and illegal immigration, these discussions will be irrelevant to the real issues.
It is the illegal immigrants who are most often poorly educated and who therefore reduce wages for unskilled native born Americans. And they are also disproportionately a burden, rather than a contributor, to the US taxpayer.
Until someone does a study that differentiates between legal and illegal immigration, these discussions will be irrelevant to the real issues.
10
There are many flaws in our system of legal immigration as well.
Instead of what we have now, we could require that all immigrants speak English, have a college degree or better, and have substantial assets. We would still get plenty of immigrants. But instead of competing with our unskilled laborers, such immigrants would compete with our affluent professionals. And that is exactly why it's not going to happen - our affluent professionals want cheap servants, not somebody who will take their job.
Instead of what we have now, we could require that all immigrants speak English, have a college degree or better, and have substantial assets. We would still get plenty of immigrants. But instead of competing with our unskilled laborers, such immigrants would compete with our affluent professionals. And that is exactly why it's not going to happen - our affluent professionals want cheap servants, not somebody who will take their job.
7
Immigration isn’t an issue. The issue is illegal immigration. We don’t need illegal immigration to spur the economy or sustain population levels. We can increase legal immigration simply by raising legal immigration quotas. Millions are waiting in line. Legal immigration produces a highly diverse stream of immigrants who come speaking a multitude of languages from a multitude of countries and cultures. Their tremendous diversity encourages them to assimilate and acculturate into American society rather than coalescing in racial and ethnic enclaves. They also tend to possess the skills and education required to flourish in U.S. society. Illegal immigration produces a non-diverse, low-skilled and poorly educated stream of migrants who lack the skills and education required to assimilate, acculturate and flourish in U.S. society. Since the majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanics who settle in states like California or Texas that already have Hispanic majorities, they decrease rather than increase diversity.
9
More and more legal immigrants are NOT assimilating into mainstream America, continuing their native homeland habits/language/culture/religions.
THIS is a major problem. The melting pot is no longer happening as it used to.
THIS is a major problem. The melting pot is no longer happening as it used to.
3
The immigration debate is always expressed in terms of what the two parties want and the economic-impact, pro & con. Two things that're always missing from the debate are how many people can the U.S. support at the traditional U.S. lifestyle and what do the American people want?
In 1994 two academicians, David Pimentel of Cornel University & Mario Giampietro of the Istituto of Nazionale della Nutrizione Rome, published a report entitled _Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy_. I won't try to reproduce the report here but among their key findings was that for each new person added to the U.S. an average of one acre of (arable) land is paved over and that the U.S. could cease to be a net food exporter by as early as 2025. As with "peak oil" new technology can impact & delay this but it's still a legitimate concern both for us and everyone dependent on U.S. food exports.
The counterargument has been made that if China & India can each support over a billion people then surely the U.S. can too. But the question remains, at what lifestyle? Quite frankly I don't want to live at the average per capita standard of living of China or India---and we don't have to. I would add that new arrivals don't move to Montana, Wyoming or the desert states. They move to the already crowded, congested cities. We can make better choices *now*. Let's have a national debate about it for six months and then a referendum in which the people get to decide. Who's with me?
In 1994 two academicians, David Pimentel of Cornel University & Mario Giampietro of the Istituto of Nazionale della Nutrizione Rome, published a report entitled _Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy_. I won't try to reproduce the report here but among their key findings was that for each new person added to the U.S. an average of one acre of (arable) land is paved over and that the U.S. could cease to be a net food exporter by as early as 2025. As with "peak oil" new technology can impact & delay this but it's still a legitimate concern both for us and everyone dependent on U.S. food exports.
The counterargument has been made that if China & India can each support over a billion people then surely the U.S. can too. But the question remains, at what lifestyle? Quite frankly I don't want to live at the average per capita standard of living of China or India---and we don't have to. I would add that new arrivals don't move to Montana, Wyoming or the desert states. They move to the already crowded, congested cities. We can make better choices *now*. Let's have a national debate about it for six months and then a referendum in which the people get to decide. Who's with me?
15
The irony is that many millennials are choosing to live a lifestyle more akin to China or India. The guilt-ridden, tiny houses, anti-materialistic trends are evidence of people grooming themselves to be happy with less. The serf-class creates itself!
I don't have a problem with that, but I bet billionaires in their mansions find these trends convenient - and hilarious.
I don't have a problem with that, but I bet billionaires in their mansions find these trends convenient - and hilarious.
4
One thing that neither the National Academy of Sciences report nor Mr. Edsall discusses is just how many people is too many in this country. The American population has doubled in my lifetime and will increase by at least another 100 million (at current rates) in my daughter’s lifetime.
Shouldn’t we consider the environmental costs of being a nation of 400 million people? 500 million? California has experienced a water shortage over the past several years in part due to the effects of climate change. How will having another 100 million people affect our response to that? We seem unable to address our pressing infrastructure needs now with 320 million people. Imagine building sufficient water systems, electrical grids, roads and bridges, and ports with a significantly larger population. When I venture out on the roads of northern Virginia, I can sit in gridlocked traffic at any time of the day and any day of the week.
At this time, the US has never had more poor people than it has now. I am not talking about the percentage of poor people, I am talking raw numbers. As we bring in more poor, unskilled people, shouldn’t we consider the costs of educating them and providing healthcare to them?
I feel that the country is currently at a saturation point and we need to take a pause, assimilate those who are here and then move forward.
Shouldn’t we consider the environmental costs of being a nation of 400 million people? 500 million? California has experienced a water shortage over the past several years in part due to the effects of climate change. How will having another 100 million people affect our response to that? We seem unable to address our pressing infrastructure needs now with 320 million people. Imagine building sufficient water systems, electrical grids, roads and bridges, and ports with a significantly larger population. When I venture out on the roads of northern Virginia, I can sit in gridlocked traffic at any time of the day and any day of the week.
At this time, the US has never had more poor people than it has now. I am not talking about the percentage of poor people, I am talking raw numbers. As we bring in more poor, unskilled people, shouldn’t we consider the costs of educating them and providing healthcare to them?
I feel that the country is currently at a saturation point and we need to take a pause, assimilate those who are here and then move forward.
19
All concerns about ZPG -- Zero Population Growth -- go out the window, when lefties think about the ABSOLUTE POWER if they can import millions of Mexican and Central Americans who will always always always vote blue left Democratic, giving Democrats the one party system of their dreams.
9
"I feel that the country is currently at a saturation point and we need to take a pause, assimilate those who are here and then move forward."
We did this from 1924 to 1974. we virtually stopped all immigration so we could absorb the millions who'd come here from Europe. There were many national ghettos that had formed. I lived in one until I was 13 in Brooklyn. Everyone's family had roots in Palermo, Sicily. My Grandfather came here as a one year old and still lived on the same street 84 years later when he passed. He spoke English and Italian and had been drafted for WW1. Today that entire neighborhood is Hispanic. The Sicilians moved out and no longer cling to their own national culture.
We need to do this again so we can create assimilated Americans of the latest incoming groups.
We did this from 1924 to 1974. we virtually stopped all immigration so we could absorb the millions who'd come here from Europe. There were many national ghettos that had formed. I lived in one until I was 13 in Brooklyn. Everyone's family had roots in Palermo, Sicily. My Grandfather came here as a one year old and still lived on the same street 84 years later when he passed. He spoke English and Italian and had been drafted for WW1. Today that entire neighborhood is Hispanic. The Sicilians moved out and no longer cling to their own national culture.
We need to do this again so we can create assimilated Americans of the latest incoming groups.
3
Nobody who tries to function by reasoning wants to have to deal with ignorant people.
The entire world needs to enact a moratorium on having children. This is the only cure for immigration and, more importantly, global warming.
8
A more reasonable approach would be for countries with high birthrates getting them down to below 2.0., as so many western nations, and some Asian ones, notably China & Japan, have done.
2
The humble Bible Belt is in crisis because being ignorant, poor, thankful and deluded does not play well in the new paradigm. It is the first time in the history of the United State white people, as a group, are likely to see a reduction in status, wealth, and opportunity in their lifetime.
In the Bible Belt, Evangelicals know how to speak English. On the world stage, they're are among the most fortunate. But now, they are expected to improve themselves! It's never been done!
There's something unsaintly in the doctrine of Trump that looks a lot more like greed than Jesus. It's a polarizing doctrine that condemns anyone that would offer the poor, weak, disabled, and long oppressed minorities the rigors of education, medical care, and equality.
This belief system has wounded itself. Without a redeemable voice, that embraces a moral leadership of the world, it has horrified the world with vulgar vaudeville snake oil marketing. This level of oppression can't succeed. The most horrifying thing is the number of people who think it can.
In the Bible Belt, Evangelicals know how to speak English. On the world stage, they're are among the most fortunate. But now, they are expected to improve themselves! It's never been done!
There's something unsaintly in the doctrine of Trump that looks a lot more like greed than Jesus. It's a polarizing doctrine that condemns anyone that would offer the poor, weak, disabled, and long oppressed minorities the rigors of education, medical care, and equality.
This belief system has wounded itself. Without a redeemable voice, that embraces a moral leadership of the world, it has horrified the world with vulgar vaudeville snake oil marketing. This level of oppression can't succeed. The most horrifying thing is the number of people who think it can.
2
Even though the headline says "Immigration" the article is really talking about "illegal immigration."
Its interesting that liberals rarely differentiate between the two.
Before we talk about money, lets talk about something more important, human life.
What has been the cost of human life due to illegal immigration?
Or is that question too uncomfortable to address?
Its interesting that liberals rarely differentiate between the two.
Before we talk about money, lets talk about something more important, human life.
What has been the cost of human life due to illegal immigration?
Or is that question too uncomfortable to address?
16
With 'family reunion visas', this is not really the case. Once one guy from a third world country manages to become a citizen, he can sponsor his whole village back home, regardless of whether they have any skills that are useful to the US economy. Meanwhile, college grads from Europe can't get in.
9
Trump doesn't differentiate between the two either. He wants to restrict legal immigration too.
The main difference is that undocumented immigrants can't come here legally, so come illegally. It's essentially impossible for someone to legally move to the U.S. absent marriage or skills visa, which makes U.S. practically unique in the developed world, and why we have undocumented immigrants while other countries (with looser border and immigartion policies) don't.
And if conservatives only cared about "illegal immigration" then you would try and fix the problem, but Republicans in Congress have blocked immigration reform for eight years now. It's very easy to stop illegal immigration, but impossible without a path to legalization.
The main difference is that undocumented immigrants can't come here legally, so come illegally. It's essentially impossible for someone to legally move to the U.S. absent marriage or skills visa, which makes U.S. practically unique in the developed world, and why we have undocumented immigrants while other countries (with looser border and immigartion policies) don't.
And if conservatives only cared about "illegal immigration" then you would try and fix the problem, but Republicans in Congress have blocked immigration reform for eight years now. It's very easy to stop illegal immigration, but impossible without a path to legalization.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-a...
The uncertainty about statistics concerning illegal immigrants means your question is hard to answer. The question has been addressed for recent legal immigrants. If you are really open to learning the answer, the link above and many other credible analyses offer an answer.
The uncertainty about statistics concerning illegal immigrants means your question is hard to answer. The question has been addressed for recent legal immigrants. If you are really open to learning the answer, the link above and many other credible analyses offer an answer.
Immigration on mass as the UK has.
Cost the employed person their standard of living.
Market force dictate an employer will only pay just enough to keep their staff
With a line of immigrants waiting to take any free position the employer does not even have to pay a living wage to keep his staff
Cost the employed person their standard of living.
Market force dictate an employer will only pay just enough to keep their staff
With a line of immigrants waiting to take any free position the employer does not even have to pay a living wage to keep his staff
13
This analysis assumes that foreign people who compete with low-skill American workers do so only if the immigrate into the United States. That, of course, is not true. Business follows lower wage opportunities even if it means relocating to foreign countries. The problem is a world marketplace for labor. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is but one aspect of that. We cannot solve our economic problems within our low-skilled population simply by closing our borders, and we cannot compete in a world market by adopting isolationist trade policies. If the answers really were that simple then everyone already would agree on them.
3
You can't export construction work, janitorial work, deliveries of goods, restaurant work, health care services, etc. These jobs would be valuable to US citizens, if they could get them.
5
The article is about immigration and its economic effects. Your point is about overseas wage competition, a problem that Trump would presumably solve by renegotiating our trades agreements.
2
The individual begot the pair, to the group, to the clan, to the fiefdom, to the city, state, nation, etc. Isolation is over, and the sooner economists drop this system of "scoring" and politicians drop their system of "nationalism" the faster things will get better for everyone. It is this fear based desire for isolation touted by the media to the simple minded that makes this issue look like something it is not. Let's not forget that money is an abstraction of resources and material, not a substitute. It is a story that is being fed to the ill informed that money is a finite resource, it is neither, and by giving it to one group of people you are somehow taking it from another. When we argue and fight over it, it only gives more power and control to those manipulating it. Relax y'all. If this was really a problem, it would have been a swift and firm blow decades ago. This is EXACLY how our handlers want it...
1
The NYT has a picture of immigrantw working. They are probably not a problem.
There are many immigrants in the UK where I come from and in Germany where I live who are a problem: Crime, disease, parasitism.
I am very glad that the UK is leaving the "EU".
We should still let immigrants in as we let my mum in before 1933.
We should do what the Swisss used to do and let immigrants in for six months or whatever.
If we employ two Ghanaian bus-drivers for six months each, we don't need to let their families in and we support two families in Ghana.
I suggest the USA should try it.
There are many immigrants in the UK where I come from and in Germany where I live who are a problem: Crime, disease, parasitism.
I am very glad that the UK is leaving the "EU".
We should still let immigrants in as we let my mum in before 1933.
We should do what the Swisss used to do and let immigrants in for six months or whatever.
If we employ two Ghanaian bus-drivers for six months each, we don't need to let their families in and we support two families in Ghana.
I suggest the USA should try it.
11
We have tried it. We used to have guest worker programs. We currently have an HB1 visa program. These tie permission to enter with specific work. This would also depress wages for unskilled workers.
1
The major problem with illegal immigration, and its partner, globalization, is that the negative effects are felt immediately and personally, and the benefits are long-term and collective. As the report states, remittances and off-shoring of American jobs will, over time, reduce poverty in other countries, which will reduce migration and eventually create new markets for goods and services. In the meantime, if you happen to be unfortunate enough to be born poor, and into one of the generations that is seeing its wages drop, you are unlikely to live long enough to see the benefits. Sure, maybe your great-grandchildren might live to see it, assuming they don't die from meth overdoses first.
14
I think the benefits to employers and what in this article are termed complementary employees ( higher skill, higher wage) are immediate and not long term as you state. So if you think immigration overall is a plus, then policies that help low wage employees should be enacted. Trump's solution is to restrict immigration. If you oppose that then you should favor redistributive policies that counteract the redistributive effect of immigration.
1
Illegal immigration increases the labor pool for low skill jobs, driving down the amount paid for these types of jobs. This negative impact of this is felt almost entirely by those competing for the same jobs, which is disproportionately poorly educated blacks and Hispanics. The irony of all this is that the policies of the Democratic party, which de facto favors unrestricted borders, hurts mostly its own constituents, minorities. In the long run, minorities need to reach educational parity in order to reach economic parity. But in the short run they need to have the Democrats stop stabbing them in the back by flooding the market with cheap labor.
29
When the Democrats realized that they could betray the American workers but gain tons of new, stupid, dependent voters, they tossed the workers aside in a heartbeat.
3
This was clearly pointed out by Edsel.
Tp jeff f: It was pointed out that the Democrats are harming the minorities with their immigration policies and that they are their constituents own worst enemy? Really? Where?
1
Compare "Percent of population that is foreign born" to the US Gini coefficient over the same period. As I recall, there is a lag between the two curves, which is interesting in itself, but the correlation is very clear.
6
The US became the world's greatest industrial power by selling itself as a worker's paradise to maintain a permanent labor surplus that held wages down and provided workers so desperate they would labor themselves to death under dangerous and unhealthful conditions.
Now, products are designed from the ground up to be made by machines.
Now, products are designed from the ground up to be made by machines.
9
Actually when the US was clearly the world's greatest industrial power from WWI through the post-WWII period workers were doing well as wages kept up with GDP/capita or productivity (not just prices) and inequality actually decreased. Things changed around the 70's, probably on account of several factors, not just immigration. The general anti-labor swing of politics since then has not improved GDP growth or the US international position.
3
@ skeptonomist
So the massive increase in low skilled labor that started with the immigration act of 1965 and exploded after the Reagan amnesty in 1986 and led to 40+ million new low skilled workers flooding the labor market while wages have stagnated or dropped over the past 50+ years is...what...just a weird coincidence?
So the massive increase in low skilled labor that started with the immigration act of 1965 and exploded after the Reagan amnesty in 1986 and led to 40+ million new low skilled workers flooding the labor market while wages have stagnated or dropped over the past 50+ years is...what...just a weird coincidence?
3
Labor solidarity evaporated with the election of Reagan. Trump's supporters are still doubling down on denial.
If you want to keep the price of something up, you have to limit the supply.
If you want to keep the price of something up, you have to limit the supply.
Many issues have been left out of this piece. One is the strain on and damage to the physical environment of this country solely due to its absolute number of residents. More people use more resources whether they are native residents or immigrants - legal or illegal. And most of the population growth in this country results from immigration. Another important issue is the cohesiveness of communities that is often weakened when large numbers of immigrants move in.
55
The overarching issue is that we are a nation of immigrants and as such all of the issues raised were, are and will be sources of endless speculation. However the bottom line is that this 'system' works, albeit imperfectly.
The biggest problem we face in this nation is our avoidance of looking at the overall situation with its endless issues and contradictions. Our country has been built with the labor of those who have wanted a better life for themselves and their children. They pay a price and in some ways there is dislocation but the overall benefit is a robust and vibrant economy.
We have to stop pulling apart the gears and the wiring of a machine that is the envy of the world in order to satisfy some portion of those who perceive to be wronged. Its time to grow up!
The biggest problem we face in this nation is our avoidance of looking at the overall situation with its endless issues and contradictions. Our country has been built with the labor of those who have wanted a better life for themselves and their children. They pay a price and in some ways there is dislocation but the overall benefit is a robust and vibrant economy.
We have to stop pulling apart the gears and the wiring of a machine that is the envy of the world in order to satisfy some portion of those who perceive to be wronged. Its time to grow up!
4
The cliché that America is a “nation of immigrants” has always been false. Most Americans were not immigrants even at the time the nation was founded in 1776. In fact, a larger percent of Americans were native-born during the Revolutionary War than they are today. From about 1675 onward, the native-born population of what would become United States never dropped below 85% of the total. Probably more than 90 percent of Americans were native-born when the first shots of the Revolutionary War was fired at Lexington and Concord. Today, 13.2 percent of the population is foreign-born. This is a record high, but it still doesn’t make Americans a “nation of immigrant. About 87 percent of Americans are native-born.
4
We use the word "immigrants" quite loosely in the context of it's historical significance. My parents did not break any laws and sneak into the country and then demand citizenship. They went through legal channels. Came here, worked very hard and made a great life for us.
27
My grandparents also came here legally. They showed up at Ellis island, passed a health check, told the authorities who their sponsors were and were in. A few years later they were naturalized. But what we seem to want now is a tightly controlled system. If such a tight system existed when your parents or my grandparents came here do you think they would have gotten in?
I read this to see if he would mention illegal immigrants. Everyone over 12 knows that we are a nation of immigrants. What a waste of time to write this and not include the real issue. Illegal immigration. This is how blind we are - on both sides.
23
Nobody is "blind" to illegal immigration. People choose to see the illegality through their own lens. The corporate right has profited greatly from illegal hispanic immigration-- low wages, white collar workers no longer care for their own homes,nobody to argue against unfair labor standards, etc. The democratic leadership has benefited from Hispanics once legal citizens, voting for them. Neither side sees the harm and the benefits-- but neither side is blind.
2
One unnoticed effect of illegal immigration is the exacerbation of racial tensions. Unskilled black men cannot find work, because employers would prefer to hire illegal immigrants. The immigrants will work harder for lower wages, and will not make trouble since they are here illegally. Black workers would probably try to form unions and complain to the authorities if they were cheated on their wages.
Without jobs, these uneducated young American citizens will find something else to do, and the police will be after them.
Many people say that US citizens would not take unskilled jobs with degrading working conditions and low pay. But if there was no one else available, employers would have to meet them half way. Guys who are making $80 a day as a lookout for a drug dealer would probably consider janitorial or unskilled construction work at $12 or $13 an hour.
Without jobs, these uneducated young American citizens will find something else to do, and the police will be after them.
Many people say that US citizens would not take unskilled jobs with degrading working conditions and low pay. But if there was no one else available, employers would have to meet them half way. Guys who are making $80 a day as a lookout for a drug dealer would probably consider janitorial or unskilled construction work at $12 or $13 an hour.
22
The benefits of immigration depend on a number of factors which have changed over time and continue to change. In the 19th century the country was expanding rapidly to the West and obviously immigrants were needed to do this. By the way, the true Native Americans were clearly not benefited by the invasion of Europeans. Also the country was industrializing and workers were needed. But by the early 20th century this country as well as Mexico and other Latin American countries were basically fully populated. You can't claim that immigrants are necessary by referring to this past history.
Immigration is beneficial when there is a shortage of labor, but It is obvious that there has been no great shortage of labor in the US since the 70's because real wages basically ceased rising at that time. Immigration, which has been subdued most of the 20th century, began to rise at that time, although it certainly is not the sole reason for the stagnation of wages. More recently the movement of manufacturing to places like China has clearly been a factor, as well as actions by the Fed which were deliberately aimed at preventing wage growth.
On both theoretical and empirical grounds it is quite clear that immigration benefits the general employer class as well as the immigrants themselves, but is detrimental to "native" workers of all kinds. People who claim to represent the interests of the latter should not be making false statements that immigration benefits them economically.
Immigration is beneficial when there is a shortage of labor, but It is obvious that there has been no great shortage of labor in the US since the 70's because real wages basically ceased rising at that time. Immigration, which has been subdued most of the 20th century, began to rise at that time, although it certainly is not the sole reason for the stagnation of wages. More recently the movement of manufacturing to places like China has clearly been a factor, as well as actions by the Fed which were deliberately aimed at preventing wage growth.
On both theoretical and empirical grounds it is quite clear that immigration benefits the general employer class as well as the immigrants themselves, but is detrimental to "native" workers of all kinds. People who claim to represent the interests of the latter should not be making false statements that immigration benefits them economically.
35
How can one argue that immigrants boost the wages of lower skilled legal workers? If that was the case, Trump would not have the support of what liberals call uneducated white males. If illegal immigrants were such a boon to the economy, how come we see discontent when schools have to educate the children of illegal immigrants. Though no fault of their own, they cost a lot in terms of money and time, and slow down other students.
Illegal immigration means a rise in healthcare costs to citizens as their premiums will be raised to absorb not only the cost of the illegals but of those who lost their job, or earn too little to afford healthcare.
We can also repeat over and over: what message does it send should we give amnesty to illegals. As is, Africans, Haitians, Cubans, all of South America, etc try to get in. Then you will hear you cannot detain them. Then, you cannot separate families. And of course, those with promise, such as students have to stay here.
What is wrong with following the law??
Illegal immigration means a rise in healthcare costs to citizens as their premiums will be raised to absorb not only the cost of the illegals but of those who lost their job, or earn too little to afford healthcare.
We can also repeat over and over: what message does it send should we give amnesty to illegals. As is, Africans, Haitians, Cubans, all of South America, etc try to get in. Then you will hear you cannot detain them. Then, you cannot separate families. And of course, those with promise, such as students have to stay here.
What is wrong with following the law??
15
"Immigration is beneficial when there is a shortage of labor, but It is obvious that there has been no great shortage of labor in the US since the 70's "
There will even less of a labor shortage as increasingly less expensive and more efficient automation replaces increasingly more expensive minimum wage workers. There will be even less jobs available for American citizens, including all of the ex-convicts that the liberals want to release, unless some or all of the current 12 million illegal aliens are deported soon.
There will even less of a labor shortage as increasingly less expensive and more efficient automation replaces increasingly more expensive minimum wage workers. There will be even less jobs available for American citizens, including all of the ex-convicts that the liberals want to release, unless some or all of the current 12 million illegal aliens are deported soon.
13
Even without access to the report, I find the discussion of the net cost issue lacking in the article. Wouldn't second and third generation adults be American citizens if they were born here? Second, where is the comparison to the net cost to states and localities for lower income native born Americans? The data shows that the net cost to states and localities for those in the bottom third of the US is about the same as immigrants. In response to the Center for Immigration studies, lower income Americans do not pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of public services at the present time.
13
Liberals conflate immigration and illegal immigration. Trump's position in about illegal immigration.
2
Eric, you didn't answer my question or reply to my comment. Trump's position is about all immigration. Otherwise, why would he mention banning all Muslims regardless of the country of origin?
Some people paid the ultimate price for unwisely taking in immigrants. But they're not around to complain.
34
Europeans coming ashore in North America didn't live long until the diseases they bore had caused catastrophic epidemics among the natives.
Sure. And some people paid the ultimate price for unwisely taking in Americans. Every actual study on violence and immigrants points to them being, at best, just as violent as citizens. Most say they are responsible for less crime than Americans. Your comment is total hyperbole.
You can always tell the single-issue people because they ignore what you actually meant. They write hyperbole with the "ole" replaced by "ull".
It seems obvious that if immigration is a net benefit to the business owners and investors and a detriment to low wage workers, then the investors and business owners should pay a portion of their benefit in taxes to be used assist the low wage worker, for example, with education, training, health care, child care, etc. We keep shifting wealth upward and convincing those on the second rung from the bottom of the ladder to blame those on the bottom rung, instead of blaming those at the top who are actually getting the redistributed wealth and lobbying to maintain the system.
71
This analysis is right on. The recent Times article on Trade agreements demonstrates that the net impact is to redistribute wealth upwards. Neither trade agreements or immigration should be terminated: the unequal benefit should.
2
Mr. Edsall has nothing about the environmental and quality-of-life costs associated with population growth. Since 1965, the number of people in the US has increased by 140 million, an increase driven by immigration. There are many examples of how this increase in the number of people has degraded our environment and reduced our quality of life, but an example from where I live is the Florida Keys. In Jackson's 2012 review of CAribbean coral reefs, of 35 reef areas examined, the Fla. Keys were the most highly degraded. The reason, according to the scientists, is the sheer number of residents and visitors and their environmental impact.
65
What the conservatives always seem to forget is that their parents, grandparents, or beyond were immigrants. My neighbor likes to complain about "those people" - his catch-all phrase for anyone different from him. To which I reply that my ancestors said the same thing about his. Another neighbor's husband is locked up by ICE while she raises their
Children. We have plenty of room and resources in this country to absorb more people. It will be to our benefit as the study demonstrates. The problems of income inequality require political solutions other than being mean-spirited towards those who seek what our ancestors sought - freedom, safety and opportunity.
Children. We have plenty of room and resources in this country to absorb more people. It will be to our benefit as the study demonstrates. The problems of income inequality require political solutions other than being mean-spirited towards those who seek what our ancestors sought - freedom, safety and opportunity.
32
Though I enjoy the cultural opportunities extended by immigrants, legal or illegal, and actually wish my area had more immigrants, as a nation we DO NOT have more room and resources for more people. All you have to do is drive along the massively overburdened highways and find yourself in a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam in the middle of nowhere to discover the fact that there are too many people already here. This letter indulges in the logical fallacy that, because there are still many open, unspoiled regions remaining in this country, we should fill them up--with more tacky subdivisions, gas stations, and strip malls that will come as an inevitable consequence of population growth. This means the eradication of even more species, the addition of even more stresses on diminishing water tables, and diminishing opportunities for the spiritual growth provided by unmediated contact with nature that is a vital legacy--just as important as so-called "economic growth"--afforded by increased population. We have about the same land area as China, but with a billion fewer people. The corollary to unbounded population growth is that we will grow to be as big as China. Is that what you want? Presumably not. Well, if not that, where would you like our population to be stabilized? One billion? Seven hundred billion? Where?
7
The Times confounds legal and illegal, as do you. Most people I suspect have no problem with legal immigration. It is the illegals who are the problem.
4
This is such a tired and overused screed. Yeah, we were all immigrants, dah dah dah. That was yesterday - would you like to go back to typewriters and rotary phones as well? Our immigration system is "broken" because we haven't seen fit to control it after the 1986 amnesty - which was three times larger than was promised, by the way.
5
Yes, immigration can be good for America if done under our laws. Illegal immigrants self select based on a benefit to themselves, while legal immigrants are also selected based on the needs and values of the country. Legal immigration is thus win - win while illegal immigration can be win lose.
Many unskilled citizens don't work either they can not find a job, or the wages for the jobs they can are pushed down sl low they cannot choose work over welfare. With many unskilled out of work, won't increasing the legal minimum wage make illegal labor more appealing.
Aside from that, I believe a work ethic is good for families. If we could turn families where only a non worker mother lives with the children, to two parent families where work is an option for I expect we would be much better off socially. For example, I expect the father would be much more likely to stay with the children if he could find a job, and the job could support, or most support the family.
Lastly, while getting a bargain rate for illegal labor may be a benefit to the employer, if doing so results in an American living off the safety net, we must subtract that huge cost from the small savings as well as the hidden costs that may go along with joblessness like increased incarceration.
Many unskilled citizens don't work either they can not find a job, or the wages for the jobs they can are pushed down sl low they cannot choose work over welfare. With many unskilled out of work, won't increasing the legal minimum wage make illegal labor more appealing.
Aside from that, I believe a work ethic is good for families. If we could turn families where only a non worker mother lives with the children, to two parent families where work is an option for I expect we would be much better off socially. For example, I expect the father would be much more likely to stay with the children if he could find a job, and the job could support, or most support the family.
Lastly, while getting a bargain rate for illegal labor may be a benefit to the employer, if doing so results in an American living off the safety net, we must subtract that huge cost from the small savings as well as the hidden costs that may go along with joblessness like increased incarceration.
21
Trump reads the price-ticket on everything and knows the real value of little if anything. Immigration isn't just about pay differentials. International trade isn't just about profiting from the sweat of foreigners. Trump wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans and drugs out. Others want Mexico to have more and better jobs and a better standard of living so that more people can stay at home.
2
It seems you have never taken an economics course. Everything including the priceless have prices. Only a flat earther can make such a poor idea with no proof and still think there claim is right.
2
The problem with much of the analysis is that it is an economic one. Clash of cultures is important. Rule of law is important. The misuse of H1b visas is important. I bet the economists live in the world where there are mostly positive impacts. Many people do not.
65
The problem with the "analysis" is that it is based on incomplete data and is therefore largely meaningless.
3
This study does not clarify whether we're talking about legal immigrants or illegal immigrants; we need two distinct studies in this regard.
82
Legal and illegal immgrants are found in the same communities, the same churches, the same houses, and the same beds. They're much easier to sort out in theory than in reality.
Well, let's prohibit them and their wife and kids,from going to American schools, hospitals, doctors, receiving welfare, food stamps, driving and any other state, federal or local benefits, then lets see how many stay without the free bees.
57
I take it you are from a Native American nation? Otherwise you are the descendent of immigrants, chum. Who benefitted greatly from it. Now it's someone else's turn.
1
We actually tried that in CA, with Prop 187 when Pete Wilson was governor. Not just right wing republicans as the stereotype would assume voted for it-- so did any liberal democrats (including this one) , as we were already seeing the crushing burden of all these illegal hispanics. The federal courts declared it unconstitutional, and thus no state (or our nation) will ever try that again.
2
The immigration and naturalization service should be closed and stood down. We simply are being invaded at a level no one has a grasp on. Probably half the worlds population wants to come here and STAY here. Legal or not. Just blend in with others of your populace, work for cash which by the way comes from a lot of rich folk trying to save a buck. Employers will gladly hire you because they are trying to save a buck. NO ONE CARES. Went to California a couple of years ago, Asians and Hispanics and few whites. In Minnesota we allowed Somalians here and unfortunately they occupy and interact within their own high rises and communities. They are not terrorists as people would want to believe but really genial peaceful human beings. They still remain sequestered within themselves by choice. And why and who decided that Spanish is an official language??? This is why Donald trump appeals to my demographics. And why he probably has a good chance of being elected our next president
52
Why can't the Democrats see that illegal immigration is killing our country?! I think we can; it's our representatives that cannot. Why? Votes. All a politician cares about is staying in office, taking advantage of perks, pushing the envelope on ethics, and downright cheating with the public budgets until they are caught. Then they get a slap on the wrist (or censored, if in Congress), with no fines, no jail time, and a full pension. OUTRAGEOUS!
1
Of course none of this can tally or be tallied as the term immigrant is being used for both legal and illegal immigrants.
Certainly legal immigrants who arrive with skills and education and can be employed and taxed contribute on many levels.
Illegal immigrants often are not allowed to use their skills and education and so can not contribute as much - if anything - if they and their employers are not paying taxes.
Certain states, such as Connecticut, give out more in food stamps to the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants than to legal immigrants and natives as the wages of illegal parents can't be counted - so a simple 500+ page report which groups all immigrants together will never come close to settling the issue.
Certainly legal immigrants who arrive with skills and education and can be employed and taxed contribute on many levels.
Illegal immigrants often are not allowed to use their skills and education and so can not contribute as much - if anything - if they and their employers are not paying taxes.
Certain states, such as Connecticut, give out more in food stamps to the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants than to legal immigrants and natives as the wages of illegal parents can't be counted - so a simple 500+ page report which groups all immigrants together will never come close to settling the issue.
55
What's the cost of 20 o thirty million teenage American men that can't find starter jobs in landscaping, construction and manufacturing? They never learn to work. I'll go with about a trillion dollars per year for the thirty million illegals-- and don't try to tell me there are only ten million. You need to get out into the rural south and west to see it.
52
Please. This summer I hired out some major yard work & landscaping to two diff companies. The white boys from an affluent town came late, petered out early, whined about digging, stopped to chat among themselves, whined about the heat, whined about hunger, didn't tidy up, relied excessively on noisy power tools instead of manpower, and then got in mommy or daddy's $50k SUV at 4 to drive home.
The Mexican guys came after their day job, didn't complain about anything, offered suggestions to make the job look nicer, worked till after dark by the porch light, cleaned up spotlessly and stopped by a week later to make sure the shrubs were still healthy. Smiling all the while. I said something sympathetic to one guy wrestling out a giant yew root by hand in 90-degree heat; he laughed and said "work is work! No problem!"
I know who deserves my up oming projects in 2017 and it ain't the whiny little suburban teens & 20-somethings.
The Mexican guys came after their day job, didn't complain about anything, offered suggestions to make the job look nicer, worked till after dark by the porch light, cleaned up spotlessly and stopped by a week later to make sure the shrubs were still healthy. Smiling all the while. I said something sympathetic to one guy wrestling out a giant yew root by hand in 90-degree heat; he laughed and said "work is work! No problem!"
I know who deserves my up oming projects in 2017 and it ain't the whiny little suburban teens & 20-somethings.
1
Mr Edsall if i read you right
1 Rich people get more money cause they can hire illegals at lower wages
2 Poor people lose jobs or have their wages cut
3 all Americans can go to a restaurant or hire a landscaper for less
I assume you know what "salience" is
For poor Americans, unlike yourself, which of 1,2,3 is more salient ?
For rich Americans, like yourself, which is more salient
or, short form, The N Y Times was hiring Chinese immigrant reporters at min wage, you would have written a different column
1 Rich people get more money cause they can hire illegals at lower wages
2 Poor people lose jobs or have their wages cut
3 all Americans can go to a restaurant or hire a landscaper for less
I assume you know what "salience" is
For poor Americans, unlike yourself, which of 1,2,3 is more salient ?
For rich Americans, like yourself, which is more salient
or, short form, The N Y Times was hiring Chinese immigrant reporters at min wage, you would have written a different column
95
Illegal immigration and legal immigration are two completely different political issues. This editorial intentionally blends the two for the sole purpose of a labeling anyone who supports only legal immigration a racist, nativist, xenophobic, etc. Shame on you Mr. Edsall. We need an intelligent debate about illegal immigration and what to do about it.
83
Yes, Peter, this is the way the Times approaches this issue. Try getting them to address it.
3
Yes, lumping illegal and legal immigration together is one of the main things that prevents our national discussion from being honest or constructive.
1
The problem is the costs and benefits of immigration are not evenly distributed. Some, primarily well to do home- and business owners, benefit from a large, seemingly endless supply of low cost, low skilled labor, keeping overall wages down, while less well off Americans bear the consequences of having their own wages and employment opportunities constrained, and their children crowded into overburdened, underfunded schools with large underserved ELL populations.
25
It is debatable whether our immigration system is broken. No system, no matter the cost, can keep all illegals out. At the macro level we have had a net of zero or less influx of illegals for the last nine years. People aren't coming they are leaving. The illegals we do have represent 3% of the population and contribute 5% to GDP. They contribute more to our economy than the natives (both figures are from Pew Research).
But let's assume it is broken. So what? A broken light costs us something, as does jaywalking. The real issue is whether it is cost effective to fix it. Will all the hand-wringers willingly pay to fund the repair or is this another mandate that requires the magic of lower taxes?
As for the cost to our culture... Let's just say that a country founded by religious misfits, rejected by the Church of England for their extreme views, is in no position to complain about the changes that other cultures will bring.
But let's assume it is broken. So what? A broken light costs us something, as does jaywalking. The real issue is whether it is cost effective to fix it. Will all the hand-wringers willingly pay to fund the repair or is this another mandate that requires the magic of lower taxes?
As for the cost to our culture... Let's just say that a country founded by religious misfits, rejected by the Church of England for their extreme views, is in no position to complain about the changes that other cultures will bring.
43
What's broken about the immigration system is failure to enforce immigration law. A national, mandatory E-Verify, coupled with jail for CEOs whose companies hired illegal immigrants, would fix that. But big biz GOPers don't want it becuase they like the cheap labor, and the Democratic party doesn't want it because they think the newly legalized immigrants will become Democratic voters. (Nice of them to throw their base under the bus.)
4
Wow you surely don't know any history. The religious misfits you talk about were in most cases legitimate settlers. Your knowledge appear not to go past the Pilgrims. Prior to the revolutionary war, the people who came to this country were mostly business men who often came to run plantations.
During the time of British rule they closely watched who came to the colonies. Sure they set some over as result of crimes, but in the main those who came,came legitimately.
During the time of British rule they closely watched who came to the colonies. Sure they set some over as result of crimes, but in the main those who came,came legitimately.
5
"Net negative immigration" is a myth:
First, the Pew report widely touted by the pro-immigration crowd looked only at immigration from Mexico, not other countries.
Secondly, for immigration from Mexico, the Pew study purporting to show net negative compared apples and oranges:
Apples: inflow from Mexico as estimated by the the U.S. Government.
Oranges: outflow to Mexico as reported by the Government of Mexico, which included not only persons born in Mexico but also persons born in the USA -- i.e. children of the immigrants from Mexico who took their anchor babies with them when they left -- a phenomenon which not only give the lie to the claim that immigration from Mexico is net negative but also gives the lie to the plaintive whine from the pro-illegal immigrant crowd about the supposedly "broken" U.S. immigration system somehow "tearing families apart".
First, the Pew report widely touted by the pro-immigration crowd looked only at immigration from Mexico, not other countries.
Secondly, for immigration from Mexico, the Pew study purporting to show net negative compared apples and oranges:
Apples: inflow from Mexico as estimated by the the U.S. Government.
Oranges: outflow to Mexico as reported by the Government of Mexico, which included not only persons born in Mexico but also persons born in the USA -- i.e. children of the immigrants from Mexico who took their anchor babies with them when they left -- a phenomenon which not only give the lie to the claim that immigration from Mexico is net negative but also gives the lie to the plaintive whine from the pro-illegal immigrant crowd about the supposedly "broken" U.S. immigration system somehow "tearing families apart".
1
Pointless article
(1) The Rise Of Donald, started as control of invasion, not economic competition
We in the Donald camp have been insisting on that distinction for how many years now, to no effect
(2) Trade always has winners and losers, the clearest example is imported cars, good for customers who prefer and buy them/ bad for local carmakers who are displaced, in the millions, thus trade protectionism,
NO open borders for Auto workers/ Dem voters,
(3) Illegal immigration creates social strains and cultural strains and a criminal class, thus Donald and his rapists, who exist, maybe not in Donald's numbers but 'a little goes along way'
(4) normalization of illegals by legalizing/ citizenship- creates betrayal for those who are law abiding - moral hazard
=
Economic analysis will not help, this is a passion issue
Thus The Rise Of Donald
I am agnostic on a wall, but I would intercept remittances via our tax code and civil asset forfeiture, 'we don't need no stinkin badges ' on that one
I want to zero out invasion, WITHOUT gunfire or napalm
And I favor self-deportation, per Romney (oops)
=
The cynicism --or purports thereto--, of vote-mongering by the Right, is equaled by cynical vote-mongering on the Left
Thus our election as a national referendum, however much voting is a blunt instrument for policy, but thus democracy
"Gentleman (and women) start your engines," the race is on!
(1) The Rise Of Donald, started as control of invasion, not economic competition
We in the Donald camp have been insisting on that distinction for how many years now, to no effect
(2) Trade always has winners and losers, the clearest example is imported cars, good for customers who prefer and buy them/ bad for local carmakers who are displaced, in the millions, thus trade protectionism,
NO open borders for Auto workers/ Dem voters,
(3) Illegal immigration creates social strains and cultural strains and a criminal class, thus Donald and his rapists, who exist, maybe not in Donald's numbers but 'a little goes along way'
(4) normalization of illegals by legalizing/ citizenship- creates betrayal for those who are law abiding - moral hazard
=
Economic analysis will not help, this is a passion issue
Thus The Rise Of Donald
I am agnostic on a wall, but I would intercept remittances via our tax code and civil asset forfeiture, 'we don't need no stinkin badges ' on that one
I want to zero out invasion, WITHOUT gunfire or napalm
And I favor self-deportation, per Romney (oops)
=
The cynicism --or purports thereto--, of vote-mongering by the Right, is equaled by cynical vote-mongering on the Left
Thus our election as a national referendum, however much voting is a blunt instrument for policy, but thus democracy
"Gentleman (and women) start your engines," the race is on!
10
The cost of the wall exceeds its benefit. My view is that until every wall that needs to be built within the US is built, eg schools, undated airports, affordable housing, no wall between the US and Mexico.
1
As we matured as a nation, and we now have 3 to 5 generation Americans, derived from so called inter marriage of cultures, a Polish person married an Italian, or a German descendant married an Irish descendant, it seems logical, our Ellis Island model is no longer popular.
3
Immigration is complicated and we know that Americans have trouble dealing with complicated issues. Going back in history shows, if you bother to look, that immigration has always made some people very angry. That gets glossed over when people romanticize the melting pot, but the Irish in the 19th century, the southern and eastern Europeans and the internal migration of black Americans in the 20th century were greeted with anger, fear and hatred. Myths were generated about the dangers they posed: crime, drugs, disease and changes in what makes us Americans.
Immigrants were recruited by businesses seeking cheap and compliant labor.
Immigration was a tool against organized labor. Businesses recruited immigrants to take the jobs of striking workers. A lot of cheap labor is something good for business.
George W Bush proposed a guest worker program. He said that the "guests" would do work Americans wouldn't do. Of course, he didn't mention that they didn't want to do the work at the wages being paid.
Business was refining off-shoring work so owners of business got the benefit of cheap labor without the inconvenience of the laborers. Technology has an even better solution.
It's a classic clash between capital and labor. The underlying question for the economy is how much can we allow capital to take the benefits and force labor to pay the costs.
Immigrants were recruited by businesses seeking cheap and compliant labor.
Immigration was a tool against organized labor. Businesses recruited immigrants to take the jobs of striking workers. A lot of cheap labor is something good for business.
George W Bush proposed a guest worker program. He said that the "guests" would do work Americans wouldn't do. Of course, he didn't mention that they didn't want to do the work at the wages being paid.
Business was refining off-shoring work so owners of business got the benefit of cheap labor without the inconvenience of the laborers. Technology has an even better solution.
It's a classic clash between capital and labor. The underlying question for the economy is how much can we allow capital to take the benefits and force labor to pay the costs.
56
I can only speak regarding Cuban migrants and immigrants since Cuban/American policy is my forte. Cubans who enter the U.S. legally or illegally cost the American taxpayer almost 1 billion dollars because of the lavish benefits they receive.......for life. Even when a Cuban goes back they island they fled from because of "political oppression" for vacations and family visits. Upon returning back to the U.S. they continue to receive the federal and state entitlements paid for by the American taxpayer.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/us-cuba-welfare-benefits/
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/us-cuba-welfare-benefits/
20
Why is legal and controlled immigration, on which our nation was founded, so often and willfully confused with foreign invasion? Those who swarm over our borders without invitation or legal permission ARE NOT part of a policy of legal and controlled immigration. They are foreign invaders. What makes that so difficult to understand?
47
This nation was certainly not "founded' on legal immigration! That may be a desirable goal of the 21st Century, but it is laughable to suggest it has been a long term historical precedent.
1
1) It would useful to know the funding sources for the studies.
2) How can one measure the misery cost to the American people for immigration in the 21st century.
3)Should the current 11 million plus of the estimated total crop of illegal immigrants get amnesty, do they each get to bring their additional family members into the country? Are we talking 4-6 more family members for each illegal immigrant?
2) How can one measure the misery cost to the American people for immigration in the 21st century.
3)Should the current 11 million plus of the estimated total crop of illegal immigrants get amnesty, do they each get to bring their additional family members into the country? Are we talking 4-6 more family members for each illegal immigrant?
18
I completely oppose any amnesty at all.
However, I even more strenuously oppose a "path to citizenship".
Nonetheless, I would (reluctantly) acquiesce in a "path to limited legal status", but only if the persons getting this limited legal status were explicitly not allowed to ever become citizens and not allowed ever to "sponsor" any other person for any legal status and only if it was part of a truly comprehensive immigration control law that mandated and fully funded a tall, strong border wall/fence all the way across the Southern border, and mandated and fully funded more Border Patrol activity along the border and mandated and fully funded biometric ID requirements and tracking requirements to control all "visa overstays" -- including denial of routine business and tourist visas to persons from countries with high rates of visa overstay -- and complete cut-off of the juice to the jobs magnets (by requiring biometric ID showing legal status) and the juice to government bennies magnets (by requiring a five-year wait after legal status is obtained and even then by requiring biometric ID) and complete repeal of all government mandates on non-government businesses and institutions to provide health care and Spanish-language services for either the persons getting the limited legal status or for any other illegal immigrants.
However, I even more strenuously oppose a "path to citizenship".
Nonetheless, I would (reluctantly) acquiesce in a "path to limited legal status", but only if the persons getting this limited legal status were explicitly not allowed to ever become citizens and not allowed ever to "sponsor" any other person for any legal status and only if it was part of a truly comprehensive immigration control law that mandated and fully funded a tall, strong border wall/fence all the way across the Southern border, and mandated and fully funded more Border Patrol activity along the border and mandated and fully funded biometric ID requirements and tracking requirements to control all "visa overstays" -- including denial of routine business and tourist visas to persons from countries with high rates of visa overstay -- and complete cut-off of the juice to the jobs magnets (by requiring biometric ID showing legal status) and the juice to government bennies magnets (by requiring a five-year wait after legal status is obtained and even then by requiring biometric ID) and complete repeal of all government mandates on non-government businesses and institutions to provide health care and Spanish-language services for either the persons getting the limited legal status or for any other illegal immigrants.
It is wrong to think the Right is against immigration (or at least immigrants) and the Left is for it (and them). Both the Establishment Left and the Establishment Right favor flooding the country with more immigrants, the Right seeing them as cheap labor/mass market consumers and the Left seeing them as reliable constituents.
But the Rank and File at both ends of the spectrum want it to stop. The Rank and File Right sees mass immigration washing away their cultural moorings and the Rank and File Left sees it as a tool with which The Moneyed Interests are freeing themselves from a century worth of negotiated protections for the employed and the would-be employed.
The Establishment has had a 35 year winning streak.
Bernie threatened to end it.
But they beat him, too.
We need to build a movement.
But the Rank and File at both ends of the spectrum want it to stop. The Rank and File Right sees mass immigration washing away their cultural moorings and the Rank and File Left sees it as a tool with which The Moneyed Interests are freeing themselves from a century worth of negotiated protections for the employed and the would-be employed.
The Establishment has had a 35 year winning streak.
Bernie threatened to end it.
But they beat him, too.
We need to build a movement.
54
You had me until your Bernie comment. He had no plan for immigration, illegal OR legal.
4
This opinion piece is pretty disingenuous (and perhaps the underlying report as well). You know that by lumping legal and illegal immigration together, you mask the cost of illegal immigration.
To the extent there are benefits coming from immigration, it is almost assuredly from legal immigration, which includes skilled workers, etc. Those skilled workers probably contribute way above average to the economies and budgets of the US--very few people are against skilled workers immigrating.
We have an obligation to our own citizens first. Instead of implying that those against illegal immigration are xenophobes, why don't you present the facts on illegal immigration so we can make informed decisions in the best interest of our own citizenry?
To the extent there are benefits coming from immigration, it is almost assuredly from legal immigration, which includes skilled workers, etc. Those skilled workers probably contribute way above average to the economies and budgets of the US--very few people are against skilled workers immigrating.
We have an obligation to our own citizens first. Instead of implying that those against illegal immigration are xenophobes, why don't you present the facts on illegal immigration so we can make informed decisions in the best interest of our own citizenry?
27
Everyone else can't live here.
21
Written from the comfort of Palm Beach. Love it.
When the rule of law is ignored every American suffers. America welcomes immigrants who play by the rules, apply and wait to enter the US LEGALLY. America does not welcome economic locusts who thumb their noses at US immigration laws and enter the US ILLEGALLY and then expect to be given the same rights and opportunities as American citizens. The moral thing to do is to deport these violators of US immigration laws and their anchor babies out of our country asap. The rule of law must be sustained.
10
Good article.
One big problem in trying to resolve immigration, economic disputes in America is that the U.S. has a loose, in fact difficult to define, national identity or core if you will which makes its immigration, economic problems and writing of reports concerning such somewhere between what might be proposed in Israel or Japan (where preservation of ethnicity, people, culture, etc. is paramount) and the old Soviet Union (where religion, race, ethnicity, national identity was played down in favor of a vast, pure administrative, economic apparatus).
Apparently in the modern age America has decided, with the National Academy of Sciences economic report, to decisively premise its study on America not really having a core religion or race or ethnicity or culture such as Israel or Japan and other countries have and consider paramount but instead proceed as if America and its immigration and economic problems is a Soviet economic problem--whether increased immigration is just causing disruptions in essentially a pure economic and largely administrated from on high state project of identity breakdown and assimilation of people.
The report the National Academy of sciences has proposed would probably be laughed off the table in Israel. In the old Soviet Union they would probably be unsure whether it was an American report and not one of their own. Perhaps we can test by sending copies to Israel and Japan as "Israeli" and "Japanese" and one to Putin as "Old Soviet Union".
One big problem in trying to resolve immigration, economic disputes in America is that the U.S. has a loose, in fact difficult to define, national identity or core if you will which makes its immigration, economic problems and writing of reports concerning such somewhere between what might be proposed in Israel or Japan (where preservation of ethnicity, people, culture, etc. is paramount) and the old Soviet Union (where religion, race, ethnicity, national identity was played down in favor of a vast, pure administrative, economic apparatus).
Apparently in the modern age America has decided, with the National Academy of Sciences economic report, to decisively premise its study on America not really having a core religion or race or ethnicity or culture such as Israel or Japan and other countries have and consider paramount but instead proceed as if America and its immigration and economic problems is a Soviet economic problem--whether increased immigration is just causing disruptions in essentially a pure economic and largely administrated from on high state project of identity breakdown and assimilation of people.
The report the National Academy of sciences has proposed would probably be laughed off the table in Israel. In the old Soviet Union they would probably be unsure whether it was an American report and not one of their own. Perhaps we can test by sending copies to Israel and Japan as "Israeli" and "Japanese" and one to Putin as "Old Soviet Union".
3
As soon as you use the neutral term "immigration" to describe BOTH legal and illegal immigration, you lost my interest.
We legal immigrants had to work very hard to get our legal status.
We resent (or should resent) that the Democrats want to give a pass to 11 million people to jump to the head of the line simply because that is where the votes are.
I have a student from Korea who is very kind and very intelligent and working for his doctorate. But as soon as he finishes his dissertation, he will be forced to leave.
And what is his crime? He came here legally on a student visa. Democrats do not care about HIM because he is not a member of their vote bank.
We legal immigrants had to work very hard to get our legal status.
We resent (or should resent) that the Democrats want to give a pass to 11 million people to jump to the head of the line simply because that is where the votes are.
I have a student from Korea who is very kind and very intelligent and working for his doctorate. But as soon as he finishes his dissertation, he will be forced to leave.
And what is his crime? He came here legally on a student visa. Democrats do not care about HIM because he is not a member of their vote bank.
103
The whole idea of student visas is to allow foreign citizens to learn things in and from the US to apply in their native lands.
2
As an immigrant you probably do not know the facts surrounding the Reagan Amnesty act of the 80s. That was supposed to include serious enforcement against ongoing and future illegal immigration. With a wink and a nod to corporate interests who wanted low sage, uncomplaining workers, that piece never happened. And here we are. This issue has been bipartisan-- both parties get full blame for this one.
3
Do the Republicans want to help in this situation?
It is truly shocking how contentious this debate has become over the last decade. It used to be pretty universal that legal immigration was the only legitimate option, and the question was to increase or decrease that flow.
Now, it is common, and even quite trendy to equate those who are against illegal immigration with bigots and hate groups. How did this happen?
At the very least, if one finds themselves making such arguments, they should at least have the courage of their convictions to openly support what they are truly arguing for; the removal of boarders. Seemingly, it is impossible to fairly allow some illegal immigrants while stopping others. So you either want to have boarders, or do not.
Of course, the reason this position is rarely openly advocated is because it is, rightfully, still seen as radical. Yet, the individuals who have such venom for those who want to enforce illegal immigration laws are often portrayed as being righteous. It is quite the paradox!
Now, it is common, and even quite trendy to equate those who are against illegal immigration with bigots and hate groups. How did this happen?
At the very least, if one finds themselves making such arguments, they should at least have the courage of their convictions to openly support what they are truly arguing for; the removal of boarders. Seemingly, it is impossible to fairly allow some illegal immigrants while stopping others. So you either want to have boarders, or do not.
Of course, the reason this position is rarely openly advocated is because it is, rightfully, still seen as radical. Yet, the individuals who have such venom for those who want to enforce illegal immigration laws are often portrayed as being righteous. It is quite the paradox!
51
People have been fighting over who is allowed to do what, where, ever since a local population density rose high enough for strangers to encounter each other with some regularity.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I've read that most illegal immigrants are not sneaking across our porous borders (especially the supposedly unsecured southern border), but coming to the US legally and then staying...
"Breaking News: Complex sociopolitical/economic problem is complex! Politicians immediately fully grasp implications, declare themselves right all along! Stay tuned for more developments."
4
cont'd
Then you could segue to the cost that California is incurring with their own open border policy.
Then you could tell us about the impact of illegal workers on employment that, in the past, had fallen to our poorest citizens. Yard work, labor at construction sites, the heavy lifting that our elites take for granted and rarely notice the color of those performing those tasks. You could have provided a service by helping our African-American population understand just how the open border policy espoused by the Times, California, New Your and a host of other Democrat run cities impacts them.
Maybe you can take this as an assignment for your next column. Or not.
Then you could segue to the cost that California is incurring with their own open border policy.
Then you could tell us about the impact of illegal workers on employment that, in the past, had fallen to our poorest citizens. Yard work, labor at construction sites, the heavy lifting that our elites take for granted and rarely notice the color of those performing those tasks. You could have provided a service by helping our African-American population understand just how the open border policy espoused by the Times, California, New Your and a host of other Democrat run cities impacts them.
Maybe you can take this as an assignment for your next column. Or not.
11
Why has immigration become synonymous with "Hispanic"? Why does being pro immigration have to mean that you accept an unlimited number of poorly educated, non English speaking Immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Being pro Immigration should mean an intelligent policy that attracts people from all over the world - including Mexicans and Central Americans. Why not try and attract more skilled and educated immigrants. Canada assimilates a higher percentage of immigrants than we do, they just do it more intelligently.
14
Canada is much larger physically than the USA....but with 1/10th as many people. So of course they can assimilate more! they are desperate for more immigrants.
However, they have a very strict system and virtually NO illegal hispanic immigration from Mexico and Central America! They have a points system and only take skilled and educated immigrants, who come with some wealth to start out -- and they must be under age 50! Most Americans would not qualify!
However, they have a very strict system and virtually NO illegal hispanic immigration from Mexico and Central America! They have a points system and only take skilled and educated immigrants, who come with some wealth to start out -- and they must be under age 50! Most Americans would not qualify!
4
I think that too many news outlets have chosen to drop the word "illegal" in too many articles. The result is a study such as this in which a news outlet confuses the difference in opinion that republicans have between legal and illegal immigration.
17
This problem has two parts, first there are 11 million, or so I read, illegal immigrants in this country. Some brought here as children, some who have children born here. What to do with them? To me it seems impossible to round them up and deport them however this problem needs to be addressed by Congress NOW! The second part is the existing laws, from what I have read they need updating, Congress should work on this NOW! As far as securing our borders, I think they are secure however if not, Congress should fund homeland security to do it as best as can be. As far as cheap labor goes, give me a break, it's a two faced argument. Some of my neighbors who want a wall etc. have a truck full of Mexicans pull up each week to landscape, for around 40$ a visit, they love it. What if the truck was full of displaced coal miners making 40$ a hour?
7
I wish your concluding paragraph were true. I don't believe the election will bring any clarity to this issue because this election has not been an issue based election, except for those at the bottom of the economic system who will truly believe what Trump is telling them. They seem to believe all immigrants are evil and causing their economic woes to be worse than they would be if immigrants were not here. While there does not seem to be any substantial evidence that they are right at the macro level, they firmly believe that and will not be dissuaded from that opinion. Rather than address their problems with positive action, such as developing marketable skills and moving to locations that offer employment they will seek to pursue their grievances through the political system. That is the evil that people like Trump are imposing on the nation.
1
Ignored here is the question of whether any limitations on immigration are consistent with our values. If there is a financial benefit from admitting hundreds of millions of immigrants, is there any justification in not doing so other than our preference for racial hegemony? Is the idea that keeping out one immigrant that benefits the overall economy is nativism?
9
I agree. The argument is framed as a purely economic one. Immigrants increase GDP. There some default in politics and media into economic arguments. As if growing GDP is an in arguable good on which we all agree. This reduces the question to whether there is an increase in GDP or not. But if the increase in GDP is returned to capital and immigrants, while native workers are harmed, is this really a benefit? It's not an economic question. It's a values question. Do we value Americans more than immigrants? Everyone describes Trump as a racist. Maybe he is, but his argument is not fundamentally racist. It is nativist. Keep American prosperity for America. Millions have been lifted from poverty in China, SE Asia, and Mexico because of trade agreements, while inequality in the US has risen. It is a fair question, and it is right for voters to decide. The elites have led the United States on this course and the benefits have flowed primarily to elites. Is this a course on which we want to continue.
2
What I find utterly baffling is the way in which Liberals look upon the White support of Trump and snicker that White Supremacy is coming down and "they had it coming to them".
I see our country more like the rescue vessel overloaded with refugees. The many to whom the Left assiduously pander (Hispanics, Blacks, anyone leaving the war-torn Middle East) will live in the same country that has historically low labor participation rates, stagnation, artificially low interest rates engineered by a political Fed.
What, Mr. Edsall, am I missing? To what greater opportunity will low-skilled immigrants move that is already being disassembled before our eyes, led by the larger cohort of White middle class citizens running in fear to Donald Trump's siren song?
We are laughing at the Whites and cheering the immigrants. It is a bit of a perverse parlor game played out in zip codes like Manhattan and Berkeley.
I see our country more like the rescue vessel overloaded with refugees. The many to whom the Left assiduously pander (Hispanics, Blacks, anyone leaving the war-torn Middle East) will live in the same country that has historically low labor participation rates, stagnation, artificially low interest rates engineered by a political Fed.
What, Mr. Edsall, am I missing? To what greater opportunity will low-skilled immigrants move that is already being disassembled before our eyes, led by the larger cohort of White middle class citizens running in fear to Donald Trump's siren song?
We are laughing at the Whites and cheering the immigrants. It is a bit of a perverse parlor game played out in zip codes like Manhattan and Berkeley.
49
Immigrants leaving their kith and kin and motherland must voluntarily integrate into the culture of their host country. IF one can give up motherland why not his cultural identity? Immigrants must dress and look like the natives. Such an integration alone will end the conflict?
4
submit: and speak the English language.
6
Never mentioned is the harmful effect on native citizens' educational opportunity by skilled, legal immigration. As long as the U.S. continues to rely upon the brain drain from other countries to staff its universities and technical fields, native-born Americans will continue to receive an inferior education at the primary and secondary levels.
As for illegal immigration, it comes as no surprise that it adversely affects the African American community. Given the ugly history of slavery, and the terrible effects suffered by descendants of slaves, the primary moral responsibility of the U.S. on the domestic front is to improve the educational, job, and housing opportunities for African Americans.
As for illegal immigration, it comes as no surprise that it adversely affects the African American community. Given the ugly history of slavery, and the terrible effects suffered by descendants of slaves, the primary moral responsibility of the U.S. on the domestic front is to improve the educational, job, and housing opportunities for African Americans.
9
The costs of low-skilled immigrants - education, healthcare, the pressure on rents, etc - are borne by the same people who bear the costs of the wage reduction - the poor and working classes in the neighborhoods where they live. The pro-immigration crowd would have a better case to make if those who get the benefits of the cheap labor also took responsibility for the costs. I imagine pigs might fly first, so don't expect the opposition to go away anytime soon.
112
Voters would not choose to accept being worse. Forcing immigration on voters is extinguishing democracy in America.
14
Very helpful article with highly relevant research from credible sources on important issues and impacts of immigration. Well done, sir.
If all immigration is good, then explain how Native Americans have benefited from four centuries of white immigrants from Europe.
If all immigration is good, then explain how African immigrants have benefited from being brought to the Americas in chains.
If all immigration is good, then explain why any nation-states bother to have any immigration, border or passport controls at all.
If all immigration is good, then explain how African immigrants have benefited from being brought to the Americas in chains.
If all immigration is good, then explain why any nation-states bother to have any immigration, border or passport controls at all.
14
From someone who immigrated to the US and invited my family who waited for their immigration visas after applying at the American embassy in Seoul, i am insulted that you lump us in with illegal immigrants who crossed over here illegally. You need to define that up front in you piece. I know that if your an undocumented alien, you do not file federal income taxes because you did not receive a social security number. That point never gets reported.
26
" I know that if you're an undocumented alien, you do not file federal income taxes because you did not receive a social security number." Actually, this statement is incorrect. Undocumented workers usually (at least all the people I know and I know a lot of undocumented and legal immigrants from all over the world) receive paychecks, which deduct federal taxes, social security, and medicare. AND can apply for an ITIN number from the IRS which is a tax payer ID. They CAN and many do file a tax return. They also pay into social security but can never claim this money. They do not have a legal right to work in the U.S. but the IRS will get their money anyway. In my experience with immigrants both legal and undocumented, I have found that immigrants who enter the U.S. on a student visa and are elligible for a social security number are in fact more likely to work under the table and not pay taxes than the Undocumented immigrants I have me.
I am an immigrant, albeit a highly trained and legal one who earns far above the median income. In Switzerland, too, the whacky right constantly dumps on immigrants (legal and otherwise), blaming us for every ill that the country has.
My dream: an immigrant strike. All immigrants in Switzerland should refuse to work for one day. I don't think there will be many construction sites, hospitals, universities, restaurants, farms, supermarkets, etc. that would be able to function without immigrant labor. The economy will come to a grinding halt without immigrants - and I think the same thing would happen in the USA as well.
My dream: an immigrant strike. All immigrants in Switzerland should refuse to work for one day. I don't think there will be many construction sites, hospitals, universities, restaurants, farms, supermarkets, etc. that would be able to function without immigrant labor. The economy will come to a grinding halt without immigrants - and I think the same thing would happen in the USA as well.
40
(Not Mark) That's part of the problem. It's not legal immigration that we're against, it's illegal, but you would never know that, as it's all lumped in together. I would love to have an illegal immigration strike also. All the jobs being done by them, forcing the wages down, could be done by poor and working class Americans for a higher wage, maybe even a livable one. All the public schools that have been burdened by excessive levels of illiterate in any language kids come through can now spend that money on children that are already here. Our emergency rooms will no longer be required to serve anyone who comes, only citizens, and maybe they can actually pay. No longer would there be a market for stolen SS numbers and identities that are stolen from other citizens to fool employers who might want to do the right thing and hire citizens. People that commit crimes here and are deported are actually stopped at the border and not allowed back in to commit more crimes against the populace. It's not legal immigration, it's illegal that's the problem.
10
The working classes are well aware that the rich love cheap foreign labor, but thanks for that.
4
I see schools overcrowded with increasing budgets and property taxes. I see the emergency room packed with people speaking through translators. I see Americans going bankrupt from medical bills while these people seem to get their care for free. I see trade workers, customer service workers being denied jobs because they don't speak Spanish. I see car accidents where people breaking the law; driving without insurance simply walk away without consequences.
I see citizens subject to more and more rules, laws, taxes, licensing fees, costs and responsibilities to the general welfare while an entire class of residents are completely exempt and actually catered to because of they choose to live outside those laws and responsibilities.
I don't need a study to tell me that mass unfettered illegal immigration burdens unprotected citizens and undermines the social contract in this country.
I see citizens subject to more and more rules, laws, taxes, licensing fees, costs and responsibilities to the general welfare while an entire class of residents are completely exempt and actually catered to because of they choose to live outside those laws and responsibilities.
I don't need a study to tell me that mass unfettered illegal immigration burdens unprotected citizens and undermines the social contract in this country.
145
Thank you very much for your articulate response. You are right on. I think the people who write these articles do no live in the areas that have high populations of "undocumented residents". However, you did forget that the really bad ones do end up in jail, adding to the already overburdened jails populations and costing us more money to maintain the prisons.
14
When you see overcrowded schools and so forth you put the blame on immigrants which is right where Republicans want you to put the blame so that people at the top won't have to pay any more income taxes and people like Trump get off without paying any. You are falling into a trap they have made for you. Please be careful.
1
The towns and cities where the immigrant population causes overcrowding (and the need for translators) are NOT in the communities where the wealthy live. They are in communities where the taxpayers CANNOT afford to pay higher taxes. I know, I live in one of those communities.
1
We don't even know the lost opportunity costs of our insane immigration policy. For example, due to the burgeoning state and local budgets (more money for education, social services, criminal justice, etc) we cannot spend the diverted funds on infrastructure. That's lost opportunity costs.
Regarding crime, according to Chief Gates in CA, they can directly trace the rise of the drug cartels to Reagan's '86 amnesty. Today, the cartels influence is 10 times greater.
Regarding crime, according to Chief Gates in CA, they can directly trace the rise of the drug cartels to Reagan's '86 amnesty. Today, the cartels influence is 10 times greater.
17
The lesson of the Reagan amnesty is totally lost 33 years later!
He did just what lefties want: he gave amnesty to 3 million illegals. Did it WORK? did it END THERE? NO!!! it opened the floodgates to every relative those illegals had, every cousin and neighbor from their village in Mexico...it greenlighted illegal immigration from Central America....it made people laugh at laws or regulations or borders, because nobody enforced them at all!
It brought poverty from Mexico HERE, and drugs and criminals. Mexico was only TOO THRILLED to get rid of 10 million more criminals, uneducated, unskilled workers and children they would have otherwise had to educate! And many send money back home to Mexico! Mexicans must be laughing at us Americans day and night, for the fools we are -- we take their worst element, the worst poverty -- and they get MONEY flowing back!
The Reagan amnesty made everything exponentially WORSE.
He did just what lefties want: he gave amnesty to 3 million illegals. Did it WORK? did it END THERE? NO!!! it opened the floodgates to every relative those illegals had, every cousin and neighbor from their village in Mexico...it greenlighted illegal immigration from Central America....it made people laugh at laws or regulations or borders, because nobody enforced them at all!
It brought poverty from Mexico HERE, and drugs and criminals. Mexico was only TOO THRILLED to get rid of 10 million more criminals, uneducated, unskilled workers and children they would have otherwise had to educate! And many send money back home to Mexico! Mexicans must be laughing at us Americans day and night, for the fools we are -- we take their worst element, the worst poverty -- and they get MONEY flowing back!
The Reagan amnesty made everything exponentially WORSE.
6
This piece, as is the argument, is all over the map. My biggest issue with the "blame the immigrant" side is that big business is the culprit. It grabbed most of the surplus created by the cheaper labor, yet gets the free pass. I think Trumps rants might be the first time a Republican politician( ok carnival barker in this case) points this out. So let's be intellectually honest, immigrants, especially those from south of our border, would not be here in droves but for the willing and many times fraudulent acts of several mega large businesses: agriculture, construction, hospitality and restaurant.( to name a few.) To imply that lower waged workers have been harmed marginally is a fraud. What this nation did not prepare for was having the surplus unevenly distributed, capital got most, higher valued labor got some and lower valued labor got none. In other words, capital got the mine and the lesser skilled labor got the shaft. The rest of us are just wandering around looking for a clue. Thus you get Trump.
11
These macro studies tend to obscure the micro reality. It is not good for neighborhoods to have scores of illegal immigrants hanging around street corners waiting to be picked up by trucks, to work for sub-market wages with no benefits or training, to live ten to an apartment on mattresses strewn on the floor, and these single men bring with them other issues that are not good for neighborhoods where they choose to congregate.
NPR recently featured a lengthy program exposing the way that the companies providing casual labor collude with the buyers to ensure that black citizens are not hired.... nope, they want the illegals who will do what they are told, work hard, not question anything, and not expect anything.
So whether this on balance is economically good for the country is a case of not seeing the trees for the forest. We shouldn't tolerate this situation. If we need non-US workers, then we also need an organized system for it.
And btw, we ought to be demonizing the companies who hire them as much or more than the people coming here to find jobs.
NPR recently featured a lengthy program exposing the way that the companies providing casual labor collude with the buyers to ensure that black citizens are not hired.... nope, they want the illegals who will do what they are told, work hard, not question anything, and not expect anything.
So whether this on balance is economically good for the country is a case of not seeing the trees for the forest. We shouldn't tolerate this situation. If we need non-US workers, then we also need an organized system for it.
And btw, we ought to be demonizing the companies who hire them as much or more than the people coming here to find jobs.
18
Is there ANY number which proponents of immigration believe is too large for the assimilative capacity of our culture? Currently there are around 40,000,000 "immigrants" in the US. That includes 13,000,000 with green cards and 12,000,000 or so who are here illegally. That 40,000,000 number is about the same number as those who had no health insurance prior to Obamacare--a number we were assured was a national crisis.
24
I can attest immigrant labor lowers wages in the construction industry, but use it to my advantage in providing a superior service than low skilled immigrants. I am able to charge more and gain customers for two reasons: my reputation is strong and I can clearly communicate with customers on their needs.
How many of those who complain about illegal immigrants hire those same folks to mow their lawns and care for their children? They should be ashamed of their hypocrisy.
There is a great wage for skilled labor in this country that includes painting, glazing, tile setting, and the like. Contrary to many popular beliefs white people still do this work and are proud of their products. A major negative psychological byproduct of this debate is the claim that labor jobs are only for immigrants. Simply not true, and although immigrants do compose a growing percentage of the blue collar construction labor force native born white and black men and women are proud of their accomplishments in the industry and will continue to build this country.
How many of those who complain about illegal immigrants hire those same folks to mow their lawns and care for their children? They should be ashamed of their hypocrisy.
There is a great wage for skilled labor in this country that includes painting, glazing, tile setting, and the like. Contrary to many popular beliefs white people still do this work and are proud of their products. A major negative psychological byproduct of this debate is the claim that labor jobs are only for immigrants. Simply not true, and although immigrants do compose a growing percentage of the blue collar construction labor force native born white and black men and women are proud of their accomplishments in the industry and will continue to build this country.
2
Sounds like you are a "good businessman" (my reputation is strong") That part of your statement so reminds me of Trump.
However, you support undocumented labor: in that respect you sound like Hillary.
However, you support undocumented labor: in that respect you sound like Hillary.
1
Those middle class and working class voters who support Trump understand instinctively they are caught between a rock and hard place when it comes to immigration. Employers prefer illegal workers because they work cheaper, work longer hours and if they complain they can be fired without consequence. The proposed answer, a path to citizenship, will a) dilute the political power of the white working class in critical states like Texas and Florida while also b) making it that much more desirable to try to get here to work illegally. So "Build that wall!" and mass deportation seem to be to only workable solutions, from their perspectives. Never mind that the wall is impractical, obscenely expensive and will simply incent the government of Mexico respond by enabling more illegal immigration into the US, most likely of criminals and other undesirables.
But there are incremental steps that will decrease the pressure of the untenable position employers have put working class families in. The fact is, the massive deportation program in the early years of the Obama Administration did work -- immigration between Mexico to the US is now "net zero." An eVerify must be instituted for all workers, including contractors, across the board. Employers have been playing their fellow citizens for far too long with impunity.
Many of us find the expressions of racism among the crowds at Trump rallies abhorrent. But in the end the source of the animus is entirely economic and valid.
But there are incremental steps that will decrease the pressure of the untenable position employers have put working class families in. The fact is, the massive deportation program in the early years of the Obama Administration did work -- immigration between Mexico to the US is now "net zero." An eVerify must be instituted for all workers, including contractors, across the board. Employers have been playing their fellow citizens for far too long with impunity.
Many of us find the expressions of racism among the crowds at Trump rallies abhorrent. But in the end the source of the animus is entirely economic and valid.
14
Brian, this is a truly excellent comment that ought to have got a gold star.
5
This is the wrong argument. The problem is not at the bottom of the wage scale but rather at the top of the wage scale. We are a nation of immigrants, hard working, generally honest, wanting to get ahead people from all over the world. We have the wealthiest nation in the world. We also have a large wealth inequity. Our national policy is trickle up economics and those at the top have no respect or heart for those at the bottom. We allow the massive accumulation of wealth by individuals and corporations and allow them to keep it for themselves and use it as they please.
We have given them a nation of good infrastructure, a willing legal system, national research that allows business to use those research results for their own gain, and charged them nothing for it. The takers have taken and the makers are starting to wake up. Unfortunately, the takers control the political process. How else can President Obama, who has deported more immigrants and allowed more H1B workers in to the country to compete with US citizens for high wage jobs than any other president, be seen as pro-immigrant? No, the problem is not with immigration, it is with a dysfunctional national system of governance and political discourse. Our social institutions are letting us down and need to be changed. Let us hope toward a more democratic future rather than the dictator presently leader the Republican Party.
We have given them a nation of good infrastructure, a willing legal system, national research that allows business to use those research results for their own gain, and charged them nothing for it. The takers have taken and the makers are starting to wake up. Unfortunately, the takers control the political process. How else can President Obama, who has deported more immigrants and allowed more H1B workers in to the country to compete with US citizens for high wage jobs than any other president, be seen as pro-immigrant? No, the problem is not with immigration, it is with a dysfunctional national system of governance and political discourse. Our social institutions are letting us down and need to be changed. Let us hope toward a more democratic future rather than the dictator presently leader the Republican Party.
Immigration is a good thing in principle, but the graph showing historically high levels of foreign born population says it all. Too bad no mention of stagnant wages since the 1970s and rising inequality. Hmm, I wonder what could possibly have led to that? It boggles the mind how normally rational people defy common sense and are so disconnected from actual workers competing for jobs. Due to liberal bias, elitism, corruption, corporatism, and neglect, the debate becomes dominated by the likes of Trump.
Five countries dominate immigration, accounting for about half, India, China, Mexico, with about 130,000/year each, then Canada and Philippines at 40,000 per. Wage rates for India, China, and Mexico are not about to approach the U.S. anytime soon. Wages are further suppressed by the undocumented who obviously have little or no bargaining power, and the employer sponsored (low and high skills) who also lack basic labor rights (facing deportation if laid off or dismissed).
It is a myth that immigration only affects low skills wages.
Also David Card's research is based on the absurd notion that wage differentials connote skill levels and job classifications, vs. downward nominal wage rigidity.
The Democratic bill proposed to increase exploitation. Read more:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-i...
http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/
Five countries dominate immigration, accounting for about half, India, China, Mexico, with about 130,000/year each, then Canada and Philippines at 40,000 per. Wage rates for India, China, and Mexico are not about to approach the U.S. anytime soon. Wages are further suppressed by the undocumented who obviously have little or no bargaining power, and the employer sponsored (low and high skills) who also lack basic labor rights (facing deportation if laid off or dismissed).
It is a myth that immigration only affects low skills wages.
Also David Card's research is based on the absurd notion that wage differentials connote skill levels and job classifications, vs. downward nominal wage rigidity.
The Democratic bill proposed to increase exploitation. Read more:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-i...
http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/
18
I'm willing to accept that immigration does provide macroeconomic benefits, but I also think that the structural inequalities of the economy mean that most of these benefits accrue to the wealthy and corporations in terms of reduced labor costs. Corporations benefit in the short run as their labor costs shrink and they gain higher profit margins but the benefit to consumers in minimal, like slightly reduced price increases for things immigrant labor produces.
The cost side I think is more directly borne by the middle class. The cost increase to schools and community services is greater and the wealthy generally don't bear those costs as immigrants don't congregate in wealthy suburbs, they tend to form communities in inner cities.
What I never see connected, though, are high unemployment rates for African Americans and large-scale low wage immigration from Latin America. I find it hard to believe that African Americans aren't been pushed out of entry level jobs. Racism is the usual explanation for African American unemployment, but doesn't pass the sniff test when the replacement worker is a Latino with marginal English skills.
The cost side I think is more directly borne by the middle class. The cost increase to schools and community services is greater and the wealthy generally don't bear those costs as immigrants don't congregate in wealthy suburbs, they tend to form communities in inner cities.
What I never see connected, though, are high unemployment rates for African Americans and large-scale low wage immigration from Latin America. I find it hard to believe that African Americans aren't been pushed out of entry level jobs. Racism is the usual explanation for African American unemployment, but doesn't pass the sniff test when the replacement worker is a Latino with marginal English skills.
20
Great piece demonstrating the complex relation between economic models and everyday life. The models attempt to hone in on the interaction between immigration and all aspects of our economy. They clarify some important features, such as the impact on the wages of a particular segment of the working population, but leave many out of the picture, such as the enriching of the cultural life of all by people with diverse culinary, linguistic, artistic, and even scholarly skills.
One telling phrase,"immigrants do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services at the present time," reveals the implicit self-deception of some. Most Americans today are convinced that attracting business to their community is a good thing (will reduce taxes); so they freely give out huge tax breaks. Then, when new workers (and their families) are brought in by the new jobs created, taxes do not decline, but go up due to the fact that (to paraphrase the above quote) "new workers and businesses do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services," such as schools, infrastructure, etc. But this has not stopped people from continuing to seek new businesses. Clearly the picture is more complicated than the immediate cost and benefits from either new businesses or new immigrants. Looking at the "bottom line" in the short run tells us little about the whole picture -- what do we have in mind by a thriving sustainable economy and by a cosmopolitan vibrant nation?
One telling phrase,"immigrants do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services at the present time," reveals the implicit self-deception of some. Most Americans today are convinced that attracting business to their community is a good thing (will reduce taxes); so they freely give out huge tax breaks. Then, when new workers (and their families) are brought in by the new jobs created, taxes do not decline, but go up due to the fact that (to paraphrase the above quote) "new workers and businesses do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services," such as schools, infrastructure, etc. But this has not stopped people from continuing to seek new businesses. Clearly the picture is more complicated than the immediate cost and benefits from either new businesses or new immigrants. Looking at the "bottom line" in the short run tells us little about the whole picture -- what do we have in mind by a thriving sustainable economy and by a cosmopolitan vibrant nation?
2
The immigration debate is distorted by our political system, and both parties use extreme rhetoric to manipulate voters to their point of view: Republicans angle for the displaced and Democrats see in new and numerous immigrants a new, bullet-proof voter bloc.
The truth, as is always the case in our country, lies in the middle.
There is no question that immigration has built this country to its greatness. It is also true that we are offshoring manufacturing and now service jobs at a rate that must raise eyebrows, unless we believe somehow that a nation can be economically strong built on the backs of services (all of which employ fewer and at higher wages, widening the income gap, and many of which are fungible and targeted for further offshoring).
We still refuse to address the tragedies of immigration: returning our borders to a secure condition, understanding that off-books workers depress wages, weighing the influence of immigration both on our minimum wage discussion and workforce participation rate, dealing with children who are placed in the middle of an unresolved argument by opposing sides.
Lumping a general term like immigration into sound bites is not helpful. We need immigrants. We also need jobs for them, on the books. We need a process to make them citizens. We need better assimilation, rather than standing up new ghettoes of isolation from the citizens who came before them.
Please hold the statistics until the emotional arguments are addressed.
The truth, as is always the case in our country, lies in the middle.
There is no question that immigration has built this country to its greatness. It is also true that we are offshoring manufacturing and now service jobs at a rate that must raise eyebrows, unless we believe somehow that a nation can be economically strong built on the backs of services (all of which employ fewer and at higher wages, widening the income gap, and many of which are fungible and targeted for further offshoring).
We still refuse to address the tragedies of immigration: returning our borders to a secure condition, understanding that off-books workers depress wages, weighing the influence of immigration both on our minimum wage discussion and workforce participation rate, dealing with children who are placed in the middle of an unresolved argument by opposing sides.
Lumping a general term like immigration into sound bites is not helpful. We need immigrants. We also need jobs for them, on the books. We need a process to make them citizens. We need better assimilation, rather than standing up new ghettoes of isolation from the citizens who came before them.
Please hold the statistics until the emotional arguments are addressed.
6
For once, Professor Edsall fails to grasp the key conclusion suggested by all the data and analysis he discusses. The NAS study shows that immigration inflicts only minor short-term harm on the economic status of working-class Americans.
But the real cause of our political turmoil stems from the sharp fall in purchasing power suffered by low-income Americans, which, thanks partially to Trump, they incorrectly attribute to immigration and job flight to other countries. In fact, however, structural changes in the economy, including the large-scale automation of manufacturing processes, accounts for most of the decline in relative incomes.
It seems misguided to assume, as Edsall apparently does, however, that only the electoral process can determine the outcome of this conflict over the differential effects of recent economic trends. Democracy cannot thrive in an environment in which large numbers of citizens feel that the government ignores their problems. Comprehensive policies designed to improve education and to help all Americans adapt to the requirements of a rapidly evolving service economy would divert attention from the red herring of immigration and go far to reverse the growth of the income inequality that has spawned so much political discontent in this country.
Confident promises that their circumstances will improve in the next generation will not satisfy workers and communities trapped in the undertow generated by economic change. They need help now.
But the real cause of our political turmoil stems from the sharp fall in purchasing power suffered by low-income Americans, which, thanks partially to Trump, they incorrectly attribute to immigration and job flight to other countries. In fact, however, structural changes in the economy, including the large-scale automation of manufacturing processes, accounts for most of the decline in relative incomes.
It seems misguided to assume, as Edsall apparently does, however, that only the electoral process can determine the outcome of this conflict over the differential effects of recent economic trends. Democracy cannot thrive in an environment in which large numbers of citizens feel that the government ignores their problems. Comprehensive policies designed to improve education and to help all Americans adapt to the requirements of a rapidly evolving service economy would divert attention from the red herring of immigration and go far to reverse the growth of the income inequality that has spawned so much political discontent in this country.
Confident promises that their circumstances will improve in the next generation will not satisfy workers and communities trapped in the undertow generated by economic change. They need help now.
Immigration is indeed a complex issue, and thus one that the simpleton & career swindler running for President has little insight into effectively addressing.
At the heart of this debate are the issues of economics and perceived illegality.
Many immigrants begin their journeys an economic refugees, but apparently make a positive contribution. Other immigrants are brought here legally, through programs like H-1B, specifically in an effort to undermine the earning power of experienced, educated, highly skilled American workers, and their continue presence in non-critical jobs only makes us angry.
The astute observer understands that tension over immigration is driven largely by economic concerns - concerns that the Republican Party, in particular, has chosen to ignore, if not make worse, over these past 40 years.
Government has clearly chosen to look the other way at undocumented immigration, just as it has chosen to ignore obvious violations of Congressional intent in application of the H-1B program.
While the rule of law must ultimately be upheld if we wish to remain a nation of laws, let me also suggest that had government, which at the legislative level has been dominated by Republicans since the mid-1990s, chosen to meaningfully address the economic concerns of Americans, instead buying into outright scams that divert money from the working and middle classes to our economic elite, then the current fury over immigration would amount to a tempest in a teapot.
At the heart of this debate are the issues of economics and perceived illegality.
Many immigrants begin their journeys an economic refugees, but apparently make a positive contribution. Other immigrants are brought here legally, through programs like H-1B, specifically in an effort to undermine the earning power of experienced, educated, highly skilled American workers, and their continue presence in non-critical jobs only makes us angry.
The astute observer understands that tension over immigration is driven largely by economic concerns - concerns that the Republican Party, in particular, has chosen to ignore, if not make worse, over these past 40 years.
Government has clearly chosen to look the other way at undocumented immigration, just as it has chosen to ignore obvious violations of Congressional intent in application of the H-1B program.
While the rule of law must ultimately be upheld if we wish to remain a nation of laws, let me also suggest that had government, which at the legislative level has been dominated by Republicans since the mid-1990s, chosen to meaningfully address the economic concerns of Americans, instead buying into outright scams that divert money from the working and middle classes to our economic elite, then the current fury over immigration would amount to a tempest in a teapot.
25
Excuse me, but as Mr. Edsell pointed out, the Democrats have chosen to ignore the economic concerns of millions of working class Americans who have either lost their jobs or earning power to immigrants or to offshoring.
18
Actually, the Democrats haven't. Democrats mostly support welfare state capitalism, which provides a safety net under naturalized Americans, as well as higher tax rates on globalization's winners - the revenues from which can then be used by government to spur economic activity to provide employment for the displaced.
Republican elites, however, want to gut the safety net, gut government, gut the American tax base - and then accuse the losers of globalization and immigration that they're weak, shiftless, lazy, etc.
The great thing about having a 6 time bankruptcy queen like Drumpf as the Republican candidate for President is that it illustrates just how important being born on 3rd base, with a rich daddy and network in the stands rooting you on, is to remaining a "winner" in America.
The Democrats are indeed complicit in the H-1B scam, and that's yet another reason why we need 100% public financing of all elections. So long as our representatives need to go around with cup in hand raising funds for their next election, they're going to be susceptible to listening far too closely to rich guys intent on screwing the American worker.
Republican elites, however, want to gut the safety net, gut government, gut the American tax base - and then accuse the losers of globalization and immigration that they're weak, shiftless, lazy, etc.
The great thing about having a 6 time bankruptcy queen like Drumpf as the Republican candidate for President is that it illustrates just how important being born on 3rd base, with a rich daddy and network in the stands rooting you on, is to remaining a "winner" in America.
The Democrats are indeed complicit in the H-1B scam, and that's yet another reason why we need 100% public financing of all elections. So long as our representatives need to go around with cup in hand raising funds for their next election, they're going to be susceptible to listening far too closely to rich guys intent on screwing the American worker.
2
A broken immigration system costs us things that the right regards as important and the left regards as UNimportant. Republicans don’t resist legal immigration, except that we’d like it focused more on satisfying skills gaps in our economy. Apparently, the left now wants to regard ILLEGAL immigration as a legitimate part of “immigration” for purposes of discussion. The attack on Trump’s amnesty position makes this clear – we’re talking about “immigration” as if that which breaks our laws is legitimately part of it.
So, the first thing that Dems regard as unimportant is the legal status of an alien, while Republicans regard that as very important.
Then, Dems argue that the services we provide large numbers of illegal aliens are paid back by the value of the new consumers we make. Republicans argue that there’s a limit to the investments we can make, and that we’re failing to invest in OUR OWN.
Finally, Dems argue that the attack on culture represented by uncontrolled numbers of illegal immigrants is unimportant because many don’t value American culture. Republicans do.
Sec. Clinton uses the code-phrase “family oriented”, suggesting that even for legal immigration, she favors the status quo that supports reunification of families, not the satisfaction of skills gaps. THAT should be the disagreement that’s focused on. But this attempt to legitimize illegal immigration and open borders by simply calling it “immigration” is transparent and invalid.
So, the first thing that Dems regard as unimportant is the legal status of an alien, while Republicans regard that as very important.
Then, Dems argue that the services we provide large numbers of illegal aliens are paid back by the value of the new consumers we make. Republicans argue that there’s a limit to the investments we can make, and that we’re failing to invest in OUR OWN.
Finally, Dems argue that the attack on culture represented by uncontrolled numbers of illegal immigrants is unimportant because many don’t value American culture. Republicans do.
Sec. Clinton uses the code-phrase “family oriented”, suggesting that even for legal immigration, she favors the status quo that supports reunification of families, not the satisfaction of skills gaps. THAT should be the disagreement that’s focused on. But this attempt to legitimize illegal immigration and open borders by simply calling it “immigration” is transparent and invalid.
89
The core of the Republican Party, the business lobby, uses and loves illegal immigrant labor. How else could so many workers stream across the border and be gainfully employed. So wrong again, The Republican Party and its business wing is more responsible for illegal immigration, cost or benefit, than any Democrat seeking sympathy for the family unit.
24
Read what Matthew Carnicelli to learn something just maybe you will cahnge your mind because you are dead wrong.
1
"Dems.... don't value American Culture"? That is massively offensive at best. As a descendent of Captain Warren, who was the first officer to die in the Revolutinary War, I not only take offensive, I believe the very statement is anti American. Republicans have created a shiboleth of mom apple pie etc as "American Culture." To me American Culture is stated in Declaration of Independence.. "we hold these truths to be self evident... all men are created equal".. and at the base of the Statue of Liberty.."give me your tired...". You can not have my culture and replace it with yours. I am a true American, and a Democrat.
4
Illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America has brought the USA cartels, crime, heroin in ever-cheaper and more available forms. Working in Federal law enforcement I see the thousands of cases crossing my agency's desks every month that have narcotics nexus and deal with all aspects of drug trafficking, particularly with the homicide, illegal weapons and massive illegal proceeds that the cartel members attempt to launder here or back home. Mealy-mouthed denials of these facts pall in the face of our inescapably terrible heroin epidemic. We may directly attribute narcotics and related crime to immigration, and I hope the next president enforces Title 8 aggressively, ends "sanctuario" in Chicago and elsewhere and sends a harsh message that those who attempt to destroy our society with drugs will be destroyed themselves.
109
It is easy to deny the truth, when it suits one's agenda. The lefty Democrats desperately want a one party system; they hate and detest all conservatives, Republicans, red-staters and "old white people". However, these folks keep flummoxing their plans by VOTING. So the only way to get that one party system is....massive illegal immigration. (Yes, illegals vote! why not? It's easy and you can't get caught, nobody even looks for voter registration fraud!) Another 20 million illegals, and they could get majorities in many now-conservative western states, like Texas.
It's drugs, but not just drugs. The data quoted here is distorted, because it is PREPARED by lefty liberals in academia, who want the same kind of one party system. They too hate conservatives, Republicans and "old white people".
BTW: one of the most annoying quotes here is someone saying "in the future we will be interacting over the internet with .... poor foreigners". Huh? what does that mean? that the "helpline" at Amazon will be staffed with Pakistanis at their call center instead of Americans HERE in the US? and that is supposed to make us altruitistic about illegal immigration?
It's drugs, but not just drugs. The data quoted here is distorted, because it is PREPARED by lefty liberals in academia, who want the same kind of one party system. They too hate conservatives, Republicans and "old white people".
BTW: one of the most annoying quotes here is someone saying "in the future we will be interacting over the internet with .... poor foreigners". Huh? what does that mean? that the "helpline" at Amazon will be staffed with Pakistanis at their call center instead of Americans HERE in the US? and that is supposed to make us altruitistic about illegal immigration?
8
No demand, no supply. The cartels feed the demand. Plus, I believe most of the new heroin supply comes from our client state Afghanistan.
3
why don't you mention our insatiable demand for drugs ?
and the huge, enormous cost resulting from the crimminilization of drugs ?
not to mention the right wing assault on gun laws
we decriminalized drugs, it would reduce crime - ever hear of the Volstead Act ?
and the huge, enormous cost resulting from the crimminilization of drugs ?
not to mention the right wing assault on gun laws
we decriminalized drugs, it would reduce crime - ever hear of the Volstead Act ?
4
The cost and benefit of immigration is not just a math equation. Many poorer Americans lose home value when immigrants move into the neighborhood. Those who live in wealthy neighborhoods don't factor this value in, because they are effectively immune to the problem. But when your neighbors don't speak English, and you can't communicate with them, when your kids go to school with large numbers of non-English speakers, when your parks are populated by non-English speakers, and when you can no longer find a super market that sells American style foods, the value of your home goes down.
127
Let's see. Little brown and black people move in to your neighborhood and your property values go down? Do you have any statistics to back that up, or is this just another assertion based on raw prejudice?
Would you say the same thing if the new neighbors were Northern Europeans?
Would you say the same thing if the new neighbors were Northern Europeans?
All that this tells us is that the wealthy few who control government use immigration to provide themselves with more wealth that belongs to the rest of us. They are above the laws that they had their minions enact. It is a felony act to hire an undocumented employee. It is a crime to act as an unlicensed contractor. Banking regulations require that a business account be a legitimate business, an unlicensed business cannot access banking services. Check cashing stores, 95% of which are owned by the major banks and make a profit from cashing checks written to illegitimate business can and do. So the labor intensive industries use the illegitimate businesses by using legitimate business as fronts who then contract with the illegitimate businesses that hire the undocumented workers and pay them in cash from the laundered money. All of this is known to the local authorities. The laws are in place to stop this. The monetary benefits from using low cost labor and avoiding the workers compensation insurance and FICA taxes is to the owners of the capital that uses this labor and everyone else loses. So the authorities that are supposed to enforce the laws are told to ignore them, look the other way and we will give you some of the proceeds for your campaigns and slush funds. Business as usual. There is no surprise that California, Texas, and Florida have the most undocumented workers, they refuse to enforce their own laws about hiring undocumented workers.
132
Someone who owns a small business is required by the IRS to show that they keep their business records separate from their personal records, which is to say they must have separate bank accounts. But they are not required to be licensed to do so. A local town or county may or may not require people to apply and pay for a business license - this is usually the case if someone wishes to open a BUSINESS bank account (so designated by the bank and therefore with different fees etc). I'm not defending check cashing services morally, but as a point of law the basis of your argument is fundamentally incorrect.
1
@Georgina - Only small businesses that are incorporated are required to have separate bank accounts. The IRS and many business advisors do recommend keeping separate accounts, but it is NOT required for unincorporated small businesses.
@Ed - Have you considered that California, Texas, and Florida may have large numbers of undocumented workers because of their geographic location as well as the kinds of work that are available in those states?
@Ed - Have you considered that California, Texas, and Florida may have large numbers of undocumented workers because of their geographic location as well as the kinds of work that are available in those states?
2
Not sure if you understand, but the Federal government does not allow you to ask a potential employee if they are here legally. If you are stopped, you cannot be asked if you are here legally. Don't point to TX or CA or FL - ask the president.
3
Thanks a lot for this well-informed and fair article. Trump, of course, will make hay with anything and cannot be trusted but Clinton should stop talking and thinking in terms of "deplorables" who know nothing. Immigration is good for any economy but people at the bottom of the scale are adversely affected which means there should be social programs and tax refunds for them. Those affected, as another NY Times article indicated, are themselves older immigrants. When the beneficiaries of immigration call the victims "deplorable" they add insult to injury--and lose their votes. It is time class and inequality came back in the public debate. An area where Sanders was much better than Clinton. Now she had to move his way.
8
Of course this is a hoax report, these kinds of studies always end up proving or showing whatever, the authors want them to, by manipulating assumptions, skewing data, and a million other different ways
The first thing wrong here, is that it doesn't differentiate between the various types of 'immigrants'. Legal immigrants from Asian countries, produce massively different outcomes, that do illegal immigrants
One cost that I never see addressed is the fact that every female who comes here illegally, STARTS OFF by costing the Taxpayers somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 just in hospital and medical costs alone. And then, since she is the mother of a US Citizen a whole string of welfare benefits start to kick in that would never have been incurred if she hadn't entered our country illegally
Sadly, that is just the beginning, statistically, children of illegal immigrants are more likely to do poorly in school, and are much, much more likely to be associated with a next generation of welfare recipients as out-of-wedlock births, both as fathering them, and as in unmarried teen mothers
The first thing wrong here, is that it doesn't differentiate between the various types of 'immigrants'. Legal immigrants from Asian countries, produce massively different outcomes, that do illegal immigrants
One cost that I never see addressed is the fact that every female who comes here illegally, STARTS OFF by costing the Taxpayers somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 just in hospital and medical costs alone. And then, since she is the mother of a US Citizen a whole string of welfare benefits start to kick in that would never have been incurred if she hadn't entered our country illegally
Sadly, that is just the beginning, statistically, children of illegal immigrants are more likely to do poorly in school, and are much, much more likely to be associated with a next generation of welfare recipients as out-of-wedlock births, both as fathering them, and as in unmarried teen mothers
154
The entire methodology of lefty liberals -- from the NYT staff to the academics who prepare these bogus reports -- is to conflate LEGAL immigration with ILLEGAL immigration.
The legal immigrants make the stats look quite good, as most are Asian and have advanced education and skills. OF COURSE they are not involved in crime and bring assets with them.
It is absurd to dump together in statistics a Chinese heart surgeon, or a Iranian engineer, or a Indian computer programmer....with thousands of Mexican or Central American illegals, who are illiterate and have perhaps a 3rd grade education, and who flood here to take jobs in construction, trucking, landscaping, food service, etc. The illegals bring with them crime and violence, and a sense of "entitlement" to US welfare benefits. They game the system, and liberals allow it, because the real enemies of liberals are the WORKING CLASSES....they get actual pleasure from knowing that working class Americans are being hard hit. Liberals see it as "payback" for those same working class Americans not voting the Democratic ticket. And they see those illegal aliens and their anchor babies as future Democratic voters!
The legal immigrants make the stats look quite good, as most are Asian and have advanced education and skills. OF COURSE they are not involved in crime and bring assets with them.
It is absurd to dump together in statistics a Chinese heart surgeon, or a Iranian engineer, or a Indian computer programmer....with thousands of Mexican or Central American illegals, who are illiterate and have perhaps a 3rd grade education, and who flood here to take jobs in construction, trucking, landscaping, food service, etc. The illegals bring with them crime and violence, and a sense of "entitlement" to US welfare benefits. They game the system, and liberals allow it, because the real enemies of liberals are the WORKING CLASSES....they get actual pleasure from knowing that working class Americans are being hard hit. Liberals see it as "payback" for those same working class Americans not voting the Democratic ticket. And they see those illegal aliens and their anchor babies as future Democratic voters!
15
The "researchers" are economists. Economics is a "science?" When did that happen? Why wasn't it in The Times?
For two decades, The Times community has ignored over-crowded ERs and schools, to the point that legal Jane Does have finally said "enough." Just like they have in Europe.
Ignore the legal Jane Does at your peril -- they've had enough. The USA is an economic and social wreck, no matter how many "economics scientists" gin up data otherwise -- 15,000,000+ under-employed/unemployed, public debt (NOT deficit) $20,000,000,000,000, 46,000,0000 on food stamps.
For two decades, The Times community has ignored over-crowded ERs and schools, to the point that legal Jane Does have finally said "enough." Just like they have in Europe.
Ignore the legal Jane Does at your peril -- they've had enough. The USA is an economic and social wreck, no matter how many "economics scientists" gin up data otherwise -- 15,000,000+ under-employed/unemployed, public debt (NOT deficit) $20,000,000,000,000, 46,000,0000 on food stamps.
21
Asian immigrants take white collar and tech jobs from US citizens.
8
Beautifully done. Thoughtful, measured, and detailed analysis which refuses to be a victim to left/right polarized discourse--discourses that choose to see only parts of the story and so support incomplete or even damaging policy solutions.
13
Important topic!
What resonates with me most is our aging population and decreased consumption by the elderly tending to dampen the economy, which when combined with our low birth rate place more of a burden on the young. This seems like a bad long-term recipe.
As to the issue of whether immigration depresses wages for unskilled workers, would not raising the minimum wage and a path to citizenship help to ameliorate that?
The idea of a wall is absurd - it will never be built. But politically, the emotional content - wall = protection = assuaging fear, the basic ingredient.
I guess it's beyond the scope of the report to consider the impossibility of rounding up and processing and deporting 11 million illegals and the costs of that effort. Whatever your philosophy, those folks are here and there's the very real and pressing issue of what to do with them.
The costs of gridlock are undoubtedly great, but the divisiveness resulting from the immigration issue may ultimately be the greatest cost.
What resonates with me most is our aging population and decreased consumption by the elderly tending to dampen the economy, which when combined with our low birth rate place more of a burden on the young. This seems like a bad long-term recipe.
As to the issue of whether immigration depresses wages for unskilled workers, would not raising the minimum wage and a path to citizenship help to ameliorate that?
The idea of a wall is absurd - it will never be built. But politically, the emotional content - wall = protection = assuaging fear, the basic ingredient.
I guess it's beyond the scope of the report to consider the impossibility of rounding up and processing and deporting 11 million illegals and the costs of that effort. Whatever your philosophy, those folks are here and there's the very real and pressing issue of what to do with them.
The costs of gridlock are undoubtedly great, but the divisiveness resulting from the immigration issue may ultimately be the greatest cost.
16
The elderly might "consume" more if their starvation level SS benefits had not essentially been cut during the past 8 years
9
Maybe they should have shopped less & saved more while working, d. SS was never meant to be a full retirement package, esp at 21st century lifestyle standards.
Immigration is a huge subject.
It is legal and illegal. The legal include H1B visas, and education visas, and tourist visas, and investor visas, and more, all often misused. Immigrants are a vast number of stories, going back decades.
Illegal Immigration is often said to be at least 11 million people, plus their families, and all their ties to their communities. I suspect it is even more. Legal immigration is millions more, and as with H1B visas that too is abused.
There is no one answer for the effect of so many different things. It is like asking "who are Americans." Lots of things.
Anything can be reduced to net effects by averaging, but sometimes with an average there is nobody there in the middle, just large numbers distant from that point on both sides that balance out at that artificial point.
We are better served by looking at the specifics of the many variations, and doing justice for each. Equal justice for all would not be the same answer for all. Their questions are different, so the answers are different.
We did not enforce the nominal laws on the books for many years. The real law was what we actually did. Now it would be unjust to go back and change that for millions who justificably relied on what we actually did. Legally, that is called "detrimental reliance."
That is no reason to allow more of it. It is no reason to continue to keep legal ideas proven wrong, such as the H1B visa program as we run it now.
We must look forward, not reach back.
It is legal and illegal. The legal include H1B visas, and education visas, and tourist visas, and investor visas, and more, all often misused. Immigrants are a vast number of stories, going back decades.
Illegal Immigration is often said to be at least 11 million people, plus their families, and all their ties to their communities. I suspect it is even more. Legal immigration is millions more, and as with H1B visas that too is abused.
There is no one answer for the effect of so many different things. It is like asking "who are Americans." Lots of things.
Anything can be reduced to net effects by averaging, but sometimes with an average there is nobody there in the middle, just large numbers distant from that point on both sides that balance out at that artificial point.
We are better served by looking at the specifics of the many variations, and doing justice for each. Equal justice for all would not be the same answer for all. Their questions are different, so the answers are different.
We did not enforce the nominal laws on the books for many years. The real law was what we actually did. Now it would be unjust to go back and change that for millions who justificably relied on what we actually did. Legally, that is called "detrimental reliance."
That is no reason to allow more of it. It is no reason to continue to keep legal ideas proven wrong, such as the H1B visa program as we run it now.
We must look forward, not reach back.
36
How magnanimous, to urge those whose lives have been wrecked by illegal immigration "look forward."
Here's a better idea -- let those preaching lawlessness sacrifice their jobs and communities first, to fund illegal immigration.
They're so noble, they shouldn't mind. We'll be right behind them .. a promise, on par with "you can keep your doctor."
Here's a better idea -- let those preaching lawlessness sacrifice their jobs and communities first, to fund illegal immigration.
They're so noble, they shouldn't mind. We'll be right behind them .. a promise, on par with "you can keep your doctor."
30
Anchor babies should not be allowed citizenship, and that is a law that should be easily changed and a problem easily solved.
7
Get a clue.