... 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