FactCheck.org: Does Immigration Cost Jobs? ...immigration, legal or illegal, doesn't hurt American

[pampango]

workers.

http://factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/

Summary

Do immigrants take American jobs? It’s a common refrain among those who want to tighten limits on legal immigration and deny a "path to citizenship" — which they call "amnesty" — to the millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. There’s even a new Reclaim American Jobs Caucus in the House, with at least 41 members.

But most economists and other experts say there’s little to support the claim. Study after study has shown that immigrants grow the economy, expanding demand for goods and services that the foreign-born workers and their families consume, and thereby creating jobs. There is even broad agreement among economists that while immigrants may push down wages for some, the overall effect is to increase average wages for American-born workers.
Analysis

Arizona’s tough new law targeting illegal immigrants and the possibility of congressional action on immigration have brought a renewed focus to the issue. Among lawmakers and others who seek stricter immigration limits and stronger enforcement, we’ve noticed a common theme that may have particular resonance at a time when the unemployment rate remains stuck at close to 10 percent: that immigrants take American jobs. But most who have studied the topic say it’s not true. We’ll explain after we show you some of the arguments being made."

-----snip-----

"There may be other reasons for an overhaul of current immigration policy. But the idea that foreign-born workers are stealing American jobs should be turned back at the border."

[Heidi]

1. Recommended.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of our biases?

[EFerrari]

5. Has it always been this easy to delude the American public?

Bush is president, Saddam did 9/11, Mexicans are invading Arizona.

Just the most cursory investigation of SB1070 shows that it's the product of a hate group's lawyer for Republicans in an election year. But even people here at DU defend it.

It's unreal.

[blondeatlast]

8. I've come upon many supporters of SB 1070. I ask them to explain one "simple" phrase

in the bill: "reason to believe."

Blank stares, dumbstruck, silence. Then I ask them what they think about the US constitution.

Okay, so I've made some enemies. Like I care.

[EFerrari]

10. That's a really good way to frame the question.

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

15. Some literally squirm--it's fun to watch them try to figure out a way to deny the racism.

Oddly enough, they never can.

[Kali]

21. constitution only has one amendment (2nd)

and only applies to Anglo Americans born in the US. Geez don't you know anything?

[conservdem]

58. How about facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn?

[harkadog]

69. You do realize that phrase was taken from federal immigration law?

Do you propose to boycott the entire U.S. now?

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. By "jobs" I mean "economists". So, I see no problem here. n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

3. Many an American carpenter, landscaper or other tradesman would disagree.

It's not even outright "taking" of jobs. It's driving down wages so that no one but illegals can afford to take them.

[Donnachaidh]

7. this is so very true - wages went down

but those workers who WERE displaced don't count, evidently.

There has to be a middle ground, where the displaced matter AND both sides can work at decent wages. But I thoroughly disagree with the *disappearing* of groups of workers in these *studies* in order to make political points. It's a puke tactic. We're supposed to be *better* than that.

[unblock]

14. the article does mention this

the article acknowledges that there is "mild downward pressure" on pay for low-wage-earning jobs. it just says that this effect is not large compared to the positive effects of higher wages for the people, often native-born americans, who become managers or who otherwise get the benefit of the extra demand from this influx of consumers.

[Donnachaidh]

16. these were NOT low wage jobs, and the job losses were NOT *mild* to the devastated workers

Geez -- the marginalization and disappearing continues!

Thanks for proving my point. :eyes:

[unblock]

19. speaking of puke tactics

you implied that the article ignored this topic when it clearly addressed it. yes, it was not in the first few paragraphs, but it is in the article and no doubt discussed in rather more detail in the study itself.

when i pointed out that it was in there, you just dug in.


the bottom line is that all economic changes, immigration (legal or otherwise) included, causes shifts which invariably help some and hurt others. overall, immigration is a good thing. i'll make an allowance for native americans to dispute this point, but the rest of us are all immigrants or descendants thereof. this country was built by immigrants.

no one is saying that there aren't people who are harmed by an influx of immigrants. the article and the study are just trying to show that the overall benefit is on a par with, if not greater than, the harm caused by direct labor competition.

[DJ13]

12. Agreed

[Tailormyst]

13. Bingo

Once upon a time you can make a good living doing those jobs. Not anymore.

[EFerrari]

22. But isn't that true of a lot of jobs, not only the ones

that undocumented workers are hired to do? For example, I read last week that untenured instructors now teach the overwhelming majority of college courses. Colleges are going for part time people that cost less. These jobs were not degraded by undocumented workers.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. But those are the jobs of educated white collar people, thus important.

When it happens to carpenters and maids it's no big deal.

[EFerrari]

26. No, that's not my point. My point is, the state of American labor

can't be blamed on undocumented workers wholesale.

[Tailormyst]

35. I agree with you.

The problem comes from the employers. Undocumented workers are one group that the employers use to make more money and to avoid labor/safety laws. There are other groups that other types of employers use and exploit.

Until labor stands up together, nothing will change for the better.

[EFerrari]

39. Imo, the problem originates from a collusion between our government

and corporate interests. Small employers have no real power in this situation.

Clinton passed NAFTA which displaced hundreds of thousands of workers in Mexico, starved them north. That has been our Latin American policy: starve them north.

[Tailormyst]

42. I can't disagree with you on that

They SAY they want to stop illegal immigration, and if they truly wanted to, they could fix things so all benefit. But what they really want is a continued flow of workers who will work cheap, without benefits and will not complain about working conditions.

[EFerrari]

46. That's half of what they want, believe me.

Just take the last Mexican election. Bush went to the wall to make sure his crony would win over the reformer. Well, they had to steal it because the reformer probably won. The people were out on the streets protesting from July until DECEMBER but they couldn't take back their election any more than we could in 2000.

So, let's run it down. Bush kept the reformer out of office. That means, sweet deals for his cronies in the way of the continued strip mining of Mexican domestic resources -- everything from oil to goods to labor, and that meant nothing would get better for working people in Mexico and assured a continued flow of hungry workers to the north. It's a two-fer. And our government does that all over Latin America WHILE it is telling us that immigration is a problem. Right.

[Kali]

23. you are blaming another victim

instead of the real "perpetrators"

[Tailormyst]

37. Not really- I place the blame on the employers.

And I also place the blame on ourselves for not standing together as a group in this country to demand better wages. I am not anti-immigrant. I am anti-exploitation.

[EFerrari]

20. You may have a local point but in the same vein,

these immigrants also need services and goods and in that way, their presence here creates jobs. There is a dislocation in a very few fields but they are a net gain.

And as they themselves don't set wages or establish immigration policy, it can't really be argued that *they* drive down wages. If they were allowed to be organized by unions or otherwise defend themselves against predation, then the vultures who profit from their vulnerability would have to pay fair wages.

[Greyhound]

32. I don't think the issue at hand is the immediate economic stimulus of unrestrained immigration,

it is the future of the nation that we are building by continuing a 19th century economic model that was built on abuse and theft in the first place.

[EFerrari]

40. Oh, agreed. When the immigrants groups demand reform

that isn't code for "leave us alone", they want reform as much as anyone else does.

[uponit7771]

64. yes...they create jobs that they then fill with more illegal immigrants that can be exploited.

[Greyhound]

73. It is not "dislocation", it is devastation. n/t

[jwirr]

28. Even though I am very against the Arizona law and the unfair treatment

of immigrants I too question this finding. My brother was the last US worker in the packing plant in Iowa and even though he was also the only one who knew how to run all the machines he was fired because he could not speak Spanish. I also watched illegals build our grain elevators while US citizens were unemployed. I think it depends what industry we are talking about. Almost all of the packing plants in NE Iowa are using cheap labor now and many of the dangerous building projects also go that route. On the other hand not many of us want to pick grapes or harvest beets. This is not an easy issue to answer.

[uponit7771]

63. In IT they're blatant and overt and the DOL doesn't really follow up

[Greyhound]

30. ...and steel worker, farmer, auto worker, IT worker, trucker, factory worker, nurse, dry cleaner,

How long a list would you like? It goes on and on with the same consistent result, erosion of the brief rise of the American middle-class.

A national economy must be first self-contained with strong controls on the influx of labor and goods so that the people of the nation benefit from the product of their labor and expenditure of its resources. We are a totally different nation than we were 150 years ago and we are becoming a totally different nation today than we were 75 years ago, what kind of a nation we will become is the question we should be asking and answering for ourselves. Do we want maintain a higher standard of living for the people that are already here, or do we want our people to live the same way people do in second and third world counties?

We know corporate America's answer to that question, what is ours?

[Lance_Boyle]

33. +5 insightful

[EFerrari]

44. First you have to ask yourself why the people who live in

"second and third world countries" live as they do. On this continent, in any case, it's largely because of US regional policy.

There is no fence high enough or enforcement diligent enough to stop the flow of economic refugees that we are still today creating to the south. It's not enough to look at our domestic policy or how we'd like to live. Because that excludes how our government is forcing others to live (and die) for Dole, Chiquita, Harris, and a multitude of others in Latin America.

[uponit7771]

61. Unnn, conservative "weak central government" types in those countries contribute MORE to their...

...willingness to leave than US regional policy IMHO

[EFerrari]

68. If you look at it case by case, you find the US there every time. nt

[Greyhound]

71. Completely true, The behavior of "our government" is a significant part of the question

we refuse to answer as we follow psychopaths down this road to ruin. What was and is still being done to large parts of the world is, mostly, our fault, but those crimes were not committed by, nor did they significantly benefit the people of the U.S., but that is another issue.

I think you know that I think that we have an unlawful employment problem, and that no walls, fences, or magical force fields will stop people from coming here as long as there is a job for them at this end. We also have an insane immigration non-policy that needs to be addressed, but it always and forever comes back to the one issue, the people of this nation refuse to lead the nation, so we are lead by those that pursue only their own interests.

As stupid, misguided, and inevitably ineffective as this AZ distraction is, I think this is the issue they are attempting to address.

[Abq_Sarah]

45. That's an issue that deserves a lot more attention

A company this is paying workers under the table (legal or illegal)can afford to bid jobs lower than the industry standard. A company hiring illegals using fake SSNs can pay them less because they know they'll still get takers. That depresses wages for everyone and tax receipts for fed and state government.

[EFerrari]

50. You make a good point. What I don't understand is why

we never look at how expensive it is to us, to those of us who pay taxes, to drive undocumented workers north in the first place.

Why do we have bases all over Latin America? We're even establishing new ones there, seven in Colombia alone. What are we doing there, exactly, and how much does it cost? There were no Mexicans flying those planes on 9/11. We have those bases there to assure no outbreak of democracy will threaten corporate profits. So basically, American tax payers are paying for the protection multinationals need to drive workers north.

And what about all the "military" aid we give to oppressive right wing regimes like Peru? Peru is in no danger of being attacked by its neighbors. That "military aid" is used to repress its domestic population when they try to protest their own exploitation, i.e. working men and women.

And what about all the plants that have moved to Mexico and Central America because in Hermosillo, Victoria's Secret can pay a seamstress eight cents per bra? How much has NAFTA cost us AND the Mexican people because it's very hard to live on 8 cents a bra in Mexico, too.

These questions also underlie our labor problems but only rarely do they ever come up in these discussions.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. What special characteristics do 'illegals' possess which enables them afford to work at lower wages?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Primarily a lower cost of living "back home". n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

54. Ding! Ding! Winner.

And let's not forget the "no income tax" thing, either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. So, they commute back to their home countries after work every day?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. No need. Western Union happily wires money.

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20030924-2051-us-mexico.html

In 2003, remittances were $12 billion. It is Mexico's biggest source of income. More than oil, tourism or foreign investment.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. So, they make enougn $$ to live in the US and and have enough left over to send to Mexico?

That certainly doesn't how they are able to work for less than Americans.

[uponit7771]

60. Not alone, but together hell yes

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Logic failure.

Yes, those who don't have to maintain a household in the US can send money home.

... which kind of undermines the point of calling them "immigrants".

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. Yet they must still have living expenses in the US despite not maintaing a household

Rent, electricity, and cable isn't cheap.

[Greyhound]

72. No "special characteristics", but a great many advantages.

No debt load.

No intent to stay beyond the opportunity to make money.

No stake in the future of the industry, town, nation.

And it's still better than where they come from.

[treestar]

76. The characteristic of being exploitable, so that if they stand up for their

rights, they can be threatened with deportation - that's why they should be allowed to come legally.

The job market protectors are always shooting themselves in the foot over this. They seem to think that if Mexicans had visas, the employer would still prefer the Mexican, who now has to be paid minimum wage, etc. Says a lot about their confidence in the competition for jobs.

[uponit7771]

59. +1, happens in IT all the time

[treestar]

75. The article says that, but that the overall effect is good for the economy

We can't afford to protect particular classifications of workers making the highest possible wages by spending a lot of money keeping their competitors out (or worse, trying to force the employers to stay here somehow when the cheaper labor is out there) at the expense of the overall economy. Then in the end, no one would have a job.

People sort of look at "my job" and think they have a right to narrow the competition; when it comes to immigrants and foreigners, they rage about the incursions on that right. May as well rage against people having babies or the colleges spitting out more graduates in your field. Overall policy has to be good for the economy, not just a hodgepodge that tries to make the job market as good as possible for each occupation.

And people never care about somebody else's occupation, either. Why should one occupation have less opportunity just so another can have more?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. A BIG K&R!

[blondeatlast]

6. You can bet that the AZ tourism industry is already smarting from fewer undocs and the economy--

the boycotts over SB 1070 is going to cause big-bucks tourism to defeat SB 1070 supporters--mark my words.

I was here during the Even Mecham/no MLK Day days--the tourism industry makes things happen, oh yes, indeed they do. Even if for them it's all bout the money, good things happen thanks to them.

[Kali]

9. bookmarking, kicking, and recommending

doubt if it will change perceptions, wish people could see the divide and conquer strategies and not blame their fellow workers - papered or not.

and I just have to add: my youngest son (Anglo) is working for a Hispanic-owned landscaping company. :rofl:

[profile this]

18. Love it

[pampango]

29. ""Trying to use logic or "fact" in the cocoon of the immigration debate is like firing a bullet at

Uranus. It will never hit the target, because the people on said target are living in their own insular world. Immigration is one of those guttural subjects. It festers on rumor and fear and shouting."

It doesn't matter what studies or research show - good or bad - about immigration. People "know" what they "know" and aren't going to be convinced otherwise.

[UndertheOcean]

11. k&R n/t

[ck4829]

17. K&R

[KittyWampus]

24. Perfect example of DU'ers accepting something that agrees w/their already held beliefs.

"Immigrants grow the economy".

For whom, is the question. Who ultimately benefits?

Carpenters, landscapers, housecleaners, caterers- all good paying jobs here are either gone or wages have decreased. Hell, even the Columbians that were absorbed over a decade ago lost jobs to the latest wave of illegal workers here.

But some DU'ers will insist this article proves their prejudice since it's "factcheck.org" after all.

The only ones benefiting from illegal workers or SCABS is Walmart etc.

[EFerrari]

27. Well, that's not true. You benefit from the taxes they pay

and you benefit when you get to buy low cost goods and services and you benefit from the volume they add to the economy.

[KittyWampus]

34. Sorry, I don't benefit from Walmart (low cost goods, low wages, high volume). Walmart benefits.

But since you already hold the belief that Illegal Workers MUST be defended at all costs, you will cling to the half baked argument posted on factcheck.org.

[EFerrari]

38. Sorry, saying that you don't profit from Walmart

doesn't exclude that you profit from their taxes, contribution to keeping prices down or the volume they add to the economy. And at no time have I resorted to any piece of the factcheck article.

And #2, I'm not defending "illegal workers". I'm defending working people. I don't do that out of "belief" but out of principle.

[pampango]

31. Or perhaps rejecting something that disagrees with their already held beliefs.

"Trying to use logic or "fact" in the cocoon of the immigration debate is like firing a bullet at Uranus. It will never hit the target, because the people on said target are living in their own insular world. Immigration is one of those guttural subjects. It festers on rumor and fear and shouting."

"But some DU'ers will insist this article proves their prejudice since it's "factcheck.org" after all." - While those disagree with this article rarely offer any studies or research to support their position. They just "know" that the bad things that have happened are due to illegal immigration not the weakening of unions and the dismantling of the social safety net and a progressive tax structure. Illegal workers are less than 5% of the workforce. If we're going to blame them for our problems, republican politicians will breathe a collective sigh of relief.

[KittyWampus]

36. I'm not the one grasping at business models like Walmart to defend Illegal Workers or SCABS

[EFerrari]

41. Actually, yes, you are the one that introduced Walmart

to this topic without tying it back in any grounded way to the discussion.

[Kali]

49. ...

"While those disagree (with this article) rarely offer any studies or research to support their position. They just "know" that the bad things that have happened are due to illegal immigration not the weakening of unions and the dismantling of the social safety net and a progressive tax structure. Illegal workers are less than 5% of the workforce. If we're going to blame them for our problems, republican politicians will breathe a collective sigh of relief."

I think I might need to use this as a sig line. Or at least a stock answer to some of these kinds of threads.

So easy to blame poor, politically weak people - much harder to fight an entrenched and well funded system that one is still dependent on. Seems to be hard for many to even see it, much less fight it. How easily we can be misled by the hand that feeds (leads) us.

[Zynx]

43. Sure, there are dislocations from immigration. There were also dislocations from the PC.

Ultimately, both have helped the economy and raised the standard of living for society.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. +1 n/t

[LostInAnomie]

47. I doubt there are many that work construction that would agree with their analysis.

I guess if you think that subsidizing cheap labor exploiters equates to "creating jobs", you might be right. Ask US citizens competing in the race to the bottom if they are better off though.

[xchrom]

53. Recommend - interesting and heartening to see how

On DU people - some people are evoloving on this topic.

There are also numbers out there that show
that higher wage immigrants do actually cause wage depression and stagnation.

All of this info could probably be easily toed to the continued
econic degradation of the masses and the
increases in prosperity for the upper percentiles.

[harkadog]

66. The OP is typical libertarian talking points.

Cheap labor drives down everyone's wages.

[spoony]

67. Exactly. How can anyone say that exploiting

some workers doesn't hurt workers? Big business bullshit.

[Ed Barrow]

70. K&R

[mitchum]

74. Why does FactCheck.org caress the scabs of the wounded American Labor movement?