Captain's Quarters -

Captain Ed -

What these two studies show is that the complexities of the issue should demand a thorough, reasoned, and rational debate of the issue by the Congress, not some 11th hour sleight of hand legislation. That seems to have dawned on the Senate leadership, which appears to be backing off at least some of the feigned urgency.

Ed, your last paragraph sums it up nicely......are we as a nation willing to lose a little economically (such as slightly higher prices) for increased security and sovereignty?

I vote yes. It has already been shown by many analysts that using legal minimum wage employees will increase the price of fruits and veggies by only pennies and nickels. Is it worth losing our nation to save pennies?

Our nation is being "Balkanized" before our eyes. Spanish language is now everywhere; it's probably too late.

Politicians are more concerned about illegal immigrants than US citizens. How pathetic.

"• Real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) falls by an annual average amount of over $50 billion."

Irrellevant measure - only per capita measures matter. Much of any absolute loss of GDP will be borne only by the immigrants themselves. (The principal beneficiaries of immigration) Still, 50 Billion equals a whooping... wait for it... 0,4 percent of US GDP.

"• Total non-farm payrolls decline by an annual average of almost 2.1 million."

Also an absolute measure, hence irrellevant.

"• The removal of undocumented workers from the labor force reduces the unemployment rate falls by an average of nearly a full percentage point annually.

Oh noes! Oh, wait...

"• Real wages and salaries are not higher. Those with jobs may earn slightly more but the overall wage bill declines."

Again, irrelevant as long as we don't care about the income of the illegals.

"• Real personal consumption is on average lower over the 10-year period"

• Non-residential investment declines by an annual average of roughly $30 billion over the 10-year period.

• Economic theory suggests, everything else being equal, that a reduction in investment spending means that over time we would expect lower labor productivity and real wages."

Everything else isn't equal - the number of workers declines, increasing capital per worker, hence balancing out lower investment.

If this is the best immigration proponents can do, then well, they really aren't trying very hard.

...are we as a nation willing to lose a little economically (such as slightly higher prices) for increased security and sovereignty?

I also vote yea. Secure our borders and national identity first, or all else is moot. If we really need low-skill immigrants, only open the doors for those who are willing to come legally and want to become Americans. Which means we also need to roll-back Kennedy's last immigration bill, which did a lot to create this mess in the first place.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

You'd have an easier time of it, if you just legalized the drug trade. Which isn't stopped by any "war on drugs," that I know of. But some guys with badges; and new rules that they can enter without knocking; has produced economic benefits. Because they steal what's in sight. And, judges let them keep these ill-gained profits. The label used? RICO

As to the mess you're in, now? Bush, I guess is spreading his STINK around, huh? With McCain, no less.

Is there a headline McCain doesn't like?

I think McCain is the ammunition, used by the Bush camp, to destroy Mitt Romney.

Hasn't laid a glove on Fred.

How many midgets will still be condendah's?

And, how much more harm can Bush do? You think he'd have drawn some better conclusions, after all, it's been six years.

As to the illegals. They're still here. Most of them are NOT on minimum wages. And, lots of them live in gang lands. You didn't know that?

Oh, what to do? What do to?

If you legalized drugs, you'd have to find other work for all those who currently carry badges. And, have pensions marked "Federal Funds."

It's not as if Homeland Security did much, either. Except interfere with airline passengers. Where all of them are treated like criminals. And, they get X-ray'ed to boot.

For all we know? Wi-Fi will also turn out to be "dangerous." But not by killing masses of people all at once.

Nope. Just by adding stuff up. Where politico's rule. And, common sense won't be showing up anytime soon.

You want anwers? Make it harder to get INTO facilities, here; where illegals get their kids into schools. The schools don't even offer an English education. And, what is offered, is BRAINWASHING.

Seems there's a lot wrong. How do you fix this? When the moneys earned by so many, pay the banks off each month with mortgage payments?

Another way to look at this? 12-million more Americans, non-English speakers. Demanding the benefits. Without any productivity in the mix that is worth it.

You know what would be worse? If we hadn't exported all those trades that flourish in China; we'd be talking 50-million low skilled workers, here.

As if there are no solutions.

Just politicians. Counting votes.

Well, that's where this thing blew up.

And, that's where this thing will continue to blow up on Bush. In the future. Where he should go to Mexico, after he leaves office, and we, the taxpayers have to provide him with a LIE-bury. Why? I dunno. But it seems like an invented ticket, if there ever was one. Put his in Mexico City, for all I care.

Where are the good guys? Not only hard to find in congress; none are in Bush's White House. Of course. You can be sure. Monica's not staining anything. Or using the presidential towels. But, so what?

Funny how a bunch of people were willing to bring hardship to the US economy for "Global Warming" (e.g. Kyoto Protocol), but use that as a defense when it comes to enforcing immigration laws...
(I'm not saying the people who wrote the second study also defended Kyoto - I don't know - but I'd bet dollars they are in the same "camp".)

One aspect of the cheap labor debate seems to get very little attention. That is, the existence of very cheap labor in farming and other low-wage industries completely stifles technological innovation. Illegal immigrants pick lettuce cheaply but if certain robotic and automatic lettuce picking technologies came to the forefront the need for cheap labor would dissipate, eventually resulting in higher profits for farmers (and quite a few less headaches too).

Technological advancement can eliminate the need for illegal immigrants across entire industries just as the cotton gin eliminated the need for many slaves and/or sharecroppers. With ready-made hordes of cheap immigrant labor such technologies never see the light of day.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if these were the same arguments that were trotted out during the last amnesty push.

The biggest fraud was how they said that they'd secure the borders but had to deal with the 3+ million people who were already here because it was too difficult to deport them all. Stop me if this sounds familiar...

If they're going to push anything like this through I want to see legislation that will remove every federal dollar being sent to any city that declares itself an amnesty city. (Apparently our latest terrorist-wanna-be's near Fort Dix had managed to amass 75 different run ins with the law without being checked for residency.)

You're exactly right about the technology in farming Jon, innovation has been stagnant because of virtual "slave labor" just like in the 19th century Deep South and it's use of "real" slave labor.

However, we should all remember only a small percentage of illegals pick food. Most have flooded into construction, lawn care, hotel and restaurant occupations.

You're exactly right about the technology in farming Jon, innovation has been stagnant because of virtual "slave labor" just like in the 19th century Deep South and it's use of "real" slave labor.

However, we should all remember only a small percentage of illegals pick food. Most have flooded into construction, lawn care, hotel and restaurant occupations.

I don't know about you guys, but here in Dallas, TX our property taxes are where the expense of having the illegal immigrants really lies; they're sky high so that we can give illegals "free" health care at our country hospital and "free" education in our county's schools.
I have a feeling our property taxes would be significantly less if we didn't have to do this anymore.
And then there's the crime...and the cost it imposes to not only police but to warehouse the considerable number of illegals serving in prison, not to mention the damage done by drugs, murders, drunk driving, etc.

I don't know about you guys, but here in Dallas, TX our property taxes are where the expense of having the illegal immigrants really lies; they're sky high so that we can give illegals "free" health care at our country hospital and "free" education in our county's schools.
I have a feeling our property taxes would be significantly less if we didn't have to do this anymore.
And then there's the crime...and the cost it imposes to not only police but to warehouse the considerable number of illegals serving in prison, not to mention the damage done by drugs, murders, drunk driving, etc.

I don't know about you guys, but here in Dallas, TX our property taxes are where the expense of having the illegal immigrants really lies; they're sky high so that we can give illegals "free" health care at our county hospital and "free" education in our county's schools.
I have a feeling our property taxes would be significantly less if we didn't have to do this anymore.
And then there's the crime...and the cost it imposes to not only police but to warehouse the considerable number of illegals serving in prison, not to mention the damage done by drugs, murders, drunk driving, etc.

I don't know about you guys, but here in Dallas, TX our property taxes are where the expense of having the illegal immigrants really lies; they're sky high so that we can give illegals "free" health care at our county hospital and "free" education in our county's schools.
I have a feeling our property taxes would be significantly less if we didn't have to do this anymore.
And then there's the crime...and the cost it imposes to not only police but to warehouse the considerable number of illegals serving in prison, not to mention the damage done by drugs, murders, drunk driving, etc.

I don't know about you guys, but here in Dallas, TX our property taxes are where the expense of having the illegal immigrants really lies; they're sky high so that we can give illegals "free" health care at our county hospital and "free" education in our county's schools.
I have a feeling our property taxes would be significantly less if we didn't have to do this anymore.
And then there's the crime...and the cost it imposes to not only police but to warehouse the considerable number of illegals serving in prison, not to mention the damage done by drugs, murders, drunk driving, etc.

The non Rector study doesn't make much of a case even economically. Reducing GDP by $50 B is only 0.017 of a $3 T economy. Adding 12 M to 22 M people is 0.040 to 0.073 of 300 M legal people. This is a net loss for the legal people of $300 to $700 per person of goods and services. The $19600 that Rector finds when apportioned over the legal population is an additional loss of $800 to $1400 loss per legal person. The $30 B reduction in investment is similarly not hurting the legal people.

None of the above addresses another 30+ M of relatives which makes the economic case an order of magnitude worse.

After writing this I find that I am largely repeating what stilichio wrote. Hopefully it is worth repeating.

Oh, yes. Anyone remember back when a Swift & Co. meat-packing plant had to replace a lot of illegals (a far higher percent of their workforce than the company thought, at least according to the company). Well, they didn't have any trouble finding applicants.

Oh, yes. Anyone remember back when a Swift & Co. meat-packing plant had to replace a lot of illegals (a far higher percent of their workforce than the company thought, at least according to the company). Well, they didn't have any trouble finding applicants.

"a $3 T economy."

Make that more like 14 trillion. Or 13 632.6 Billion USD to be precise. That makes 50 billion a whooping 0.0037 instead of 0.017.

Analyze away. But the bill's dead.

Sort'a like a bunch of politicians looking for a safe place to harbor, themselves. As some are out there re-inventing the lipstick to put on this pig.

While for the others? Deniability. And, the thoughts of closing down their DC offices for the summer.

And, FUNDRAISING.

Don't forget that's really what congress critters think about most. (Heck, if John Edwards just got $55,000 for a stinking speech at UC Davis, what's it gonna take for you to see the money that's out there?)

No. I wouldn't get out of bed to go and talk to a bunch of college kids, either. But for $55,000 I'd want Jerry Seinfeld. I'd want to sit there. And, laugh.

Okay. Giving John Edwards $55,000 for this "speak-fest" is funny. But all it did was make my eyes open.

I wonder what color lipstick they're gonna order up for this pig? Oh. And, let me add, I'm glad it put McCain up there "spouting off." You usually don't hear the truth from politicians. But starting with his use of the "F" word, ya got a glimpse of the truth, right there.

These studies are not necessarily competing. The first study only measures the impact to the taxpayer. If the “average low-skill immigrant household” generates economic benefits for the employers of illegal immigrants as well as benefits to those who provide them services, both studies could be correct. The “average low-skill immigrant household” could be a net benefit to the economy, even though the taxpayers are getting soaked.

Is the small net benefit to the economy worth the cost to the taxpayers? I vote no!

Jon Prichard,
The way I remmember learning it, the cotton jin actually reinvigorated the practice of slavery when it was about to pass on by making it more efficient to use slave labor. Though, I suppose I could have it wrong.
...
In the end, we really need to secure the border. It really doesn't matter what it costs, because it is one of the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, and should have a higher priortiy than social security or medacare.
If the number of leagal imigrants entering the contry is somehow not enough, then expand imigration. Personally, I think we should consider giving out additional visas to people who can pass an English language test, and/or those who are willing to pay a few thousand $ to get in (possibly to offset the cost of tests and background checks).

What really peeves me is rewarding people for cheeting.

How likely is it that, as most Latin American countries are socialist, illegals-made-legal from those countries will become born-again free-marketers?

It isn't.

I'm for taking the small economic hit now, if it happens, rather than the larger economic disaster from increased socialist policies later.

You're missing an obvious point, Ed. The people who benefit financially from the cheap labor illegals provide are their employers.

In effect, those employers are shifting the social and economic costs of the illegals to the rest of us (through the added burdens on social services for which we all pay as taxpayers), while reaping the financial rewards of their employment of these people.

It's disingenuous to speak of how much our economy as a whole benefits from the presence of illegal workers. Lawbreakers reap those benefits, while the rest of us pay the social costs.

From the trajectory of the proposed legislation, I'd say the lawbreakers are controlling much of our Congress.

If we are going to get hosed by having to accept these people, could our weenie government at least negotiate some sort of trade-off?

Wow - you mean low-income people consume the most in government services, and pay the least in taxes? Rector should win the Nobel Prize for that brilliant research, eh?

Look, I am a strong supporter of comprehensive reform which recognizes our need for border and visa security, our economy's need for labor, and the strong demand for entry to the US which exists throughout the world. I would have supported the first Bush plan, which was far from ideal, with the addition of the fence funding and more border agents.

McCain-Kennedy I was a much weaker bill, but still would not have been a disaster with the additional border enforcement (and a reporting requirement on student visas - check in with current address every 30 days or out you go when we find you).

This bill does have some improvements over the first edition, but at a fatal cost, IMO. The Z-visas which MUST be issued within ONE DAY of application are a loony tunes idea. Illegals who are gang members targeted for deportation would qualify, only having to renounce gang affiliations." Not enough guest worker permits, unworkable rules, and the "go-home-first" requirement which guarantees a sizable percentage of the people we are trying to register and tax won't participate.

I'm afraid there is no saving this thing at this point. We will have to try again in a few years. Maybe when the situation gets worse we can get something done.

Jen ~ If your local property taxes are going to fund services they ought not, it seems to me your beef is with your city or county, not the feds. And please don't keep posting when you get the "error" message - the error is in error, your post is recorded. It's a good one, but once was enough.

;-)

To those old enough to remember, the warnings of damage to the economy from the removal of low paid/low skill illegal-alien labor is very similar to the warnings we were given in the early '80's about what fiscal discipline in the battle against inflation was going to do to the economy.

Fortunately for the American People, we had elected a President in 1980 who knew that a short period of economic pain was good in the long run for the country. By gutting inflation in 1981-1982, RR put this country on a course of economic expansion that lasted for roughly 19 years (with a couple blips along the way that in retrospect seem like minor speed-bumps in a parking-lot).

If we are to regain control of our borders, and our national sovereignty, we will have to sacrifice to some degree, so that we will again have a country that will be the envy of the world - and not devolve down into just another third-world kleptocracy.

Thomas Sowell destroys the argument of the Bush Bots regarding Immigration.

I suspect that he knows a bit more about economics than the rest of the "pundits" commenting.

Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has Fraud written all over it.

The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are "doing jobs Americans won't do." There are no such jobs.

Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation -- agriculture -- they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won't do?

The argument that illegal agricultural workers are "making a contribution to the economy" is likewise misleading.

For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices.

If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.

What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don't cause any trouble on the job.

But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called "bilingual" and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here -- and before they were born.

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the "multicultural" ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico -- as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times -- reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

Claims that the new immigration bill will have "tough" requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced.

What does "learning English" mean? I can say "arrivederci" and "buongiorno" but does that mean that I speak Italian?

Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court -- which of course they are not about to do?

Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the "unification of families." People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.

"What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?" is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.

The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?

---------

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

Is Heritage using the right metric here? Immigrant families may tend to be younger, and younger families tend to earn less in the short run but more in the longer run as the education investment pays off.

Along those lines, I think we need to distinguish between two types of expenditures here - short run expenditures that raise the human capital in our immigrants, and long run expenditures that our going to have costs year in and year out.

I'm not convinced from the Heritage report that the expenses are the latter as opposed to the former, and this is a key question in my mind.

"Along those lines, I think we need to distinguish between two types of expenditures here - short run expenditures that raise the human capital in our immigrants, and long run expenditures that our going to have costs year in and year out."

Empirically, Mexicans are assimilating towards income levels and an educational level more similar to the US permanent underclass (African Americans) than to asians and whites. And that's after 3 generations (a 100 years, give or take a decade). In short, things are not looking rosy. Even if one assumes rapid income and educational convergence, the cost is very significant. (See the National Research Council study on immigration and fiscal impact)

Finally, these estimates don't take into account other significant social costs, such as increased crime. Mexicans in the US are roughly 300 % as criminal as whites and a whooping 900 % as criminal as asians.

Whether you are for open immigration, limited immigration, or little immigration, one fact sticks out that all should recognize and deal with. There is no such thing as "cheap" labor. While the employer is getting labor at a discount, society is making up the difference in goods and services. We are in effect substidizing the employer--perhaps at a greater cost than the employer could bear if he actually had to pay.

So the average Joe and Jane face a choice: more expensive goods with little immigration or cheaper goods with immigration along with higher taxes. With higher food prices, one can always buy fewer heads of lettice. With higher taxes, the average American can't "do without" to keep a lid on his/her budget.

Seems to me this is a classic lesson of what happens when the market isn't allowed to sort things out. We are taking from Peter to pay Paul. Perhaps the Democrats know that by doing so they will always have a friend in Paul.

Michael Dooley:

You're absolutely correct. You've drilled down to the essential policy choice here, which the Administration, most of our Republican Party and our GOP pundits don't seem to understand.

By choosing cheaper goods resulting from cheap immigrant labor, plus higher taxes to support the social costs of the cheap labor (the status quo, default option), we ensure the perpetuation, and the likely proliferation, of a massive social services bureaucracy at high current and future cost to all of us in taxes.

If we choose higher labor costs by imposing stringent controls on illegal labor (through the existing Simpson-Mazzoli mechanism of sanctioning employers for hiring illegals), we pay more for goods, but less for social services in taxes and bureaucracy.

To a conservative, it's a no-brainer.

By contrast the current proposal tries to please everyone, and pleases no one. All proposals for amnesty or massive guest worker programs are backdoor prescriptions for perpetuating massive social services bureaucracies into the future.

We should go for the gifted immigrants, not the low-skill immigrants.

Excellent comments here!

Another aspect of this debate is that a substantial fraction of the wages being paid to these low-skilled illegal workers is being transfered to the Mexican economy where it benefits Mexico's citizens and not ours. By eliminating a majority of the low-skilled illegal workers the marketplace would respond with technological innovations that would replace the army of low--skilled workers with a much smaller force of high-skilled workers to manufacture/support the sophisticated manufacturing/aggricultural technology. These domestic high-skilled workers would spend their salaries on themselves and their families here in the US economy increasing domestic economic activity.

There is no way that any objective person can look at this issue on the basis of economics and see it as a positive for the US. Only in the purely political calculation, where all votes are equal, can anybody see a desirable aspect to the status quo.