Immigrant labor holds down wages, report says

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2547816

WASHINGTON -- Two decades of growth in the supply of immigrant workers cost native-born American men an average $1,700 in annual wages by 2000, a top economist has concluded.

Hispanic and black Americans were hurt most by the influx of foreign- born workers, says a report by Harvard University's George Borjas, considered a leading authority on the impact of immigration.

The findings, to be released today, could influence wide-ranging immigration proposals being urged by lawmakers and White House officials.

<snip>

In his report, Borjas suggests that one effect of such proposals would be to depress wage growth for Americans at all levels of education and job skills.

His study of two decades of wages concluded that U.S.-born high school dropouts suffered the most -- a 7.4 percent drop in annual wages by the year 2000. For high school graduates and workers with some college, the loss was a little more than 2 percent. And for college graduates, wages were held back an average 3.6 percent.

...more...

A quick websearch on George Borjas reveals a little about him. He is featured on VDare.com and National Review (Here's a link to my search http://a9.com/George%20Borjas). For those that don't know, VDare. com is a project of the center for American Unity. From their homepage "The Center is concerned with what has been called the National Question - whether the United States can survive as a nation-state, the political expression of a distinct American people, in the face of these emerging threats: mass immigration, multiculturalism, multilingualism, and affirmative action."

VDare has also been listed as a Hate Site by the Southern Poverty Law Center. For more info on VDare.com, check out this article http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=152.

Just reading that blurb...it felt...wrong. I knew there was an agenda behind those "facts".

Southern Poverty Law Center rocks. If I only have a dollar to give to charity each year; they get it. Anyone who can sue the KKK and get awarded their compound is working extra hard for civil rights.

I work with migrant workers in the midwest, and it really is a shame the smear job that goes on in the media.

Do you dispute that millions sneak in illegally and work for lower wages than US citizens? Do you dispute that the flood of illegal immigrants has depressed wages for US workers? Do you dispute that it's the oligarch's that are largely responsible for this because they love cheap labor and higher profits?

I have no problem with controlled, legal immigration. I don't deny that immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are hard workers. I full well realize that they aren't the enormous burden on social programs that right-wingers claim they are.

But you have to pull your head out of the sand and realize that massive illegal immigration is hurting our own citizens and helping the wealthy. Whatever jobs can't be outsourced to India or China or Mexico and now being taken over by illegal immigrants. If this trend continues, there will be only two classes in America: the uber-rich and the poor.

Do you dispute that millions sneak in illegally and work for lower wages than US citizens? Do you dispute that the flood of illegal immigrants has depressed wages for US workers? Do you dispute that it's the oligarch's that are largely responsible for this because they love cheap labor and higher profits?
I don't dispute that millions sneak in illegally and work for lower wages than US citizens, but I am also aware of the root cause of this. I'm also aware that our country was founded on this sort of imiigration. I do dispute "that the flood of illegal immigrants has depressed wages for US workers." What has depressed the wages for US workers are corporate scandals and fat paychecks for corporate executives. Of course there is more to it, but to put the blame on immigrants is irresponsible at best. Sure the oligarchs can pay immigrants a low wage, but thanks to the welfare reform of the 90's they can also pay poor Americans a low wage.

I have no problem with controlled, legal immigration. I don't deny that immigrants, even illegal immigrants, are hard workers. I full well realize that they aren't the enormous burden on social programs that right-wingers claim they are.
It's not just the right wingers. Clinton was a big fan of locking Hatians up in Gutanamo and/or returning them to Haiti where they were murdered by Cedras, a CIA employee.

But you have to pull your head out of the sand and realize that massive illegal immigration is hurting our own citizens and helping the wealthy. Whatever jobs can't be outsourced to India or China or Mexico and now being taken over by illegal immigrants. If this trend continues, there will be only two classes in America: the uber-rich and the poor.
I would pull my head out of the sand, but since it isn't in the sand I can't. Instead of blaming the poor we need to put the blame where it belongs, on the fat cats that are robbing the world blind. Immigration - both legal and illegal - happens for a reason. It happens because famers in the global south can't support their families. And why is that? It's not because illegal immigrants are driving down wages in Guatemala, it's because subsidized American produce is flooding the market. When these family farmers can no longer support themselves, they often send a famuly member to the US. Once here, that person. . .that human being. . .works 80+ hours a weeks so that they can support themselves and their family.

Blaming illegal immigrants for the country's problem is very similar to blaming the poor for the country's problems.

I agree with you that US policies including NAFTA, farm subsidies, WTO agreements with China, and US support for wealthy oligarchs in Latin America is the root cause of illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, the Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that the solution to this problem is that it's not a problem. Both parties think the solution to illegal immigration is to legalize the illegal immigrants and do nothing to stop the tide of illegal immigration. Neither party is remotely inclined to end massive US farm subsidies. Neither party wants to 'unsign' NAFTA. Both parties are against leftist leaders in the hemisphere.

And since third parties are a pipe dream, that essentially means we have no realistic hope for a change in American policies that might improve the lot of Latin Americans.

So we are left with the choice of whether it's better to preserve America's standard of living by limiting immigration or to allow the US to gradually devolve into a Latin American type oligarchy as well.

Personally, I think ending illegal immigration is the only issue that would be a resounding hit with voters. You can get elected on treating the symptom, then work on curing the disease. You sure as hell won't win any elections campaigning against farm subsidies, 'free trade', or ending right-wing control of Latin America.

You can't stop immigration - legal or illegal - and that's a good thing. Punishing immigrants for America policies is foolish and cruel. Allowing politicians to get away with it is even worse.

I also don't believe that "ending illegal immigration is the only issue that would be a resounding hit with voters." It will be a hit with reactionary voters, but they would never vote for the people that we support. The problem is, there aren't many candidates that are willing to speak out against "the disease." Dean and Kerry both support NAFTA and so-called free trade. They both support farm subsidies (which aren't necessarily a bad thing, but they are when they are used to impoverish a majority of the world's citizens). There are also few politicians that are speaking out against the "right-wing control of Latin America." It was John Kerry who came out against Hugo Chavez. Kerry did come out against the US participation in the Haitian Coup, but he also smeared Aristide.

you can get elected by campaigning for justice, it's just that neither of the two major parties tries to do it. They'd rather stick to the status quo and blame the poor of the world.

"It will be a hit with reactionary voters, but they would never vote for the people that we support."

No. The Democratic Party is supposed to be supported by unions, laborers, teachers, professionals, small businessmen, etc. Clinton threw away union support by supporting NAFTA. One of the biggest reasons Republicans are so popular now is that they'd stolen the Democrats labor base by appealing to their basest instincts on tax cuts, minorities, gays, etc.

If Democrats came out strongly on this issue, millions of blue collar voters would come back to the Democratic Party. These are people who are the Democrats natural constituency from the times of FDR. But those blue-collar, gun-totin, flag-waving, NASCAR watching, America-firsters won Democrats a lot of elections.

I don't agree with a lot of the politics of those folks, but if you don't get their votes, it doesn't matter how right you are on the issues. You can't change Americas policies when you control neither the House, Senate or Presidency.

I agree that this is a labor issue, an international labor issue. If it is discussed openly we can show that our current economic policies (taxation, trade, etc) are hurting labor both nationally and internationally. Afterall, a blow to one section of labor is a blow to all. Unions realize this, but they have to do a better job of spreading he message and cleaning up the corruption. Instead the unions are standing by idly and watching labor be played against each other.

I was organizing a fair trade coffee campaign in Central Illinois. We had a lot of support from farmers and laborers. We were able to draw the connection between coffee farmers in Nicaragua and soy bean farmers in Illinois. People understand this. Unfortunately the politicos on both sides of the aisle would rather cater to their corporate masters. As a result, we are forced to choose between "the lesser of the two evils." Even more unfortunately is the fact that the "two evils" ignore many of the important issues and instead they engage a war on the world's poor.

Recently a top official in Mexico's Foreign Ministry asked rhetorically, "How do you eat an elephant?" And he answered his own question, "One bite at a time." And the reference was to illegal alien amnesty. Before 9/11, Mexico thought it had a good shot of a comprehensive amnesty for the 3 (million) to 5 million Mexican illegal aliens in the United States. Even though the prospects of that weren't all that good even before 9/11, frankly, after the terrorist attacks, it became highly unlikely that anything like that was going to happen any time soon.

So the Mexican government has adopted a kind of piecemeal approach, and part of it is this Matricular Consular that's the subject of a paper we are releasing today. You have it in your packets. It's called, "IDs for Illegals: The 'Matricula Consular' Advances Mexico's Immigration Agenda."

http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/matriculapanel.html

legal immigration yes, illegal immigration no

the playing field needs to be leveled

It really pisses me off that the "news" organizations never identify the sources motivations (unless they are "libral")

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1524786

Thanks to AntiLempa for the Borjas info. What a bastard, and what a crappy media that doesn't at least check the background of a nutjob like this.

It's even worse when people don't do a background check themselves. . .

It's a hard habit to break- trusting the media to report a story for you.

We have to get past a diet of major media news, and understand that it is important to supplement that diet with sources like DU. My NewsIQ has increased exponentially since I began reading here!