Activism Discussion: Paul Krugman: No More Illegal Immigrants

Paul Krugman: No More Illegal Immigrants
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

JOE
2006-03-28 21:56:50 EST
New York Times
March 27, 2006

North of the Border
By Paul Krugman

... I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of
serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about
the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in
particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to
anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside
from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small.
Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the
total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1
percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly,
many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -
especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have
much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the
supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid
Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by
George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high
school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for
Mexican immigration.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush
does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The
willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays
- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born
Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety
net has more holes in it than it should - and low-skill immigrants
threaten to unravel that safety net.

Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here,
with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As
the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience
with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came."
Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover
the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely.
Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than
in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of
where they were born...

Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill
immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal
immigration...

Goo Goo
2006-03-28 22:24:10 EST
As usual, anyone who spouts off a "pro-immigrant" stance, is usually going
back to their white neighbourhood after work, spouting off how they hate
"anti-immigration" demagogues.

I would be interested where "Paul Krugman" lives.


"JOE" <JOE@nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:hqtj22hqsa803g83efodus28g1ufvkbcjd@4ax.com...
> New York Times
> March 27, 2006
>
> North of the Border
> By Paul Krugman
>
> ... I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of
> serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about
> the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in
> particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to
> anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
>
> First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside
> from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small.
> Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the
> total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1
> percent.
>
> Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly,
> many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -
> especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have
> much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the
> supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid
> Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by
> George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high
> school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for
> Mexican immigration.
>
> That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush
> does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The
> willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays
> - and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born
> Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
>
> Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety
> net has more holes in it than it should - and low-skill immigrants
> threaten to unravel that safety net.
>
> Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here,
> with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As
> the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience
> with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came."
> Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover
> the cost of the benefits they receive.
>
> Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely.
> Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than
> in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of
> where they were born...
>
> Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill
> immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal
> immigration...



Can_o_worms
2006-03-29 00:24:07 EST
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 03:24:10 GMT, "Goo Goo" <kshipira@unity.com>
wrote:

>As usual, anyone who spouts off a "pro-immigrant" stance, is usually going
>back to their white neighbourhood after work, spouting off how they hate
>"anti-immigration" demagogues.
>
>I would be interested where "Paul Krugman" lives.
>

He's not advocating the views espoused pertaining to legal immigrants
in the opening sentence. He is arguing for what is right if we mean to
abide by our own necessary immigration laws......More Federal Border
Patrol resources at the porous southern border in order to enforce
our immigration laws before we have to consider dealing, or not, with
immigrants here illegally.

>
>"JOE" <JOE@nojunk.com> wrote in message
>news:hqtj22hqsa803g83efodus28g1ufvkbcjd@4ax.com...
>> New York Times
>> March 27, 2006
>>
>> North of the Border
>> By Paul Krugman
>>
>> ... I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of
>> serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about
>> the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in
>> particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to
>> anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
>>
>> First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside
>> from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small.
>> Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the
>> total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1
>> percent.
>>
>> Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly,
>> many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -
>> especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have
>> much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the
>> supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid
>> Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by
>> George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high
>> school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for
>> Mexican immigration.
>>
>> That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush
>> does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The
>> willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays
>> - and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born
>> Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
>>
>> Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety
>> net has more holes in it than it should - and low-skill immigrants
>> threaten to unravel that safety net.
>>
>> Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here,
>> with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As
>> the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience
>> with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came."
>> Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover
>> the cost of the benefits they receive.
>>
>> Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely.
>> Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than
>> in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of
>> where they were born...
>>
>> Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill
>> immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal
>> immigration...
>


PagCal
2006-03-29 04:48:25 EST
US industry, faced with so called 'labor shortages' develops newer and
better ways to get things done. Take for example, harvesting tomatoes.
This used to be done by hand - read Mexican cheap labor, but as they
became a more valuable resource, newer harvesting techniques - read with
machines and special tomatoes were developed. The results? The per
acreage yeild quadrupled!



JOE wrote:
> New York Times
> March 27, 2006
>
> North of the Border
> By Paul Krugman
>
> ... I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of
> serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about
> the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in
> particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to
> anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.
>
> First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside
> from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small.
> Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the
> total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1
> percent.
>
> Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly,
> many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -
> especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have
> much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the
> supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid
> Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by
> George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high
> school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for
> Mexican immigration.
>
> That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush
> does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The
> willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays
> - and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born
> Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
>
> Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety
> net has more holes in it than it should - and low-skill immigrants
> threaten to unravel that safety net.
>
> Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here,
> with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As
> the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience
> with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came."
> Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover
> the cost of the benefits they receive.
>
> Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely.
> Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than
> in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of
> where they were born...
>
> Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill
> immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal
> immigration...

Bill Moyers
2006-03-29 12:19:51 EST
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:48:25 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:

>US industry, faced with so called 'labor shortages' develops newer and
>better ways to get things done. Take for example, harvesting tomatoes.
>This used to be done by hand - read Mexican cheap labor, but as they
>became a more valuable resource, newer harvesting techniques - read with
>machines and special tomatoes were developed. The results? The per
>acreage yeild quadrupled!

Seriously? They came up with machines good enough to harvest tomatoes
without squishing 'em? When did this happen, point me to something, a
link about it, I want to read about it. Thanks

Dion
2006-03-29 12:28:48 EST

"Bill Moyers" <ChristisLord@amen.org> wrote in message
news:tagl225mk3he5dcfd4jht91e7e81piq45g@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:48:25 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
>
> >US industry, faced with so called 'labor shortages' develops newer and
> >better ways to get things done. Take for example, harvesting tomatoes.
> >This used to be done by hand - read Mexican cheap labor, but as they
> >became a more valuable resource, newer harvesting techniques - read with
> >machines and special tomatoes were developed. The results? The per
> >acreage yeild quadrupled!
>
> Seriously? They came up with machines good enough to harvest tomatoes
> without squishing 'em? When did this happen, point me to something, a
> link about it, I want to read about it. Thanks

http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=554&ck=5E388103A391DAABE3DE1D76A6739CCD



Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron