Immigration and Wages (Serious discussion only!)

I've been reading the various immigration theads here and I'm still not sure how we as liberals can support the Senate version of the bill given the impact on the middle class.

Supply and demand determine the value of labor. With every new available employee, the value of labor decreases. This is basic Economics 101.

Allowing 10+ million people into the workforce and giving them citizenship will really pressure the middle class for decades to come.

Republicans don't care about the middle class (as proven over and over again by their reckless tax cuts for the rich) and they support the Senate bill because their corporate donors profit handsomely by cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants.

However, I don't see why we would support such a bill. Can someone help me out? I'm purely interested in the economic side of this discussion. Thanks in advance.

Just as their antecedents did which created the middle class.

I mean, I can demand higher wages at work but my boss won't pay me more as long as he can hire equally competent people for less.

This is driven solely for corporate profits

The current system gives the cheap labor Repubs just what they want:
A source of labor that can be paid very little, and that cannot
organize or strike without threat of deportation.

I watched most of the Senate debate and it was only obvious as the republicans were voting for punative measures against the immigrants and against employer sanctions.

...unless you want to lump in El Taco Restaurant and Manny's Lawn Service and Joe's Plumbing with Halliburton and Tyson's.

When it comes to illegal immigration we have met the enemy and they is us. As consumers, we benefit from cheap labor. Will people pay an extra $3 a meal just to ensure the dishwasher has a green card? Will they pay an extra $30,000 to ensure the construction workers building their homes are All-American? Etc.

The position that this is all driven by corporate greed also ignores the immigrant workers. They are living, acting human beings who make their own decisions, just like the folks who hire them.

I support the Senate bill, not because I cheer corporate profit-taking, but because I think it is just and humane.

As for immigrants driving down wages, I suspect that is something that will take care of itself. Immigrants also generate new jobs--somebody has to sell shoes and food and clothes to 11 million people.

No, they don't create any jobs. In fact, they do exactly the opposite. They reduce employment. Jobs are created by consumer demand for production, and demand for workers to provide that production.

Demand for production is created by consumer spending, which depends on consumer income, not the number of consumers. A consumer with no income creates NO production demand, and creates no demand for workers to provide production. A consumer with little money creates little production demand, and little job demand.

Aggregate consumer income, not the number of consumers, is what creates production demand and labor demand. Illegal immigration suppresses wages and aggregate consumer income. As a result, it reduces consumer spending, the production demand it creates, and demand for workers to provide that production.

Illegal immigration reduces jobs, because it reduces the consumer demand necessary to increase labor demand.

It's all about using cheap labor to increase Corporate profits.

Corporate America knows full well that increasing the supply of labor drives down wages, reducing their cost of production and increasing their profits.

That's why every big business and Corporate interest lends financial support to the open border advocates.

It is in Corporate America's short-term financial interests to remove national borders so that any worker in the world can come here. Corporate America's dream is to have an unlimited number of workers to pick from, and have an unlimited supply of impoverished workers to exploit.

The only thing keeping American workers from becoming as impoverished as 3rd world workers are our national borders and at least some limits on the number of workers who can enter the U.S. Corporate America would like to remove all such limitations, and force American workers into the same poverty that their 3rd world counterparts endure.

Illegal Immigration Suppresses Wages

Saying "the fact that this bill will lead to a fall in wages will be the fault of capitalism" isn't the same as saying "this bill will not lead to a fall in wages" or "a fall in wages is not a bad thing".

You may believe either that it won't lead to a fall in wages, or that it will do but that that's a price worth paying for the beneficial effects it will have, but blaming capitalism for the fact that it will lead to a fall in wages if it does do so doesn't make any difference, I think.

trying to achieve?

Standard of living. They, due to circumstances or docility, are willing to accept life
circumstances and environments that are abhorrent to Americans, even the poorest Americans.

Poor people here don't care to live in dormitories, or truck trailers. Most poor Americans
live in apartments or houses. However, millions of undocumented people are living in conditions
that are simply appalling to most people. Here, in my town, 50 women were found living in the
basement of a three-bedroom town house that had been set up as a sewing factory. Local fire
inspectors called the place a deathtrap. They were glad to break up the operation, especially
seeing that if that town house had caught fire, a whole row of homes might have been burned down
with it.

If people are here legally, then they have legal rights and can complain and get better living
and working conditions, thus raising standards. But if they are not, then they can't.

Yes they will demand higher wages, and anybody else that can get here for the next 6 years will demand higher wages, But when that time comes they will be tossed aside, as the cycle will continue and newer round will take their place and undercut their ass, as we zoom past the sustainable carrying and energy capacity of the US (350 million sustainable est.) and end up with 20 starving people for every available job. Each successive wave of pawns showing utter disregard for the blood spilled and gains made by once strong workers organizatons of the past.

It matters not, any longer. The USA is already gone.

They've already commissioned the new flag, a name for the new currency.
A new Capitol (Atlanta), and new borders (the oceans and the southern border of Mexico), They've already merged the US with the commonwealth, and the Banana republic on paper. They just haven't spilled the beans(officially) to the idiotic and unsuspecting public yet. My guess is they'll let the cat out of the bag when they crash the FRN(dollar) as they see their plan enacted in 1913, come to fruition. We do have the timeline though, at least they were kind enough to let those that have eyes to see and inquisitive minds, know that it'll all be over by 2010. All 3 countries are in on it, and in agreement.

Those same immigrants with citizenship would probably not get the same jobs they have now at a higher pay... A new wave of illegal immigrants would (perhaps even more desperate ones) at the same low pay...

Immigration, YES--but in a controlled manner that is sustainable to both our economy and our
ability to support the numbers of people. Uncontrolled entry, HELL NO.

The place to begin is with employers. No new laws are needed. What we need is absolute
enforcement of the current laws, which call for stiff fines for anyone who hires undocumented
persons. Once the employers are properly sanctioned, the "waves" will stop on their own.\

I'm with you completely. We don't even enforce current laws against illegal hiring by employers.

Admittedly illegal immigrants might be in a better bargaining position if they were legal. However, that's a minor issue. The major bargaining tool American workers have is their relative scarcity. In other words, the lesser their number, the more they command in wages. In fact, this is the real basis for prevailing wages in any area or industry. A plentiful labor supply suppresses wages. A scarce labor supply raises them.

The major issue is that illegal immigrants are flooding the labor force and increasing the labor supply. Increasing the labor supply drives the price of labor down, just like it would the price of any consumer good. If we produce an excess supply of wheat, it drives the price down. If we have an excess supply of workers, it drives their wages down. This is simple supply & demand dynamics.

Furthermore, legalizing them would draw even more illegals into the country, causing an even greater flood of cheap labor into the country, causing even greater wage suppression.

There are currently 7 million illegal aliens working in this country. They are taking 7 million of the current 143 million jobs in this country. Meanwhile, there are 7 million Americans who are classified as "unemployed" by the Bush dictatorship. However, the real number is more like 11 million, since the government has artificially reclassified over 3.5 million truly unemployed workers as "not in the labor force."

Also, we have 227 million working age Americans. There are 143 million people officially employed in this country. Only 136 million of them are American citizens or legal residents. We don't need any more workers to take the limited number of jobs available.

Once again, Illegal Immigration Suppresses Wages. It has less to do with their status and more to do with the shear number.

It amazes me how people can't understand this simple concept.

# of newly legal immigrants would make no difference.

While I appreciate their chutzpah, their acts a few weeks ago did nothing.

The whole of America needs to follow suite - and even then, thanks to offshoring, it makes nary an iota of difference in the end. (The masses can't fathom beyond the Sunday Sale in the newspaper, which is why they'd do nothing. They want to be able to buy.

:sarcasm:

the bill also includes severe penalties for those who hire ilegals. If, and this is a big IF, those sanctions are enforced (this time), the economic magnet will be gone. (You are talking of fines to the tune of 20K per ilegal)

There is more, once these people come out from the informal economy they will be able to join unions and many will. Unions will press for better working conditions and salarise, that is why they can benefit us.

And of course, rounding up 12 million people is just not practical from any point of view.

I don't think that's going to change now. There are severe penalties today for tax evasion and hiring of illegal immigrants. They mean absolutely nothing without enforcement.

There have only been two raids for illegal immigrants in the last year. They can make the fine for speeding 20 million dollars and no one will slow down if no one ever gets pulled over.

Unions are more or less dead. I've never even met anyone in a union. There sure as hell is not a tomato pickers union.

http://www.ufw.org/_page.php?menu=organizing&inc=orga_label.html

I don't disagree with your post. But there is a farmworker's union.

doesn't seem like they have an overwhelming amount of power though.

…it tends to dilute the power of the union.

were properly enforced that situation wouldn't happen. If you are speaking of a union comprised of illegal immigrants, then both sides would be f'd in the a.

enforced

in case of Mexico by means of NAFTA which calls for weakening of workers' rights, environmental protection, social services - even worse then is the case in the US.... so what do poor Mexicans do, they cross the border.

4 billion people have lower living standards than people in Mexico.

The world is full of wonderful people, many of whom endure great hardships. All of us feel sadness, and many of us display great generosity, every time there's a famine, a tsunami, an earthquake, or some other calamity in some distant land. But we can't bring them all here and make things right.

First of all, i don't think man-made disasters should be lumped together with natural disasters.

Second, there are more possible solutions beside supporting one bill or the other, and other possible solutions besides bringing all the poor of the world to the US.

In those cases where poverty is created by international trade agreements (not a natural disaster) the logical solution is to not do that to begin with - to not enter trade agreements (such as NAFTA) that create poverty. NAFTA should be replaced by a trade agreement that does not only benefit large corporations, but that also benefits workers.

sources where you get these ideas? Basic economics 101 is just another theory, and much of it has been proved wrong since I took the class thirty five years. The Pew Hispanic Center has studied immigrants for ten years and their findings show that although immigrants make less than most Americans because of the type of work they do, their incomes increase the longer they live here.

If there is a lowering of income across the board, it could be that the unions don't have the power they used to since Reagan destroyed much of it during his Presidency.

I don't need specifics, just a general idea.

I'll try to answer the question and tailor it to your situation.

You need proof that if employers can't get anyone to apply for a job, they must raise the wage they are offering?

Outsourcing and H1B visas pretty much killed that. Today, IT professionals are happy with a 10% paycut.

I could not have said it any better.

google "Electronics Manufacture's Consortium" and "H1B"

When people were making astronomical salaries.

to the consumer. Also new innovations have slowed down considerably in the past 6 years due to a lack of incentive to enter the industries that have had their salaries "corrected" as you say.

rather, Big Business' ability to use immigrant labor to BREAK unions.

Say you have a bunch of American workers who are complaining about unsafe or unfair conditions on the job
and who are threatening to unionize to protect themselves.

What you do is "go out of business" and shut the operation down, laying everyone off. Then you
reopen a few months later with a staff consisting of mostly illegal immigrants. Voila! You have
your docile workforce that will never even mention a union, and you've solved your problem of
improving workplace conditions. You need do nothing and you don't have to spend a single additional
penny. You can also decrease pay by 75%, and you need provide no benefits.

This is what happened in the meat packing industry. It also happened in the garment industry, and
it is happening even in the information systems technology industry.

http://dbacon.igc.org/Imgrants/11sanctn.html

Basic Economics is involved. In one year, the uncontrolled influx of undocumented workers causes real
wage rates in the US to decrease by about $150 billion, due to the practices I previously mentioned.
We are now on a slippery slope that will destroy the dwindling American middle class and create third
world conditions among the poor in the US.

enough to know that scabs don't have to be immigrants. Try again.

American scabs can still complain about unsafe working conditions. American scabs
can call the police if they are assaulted. American scabs can complain to the authorities
if their overtime pay is stolen.

At least American scabs can demand worker's compensation and sue for on the job injuries.

"Imported" scabs cannot do any of these things.

Why hire domestic scabs who might complain to the authorities about their treatment when you
can have docile undocumented ones.

It is true that scabs don't have to be immigrants, but this is the new scheme of things. Only with
immigrant scabs can the employer eliminate the payment of any and all benefits, including worker's
compensation and overtime. Only with the use of imported scabs can the employer cut wages to levels
below the minimum wage.

With the wave of undocumented labor, even American scabs are losing their jobs.

become legal they will be able to claim the same rights as the American scabs and even join unions, which I'm sure many of they would if they had the opportunity.

The Pew Hispanic Studies institute has followed illegal immigrants over a ten year perios to the present. They found that although the immigrants made lower wages when they first worked in this country, when they got wise to the system they too make better wages according to the industry and after being here ten years, made the same as their American counterparts.

simply put, you will be paid based upon the skill level that you bring to your employer, the experience from similar past work, the potential for you to bring in additional revenue to your boss, and the probability that your skills will improve over time, thereby making you a more valuable asset than you were when you started. immigrants who don't learn the language, have very little work experience, very little formal education, and have likely peaked in their physical ability to perform manual labor will never be worth much more than minimum wage no matter their status.

That just simply is not a very well informed argument. H1B visa holders in the electronics Industry are traditionally paid 25 – 35% less then their American counter parts. The threat looming over their head of having their visa revoked for Non-employment prevents them from reporting employer violations as well as asking for a raise.

The effects of the 1984 Amnesty program had a very well pronounced effect on the earning power of the average American familiy



Los Angeles, one of the highest immigrant populations in the country has severely suppressed wages. Only 15% of the workers in Los Angeles can afford to buy a home.

I have worked in a factory where the good paying jobs required very little skills, and where, although I learned every aspect of the million dollar Bosch line and have two University degrees, I was stuck as a temp. After the line was shut down for an hour with four higher paid and more trained people trying to fix the problem - I fixed it in five minutes. I may have had the skills, but they had the jobs.

So it is not as simple or fair as you describe it.

I wanted to get back into Warehouse, shipping/receiving. 7 years ago, $9 per hour was usual, $10-12 with forklift experience.

Now the going rate is about $7.50-8 per hour, $9-10 if you can run a forklift AND they want me to know Spanish. WTF is up with that??!

I'm going to have to get Office work again, just to make a good wage, AND I HATE OFFICE WORK!!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Workers are paid the lowest amount an employer can hire them for. Skilled workers usually command a higher wage, because there are less of them with the required skills. But if there are plenty of workers with those same skills available, those workers will be paid less. Even if they are extremely high-skilled, like engineers, they are paid less if they are abundant in number. No employer simply pays them more because they deserve more due to their skills. He pays them the market rate. If cheap illegal immigrants enter the market, it drives the market rate down. Even skilled workers are subject to this.

Low skilled workers are paid less than they otherwise would be paid if there's an abundance of low-skilled workers to compete with.

Wages are determined by the relative scarcity or abundance of workers with equivalent skills. Increasing the supply decreases the price, which means wages in this case.

Opening the flood gates for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. labor market drives all workers wages down because it increases the supply of workers in relation to demand.

Newly arrived workers suppress wages the most, because they are most likely to accept lower wages.

Even granting that this bill will have an impact on wages to the middle class, I have to ask, how big of an impact on wages do you think it will have? My guess is not very much, especially on wages to the middle class as most of these immigrants are taking low-wage (non middle class) jobs - they're impact on the poorer classes is another question - but even there, I don't think it will have a major impact. But, whatever impact it has on wages here has to be weighed against the impact deportation has on people - some of whom have been here for years - and are here essentially at a US invitation.

The immigration question is a very difficult one. I think the best response is for the US to do what it can to encourage the building of the Mexican economy so Mexicans don't seek to come here as a matter of survival.

Though I agree with the last part of your post, I certainly don't agree with the bulk of it.

In fact, economist George Borjas has done his own research and has come up with an annual wage loss of $1700/year per worker. This is the average. It is even larger for those at the lower end of the income scale.

This amounts to an aggregate worker income loss of $243 billion/year, or about 2% of our $12 trillion annual GDP. Given that our entire GDP increase for 2005 was about $384 billion, this is no small amount. And if this income loss could be added back into the consumer spending portion of our GDP, it would nearly double our GDP growth. (I've gone through this in an earlier post on this thread.)

The point is that illegal immigration has a very significant wage-suppressing effect. And if the Senate fiasco is passed, the wage-suppression will increase dramatically.

...immigrants don't lower wages. Businesses lower wages. They aren't entitled to hire immigrants over "native" (we're almost all immigrants, if you go back far enough) citizens, and it's illegal for them to hire illegal immigrants, nor are they entitled to higher profit margins at this country's expense, despite the amount of corporate welfare and government influence they've managed to buy. The supply and demand garbage oversimplifies the reality and doesn't consider humanity in any sense other than our tendency towards avarice.

I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why people don't understand that millions of middle-class construction workers, carpenters, agriculture and restaurant workers have lost their jobs because they
wouldn't work for $8 an hour with no benefits.

...more than $8 and hour without benefits. Just as it isn't the workers' right to have a job at a given company, it isn't that company's right to get labor as cheaply as they want it. Why do you favor blaming the lay worker instead of the greedy corporatists who are hurting our country?

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the United States Senate showing more allegiance to a foreign president than to "We the People".

economy....they've been here for years and years. Most people talking about 'they're taking our jobs away' seem to concentrate on those from Mexico and S. America only. A large percentage of our 'illegals' are people who came here on visas and just never went back. They are from Europe and Canada and South Africa and Asia. Most hold jobs and are paying taxes today.

I posted yesterday that the Senate version of the bill contained the 'uncapping' of immigration for registered nurses. This means to supply more nurses, our government would rather import them than to create higher paying nursing jobs which would entice more into the profession and create the need for more nursing schools. This is what has been happening to middle class America...the legal immigrants coming here on 10,000's of H1B visas (numbers increasing yearly). These are the people (legal) that drive down our wage structure. Look at what the 10 years of H1B visas for IT professionals has done.

The US Senate has approved a landmark Immigration Reform Bill that proposes to give citizenship to millions of illegal people and double the number of H1B visas. The move will also greatly benefit thousands of Indian software professionals who work in the US.

The Bill passed on Thursday has proposed to double the H1 B visas from the present 65,000 annually to nearly 1,15,000 and with a 20 per cent increase on an annual basis

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/us-senate-to-double-h1b-visas/11454-2.html

to the country of their origin and wages would increase for our lower class workers.

to work for the IT corporation that forced me to take early retirement. These people were well educated and received close to what I was making. They came on 3 year visa programs. All 4 married US citizens (one causing a divorce in so doing) and they are now working on becoming naturalized Americans.

While I'm in somewhat similar situation (BigBlue layed off thousands in my department) I'm too young and too poor to retire.

And so costed less money to the company? Just wondering...

Youth has nothing at all to do with it. If youth were the issue, then the laid-off American worker
could successfully sue the company.

Some of the HB-1 visa people are older.

It is strictly a matter of profit. In one case, a bank was able to lower salaries of skilled workers
from $90,000 per year with benefits to less than $30,000 a year per worker with NO benefits.

The difference is not passed on to the consumer--it is pocketed by the corporation.

... are of no concern because they've "been here for years" huh? :crazy: I feel so much better now.

FWIW, the CBO estimates that the Senate legislation will only cause a 10-20% reduction in that continuingly increasing flow of people across the border in the next 4-5 years. That "legislation" throws kerosene on the fire of cheap-labor exploitation.

social justice, irrespective of the bill's impact on labor markets.

That said, I would argue that since many or most of these 10 million undocumented workers primarily engage in manual labor (in Los Angeles, for example, such workers do most of the housework, lawnwork, restaurant work and automobile servicing), they will not pose much of a threat to the American "middle class," who have moved from manual labor to more information-based service sector positions. Add to this the potential for union organizing among these masses of workers and I would say that the economic impact on the middle class would be a wash.

People still have to support their families, pay their high energy & medical bills, etc.

How can we expect to turn red states in 2008 when carpenters in NC (just an example) can't find a job that pays a fair wage anymore?

Professionals living in NYC, Boston, Chicago, and other large blue-metro-areas are immune for now, but most of the country are already hard pressed due to increasing energy prices, rising medical and education costs . . . I travel a lot for business and have yet to meet regular people who are supporting the concepts in the Senate bill.

not supporting? That people who have lived and worked here for > 5 years be given a path to eventual citizenship?

Construction
Transportation
Manufacturing
Food Processing

All previously Middle Class Jobs, now paying near poverty level wages. Construction in California (highest immigrant population) is almost 50% immigrant labor and pays an average of $18 per hr and $1 below national average

I'm not against granting legal status to the 11 million workers already here, but I have genuine concerns for raising the current levels of immigration

longer and harder to help pay the increase in state taxes that will come from mitigating that social injustice. The Senate bill, if it becomes law didn't include funding for anything, which will pretty much leave it up to the states to pay for it.

of the issue suggest that tax revenue impact is neutral to positive for the government. That is, even if an undocumented worker uses a fake social security number, they still have social security taxes withheld from their checks. They still must pay sales taxes and property taxes.

Exactly what provisions of the Senate bill require funding and did not receive it?

How? Because their employers do not pay worker's compensation or health care benefits.

Because of the way the law is in the US, Emergency Rooms in hospitals are legally required to
treat any and all who present, and the Emergency Room is the official "doctors office" for
non-documented persons. If they are injured or ill, the hospital treats them. But the hospital
doesn't "eat" the cost.

In most states, hospitals receive special funding ("disporportionate share funds,"Hill-Burton" funds, and other
government funding).

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hburton.html

This funding, which comes out of federal Medicaid funds, is provided primarily for Americans who are
indigent. It was never imagined that this money would support illegal immigrants, but it does. Due to the
drain on funding produced by millions of non-American users, taxpayers must pay even more to support these
funds. Otherwise, hospitals would face bankruptcy.

We are all paying for this. Illegal immigrants, contrary to popular belief ARE NOT SELF SUPPORTING in our
economy. The taxpayers are the ones who are supporting them.

How did the conversation become about a self-centered quest to protect "the middle class"? It's about the poor - our poor, and us democrats are selling 'em down the fuckin' river.

Time and time again we hear the horror stories of how these LEGAL programs and workers have been used to suppress wages. How is it racist to simply state what has been proven again and again.

Bush’s “Guest Worker” program was used to increase work visas by 200,000 in the proposed legislation – that is over and above the 11 million seeking legal status.

Why would any one even question Bush’s corporatist intentions in proposing new visa programs designed to go after the heart of Middle America’s jobs.

Of all the research papers floating out there, all I have seen are seriously flawed in their methodology. Far left or far Right leaning manipulated policy driven numbers. What is truly disheartening we might not ever know the true numbers until the middle class is a thing of the past and social programs are long since gone

and strict enforcement of the LABOR laws. An employer may not be
able to tell whether an employee is legal or not, but he sure knows
what he is paying that employee, and the working conditions.

The current system doesn't keep illegal aliens out of the workforce,
it merely threatens them with deportation if they report any illegal
acts by their employers, or attempt to organize a union, etc.

To actually keep illegal aliens from working here, it has been proposed
that we build walls and have draconian police-state enforcement to root
them out. Then we will find ourselves walled-in in a police state, and
anyone who looks remotely Mexican will find him/herself unemployed, as
employers seek to avoid even the appearance of hiring illegals.

Let them come here. If they work here, they are subject to our laws.
They can organize and form unions. They will be paid a lot more than the
people who stay in Mexico and work at the factories that are being built
there to take advantage of NAFTA. Those factories will have to raise their
wages and will eventually those jobs may come back here as well.

And raise the minimum wage already!

as there will be millions of new illegal immigrants coming every year

They can pay illegals less-than-minimum now because they're illegal.

I say throw the book at employers that pay less than minimum
no matter who they are hiring.

Due to the 10 to 20 million (not counting those who will be flooding across the border and pushing phony documents claiming they have been here all along) you just made citizens, wouldn't we end up with more blue collar workers (before the grand citizenship grant) working for your raised (modest) minimum wage?

After all, with such an abundance of legal workers, who would not be restricted to 'work Americans won't do' jobs anymore, we would only end up with lowering wages even more, due to the abundance of legal labor in all sectors. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work harder, because you have even more competition now and they'll will work for less than you. Don't like it? Too damn bad, you wanted to make all of the illegals citizens.

Anyone who thinks that illegals don't undercut wages and conditions or that making them legal workers or citizens will improve the situation for those who have worked hard, played by the rules, and obeyed the law their whole lives, is nothing but a damn fool.

The Democrats have already squandered the perfect opportunity to reclaim millions of working class voters (especially in Red States), when they refused to stand firm in representing the working class in a unified voice. ENFORCE THE LAW ON THE BOOKS NOW AND PROSECUTE THOSE WORKING ILLEGAL WORKERS NOW, was all they had to stick to.

No, they would rather let America see that the House Republicans are going to demand strict laws on illegals (diluted penalties for the employers) to solve the problem that Republicans have created (by ignoring the existing law), so Working Class America will see that the House Republicans represented and fought for them. Now, which Chamber were the Republicans most threatened in for the upcoming election? Well maybe, but that was before the House Republicans stood up to Bush and the Senate to fight for average Americans who go to work and have to compete against illegal workers undercutting their wages and conditions.

Yet, some Democrats here still keep wondering why working people vote against their economic best interests in elections. Sure, fighting for the illegal over the blue collar worker has nothing at all to do with it at all. For those who just cannot grasp it, keep wondering as it happens again.

the new workers purchase more goods and services which stimulates the demand for labor. The number of jobs available isn't fixed.

of possible replacement workers

For better wages and conditions with an over-abundance of labor.

Management: Look at all the workers you guys have unemployed.

Unions: Yea, but we demand better wages and conditions.

Management: You are in NO position to demand anything.

Unions: Okay, we agree to your terms.

The system has been set up on supply and demand, but a unionized over-abundant (due to 10 - 20 million NEW legal workers) labor force will not solve the problem for the working class in that system. Enforcing the current law and stiffening the penalties for employers will solve the problem, and the illegal workers will have to return home.

Management: Look at all the workers you guys have unemployed.

Unions: Yea, but we demand better wages and conditions.

Management: You are in NO position to demand anything.

Union: STRIKE!

Go right ahead, but we still have the right to operate our business with employees we bring in, without any molestation from you. We do have an adequate labor supply lined up, outside of your union. Now get the Hell off our property, and stay off. By the way, anyone who pickets will be permanently barred from any future employment.

Unless you have the majority of workers, which you don't, striking will hurt the workers more than it will hurt management, especially in the foreseeable future. Again, the only workers you are helping, are the ILLEGAL workers and you are shitting on the American Workers who have played by the rules their whole lives.

So you make it so that if the employer is taken in by a bogus ID he's guilty anyway.

Now what will they do? Fire anyone who looks "Mexican", probably. Even those whose
families have lived here for generations. Can't take a chance.

How do you avoid that?

I say raise the minimum wage, go after the employers for violation of our labor laws,
and organize those workers!

You know, one of those documents the employer requires the applicant to list their history on (schools, address, previous employment, and it could even require detailed info). It would be very easy to determine who the hell is lying and trying to push a phony ID. Besides, with massive fines and further detrimental jeopardy, it would be wise for the employer to hire a company to do a background check on all that has been provided by the applicant, just to be on the safe side. Oh no, illegals can no longer get work. What will they do? Looks like they'll have to return home. Well, that's too bad, but they knew they broke our laws to begin with and accepted this fate when they came and continued to stay WITHOUT permission.

As for you granting citizenship to ILLEGAL WORKERS just because you see an organizing opportunity for farm workers picking all of that PRODUCE off of construction sites is shitting all over the American Construction Worker. Never mind you have just added 12 - 20 million workers in direct competition with Working Class Americans. Just keep wondering why the working class keeps voting against their best interests.

But how much of it even gets checked? No employer has ever asked
me for a transcript or any other proof that I graduated from MIT.
I suppose they checked the references I gave, when they could.

It has become pretty common to hear in the news of people in our
government who never attended the educational institutions they claim
to have graduated from, and othewise faked their background. These
are for high-level, high pay positions, for which one would expect
a fair amount of scruitiny.

You want employers to pay for a full background check before hiring
someone as temporary laborer. More likely they'll just discriminate
against anyone who looks Mexican, because that's much cheaper.
Background checks are expensive. They are also invasive.
We're getting spied on too much already.

An over-abundance of cheap illegal or newly legalized workers, because it just isn't going to reach out and rob you of your livelihood and ability to provide for your family. It is just so noble of you to sell out the American Blue Collar Worker in favor of the illegal worker, since you have a superior intellect above those fucking grunts who cannot swing in the fast lane.

Your excuses for employers, who would rather turn a blind eye to the bogus information given to them by illegals, is pure bullshit. A background check could be as easy as calling Pedro's alleged elementary school to see if he graduated, like he claims, well, even though they didn't even teach him to read, write, or speak English. Less than a minute of questioning could determine who was lying about NOT being an illegal worker. A few others gave you some ideas as well, but I guess you didn't think too much of them, since they could easily let the employer know. It doesn't take an MIT Resume to develop a clue and use some common sense. Oh, and as for your race baiting, there are already laws on the books to deal with that, just like laws for penalizing employers for working illegals and the illegals themselves.

Once again, just keep wondering why so many Working Americans allegedly vote against their best interests in elections. This issue is good start for you to figure it out.

you pretty much know it's not an accident.

An employer can instantly verify any social security number by calling

1-800-772-6270

Also, simply asking prospective employees for a certified copy of their birth
certificate would solve the problem.

Like paid sick days and better vacation.
The human resources person made a point of telling us that when they posted two positions on a state job board that there were over 200 responses. Our company only employs sixty people. The message of the whole meeting seemed to be, we aren't going to give you anything more and if you don't like it you can quit because we can replace every one of you.

I think I read on another thread that you support the Senate bill

There are no plans to build a wall along all of the 2000 mile length of the border. Even it would be build, it's trivial to go around it by sea.

Minimum wage should be raised in Mexico to.
And we can do that; if we can create trade agreements that lower wages (NAFTA), then we can do the opposite as well.

"Allowing 10+ million people into the workforce and giving them citizenship will really pressure the middle class for decades to come."

I'm not sure I'm understanding it, but it seems to me they're already here. Whatever affect they could have, has already been had.

Did I miss something?

1.) Current US law makes it a crime for an employer to knowingly hire illegal alien workers. Therefore, large companies go through small contractors to hire illegals. However, once the 10+ million become "legal" they can move up from their current jobs real middle class jobs (depressing wages across the board). Companies like Wal-Mart will pay even less.

2.) The borders are not secure and won't be at any time soon. So millions of additional illegal immigrants will come for years.

There can be valid new job openings in an expanding business. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

May as well say we can never import anything - buy it at ten times the price from Americans so that all economic activity can stay within the border.

Jobs are not just sinecures, they lead to other activity and expansion and other jobs, varying jobs and more jobs.

We would still have nineteenth century conditions if we looked at supply and demand as limited only within the borders. We would be so poor the rest of the world would really invade.

Current GDP per capita in Mexico is around $7,300. In Congo it's $100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Pay a fair living wage and have decent, safe working conditions and Americans will fill every
available job.

"But businesses can grow-There can be valid new job openings in an expanding business"


Businesses only "grow" when there's increased demand for their production. And at an aggregate, national level, this only occurs from aggregate increases in consumer spending, and the demand it creates. And immigrant induced wage suppression reduces consumer spending, because it reduces the consumer wages that fund that spending.

Thus suppressing wages by increased immigration does not "grow" business. It reduces aggregate consumer income, aggregate consumer spending, and aggregate consumer demand as a result. It reduces the demand for the production businesses provide. Illegal immigration doesn't "grow" business. It shrinks it, because it reduces the overall demand for production by reducing consumer spending by reducing wages.

time to look at how the old unions united new immigrants and native born americans against the bosses.

Rove knew the hue and cry about the Hispanics would drown out the fine print in the bill ... left out to work in committee.

The illegal overstayers becoming felons will remove voting rights from new Hispanic citizens.

Buried in the Hispanic immigration stuff is a move to double the H1B visa quota amongst a few other things. Kennedy has been snookered in and this will work out like his support of NCLB. These compromises leave the rest of us with nada. Watch out for the fine print... This is a business give away bill... and a divide and conquer ... there must be some key precincts that will tip Republican because of this.

offered by government officials.

to get them to cross the border (or perhaps aren't willing to risk their life doing so) and whose only choice is to try legal ways of immigrating. These people's chances of being able to immigrate are decreased (or slowed down) if illegal immigrants in the US jump ahead in the line.

See this thread about importing nurses into the US and what it does to the countries they leave (leaving them without medical care) as well as decreasing the wages of nurses in the US.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2646059&mesg_id=2646059

Relevant links to outside articles:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052406A.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2644192&mesg_id=2644192

The question is very simple. Are they here illegally? If so, then fix it.

Since the last wage increase 9 years ago Congress has had 8 wage increases totaling over $30,000.00 a year.

1. Raise the minimum wage $2.00/hour
2. Make ALL jobs subject to minimum wage rules.
3. Make FICA deductions mandatory.
4. Make minimum state and federal tax deductions of 25% mandatory.
(Filers could get refunds, if eligible, when they file their tax returns.)
5. Increase penalties for employees and employers caught working for cash only.
6. Make US Government responsible for additional educational, medical and social program costs of
people not in the system legally. The states are being hammered with these costs.
7. Since some of the benefits of illegal aliens accrue to the people of the US only part of the
monies spent on benefits to illegal aliens for these programs should be added to the taxes owed
by businesses. I would suggest one half of the bill be passed to businesses.


Common sense dictates that if the supply of cheap labor dries up the average working wage will rise. This will benefit the lower and middle rungs of the economy. There will be a new round of inflation as wages and prices adjust. But, the real truth is that inflation hurts the rich more than the poor. THEY have the money and when prices inflate they can buy less with it. People's wages adjust faster than they can accumulate new monies to make up for lost purchasing power. Why else would the Federal Reserve raise interest rates when the economy heat up. They fight inflation by putting people out of work. This is done to preserve the buying power of the rich.

The bottom line is this problem has been created to intimidate the unskilled and semi skilled workers of the world. It operates strictly for the benefit of the rich and as long as we remain paralyzed and afraid for our jobs it will only get stronger and stronger.

You only have to look back as far as Korea and their labor problems. There was an impasse there over wages and the government stepped in with Marshall law and forced the workers to get in line.
They cracked a few heads, some people died, but they were forced to take lower wages.

Look around you. When you have unions (UAW) giving up raises for job security it becomes obvious that intimidation was involved.

Regression is a natural consequence of life. Those of you with college degrees will have great grandchildren, great grandchildren. etc. who won't attend college. They will be forced to "take less" when their time comes. The benefits of your current position in life will be lost on them.
To keep from tossing them on the scrap heap you must do something now! Your choices are either raise wages or lower the workforce.

We can't support more people. I know it's radcal, but we need to just shut our borders, and close the counrty. We need to be able to take care of our own people first. once we fix social securtiy, get evry one jobs and health care and make taxes fair then we will let limited amounts of people in based on how many we can support.
Our country is like a house. the house is 4 bed yoom but we have 40 people. let's say we want to help more people out. well first we need to take car of all the people already here. hten you can start letting people in.

:sarcasm:

sheesh.

Please take your sarcasm elsewhere

Good to know what you consider "serious discussion" tho - thanks!

Wow!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They are race baiting by calling those Dems who do not agree with them racist. That tells me one thing, they can not win their argument logically. There are many of us who agree with you on this issue. Illegal immigration is not good for us or for those who will be bought into slavery by our corporations. We should help these people make changes in their own country.

In fact, they start playing the "race" card when they run out of arguments. (Which is usually in about 1 sentence.) Some of them are even starting new threads with asinine claims that those opposing illegal immigration are "White nationalists" or some other such nonsense. What we really are is American citizens who don't want our wages suppressed by competition from illegal labor hired by lawbreaking employers.

The "racist" jab comes out automatically, like the leg jerks when a hammer taps the knee.

The immigration issue is far more complex than race, or the welcoming/heartless dichotomy.

as long as your country also pulls the hell out of every other country while you're doing that.

I build an addition and add ten new tables. Now I need two more waitresses. There are none in town. But I should pay the waitresses I already have more. But they already work full time and can't wait on the ten extra tables.

So I can't do the expansion.

This argument assumes no business ever expands and that no new job is ever created, and that it is wrong to expand the business and create new jobs and hire other people.

As for something that takes a long time to become, like a nurse, a lot more goes into the decision to become one than what you'd earn alone. Or why is it wrong for a hospital to expand instead of waiting four years for some American to graduate. And Americans don't have to become nurses if they don't want to, just to keep foreigners out for those who don't like to look at foreigners.

I don't believe there is a town where one cannot hire American teens (ages 18-19) to wait on tables.

As for the hospital that hires non-native nurses, why then can't they pass the savings in wages on to the
patients? I worked with rate setting for hospitals for 20 years, and I've never seen one of them lower
their prices when the cost of the nursing staff was lower.

This argument is spurious.

You put an ad in the paper for more waitresses. And you offer a wage that is high enough to attract enough waitresses. How hard is that to understand?

If you need waitresses and you can't hire enough at the current wage, you raise wages. That's how free markets work. You don't have any "problem" with your expansion at all. You just have a "problem" with paying waitresses what the market would dictate.

Unfortunately, Bush-loving Corporatists like to espouse the free market until it works against them. Free markets are "a great thing" until it comes to paying market wages. Then the Bush-ites concoct some illogical work of fiction about how there aren't enough workers. What they really mean is that aren't enough workers to keep wages suppressed.

With 227 million working age Americans, and only 143 million of them working, we have no shortage of workers. We have a shortage of jobs. And we have a shortage of employers willing to pay enough to hire Americans.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Supreme Court will decide an extremely important case by July, 2006, Williams v. Mohawk Industries, about whether the RICO statute allows private victims to collect triple damages, plus attorney fees from employers of illegal aliens. The 11th Circuit permitted such claims.

See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0413740p.pdf

but with the corporate-happy Supreme Court we have now, I don't see it.

Thanks for posting that link. Bush and his Corporatocratic friends will probably contribute heavily to Mohawk's defense.

Many of the Bush-loving open-borders advocates will contribute to Mohawk's defense as well, since they hate the American worker and
the American middle class as much as Bush does.

Why give them citizenship. Why give the country away? They want to work, we have jobs, let them work. Problem solved.

I think before anyone says anything more in this subject we should do 2 things. 1. watch the Edward R. murrow broadcast in B&W on Kinescope from the early 50's entitled Harvest of Shame. 2. I think this discussion should look at the fundamentals about why people from other countries in mexico and Central America are willing to endure such hardships to get here. perhaps we should start providing some foreign aid that normally goes to israel to these other countries so they can develop economically. Remember Poverty does not cause corruption, it just provides it a breeding ground. Many countries that people thought were to corrupt to ever do anything positive are now flourishing. This is especially true in Botswana and Chile. In botswana there has been a 10 year program to eradicate corruption and it has more than paid off. botswana is now one of the 5 most economically developed countries in Africa. Chile is another good example. If economic development can work there it can certainly work in Central America

Most illegal immigrants come from "banana republic" nations where the government is abusing the people.
Foreign aid will go right into the pockets of despots.

The answer is that people need to be encouraged to STAY WHERE THEY ARE and agitate for change in their
own nations.

It seems that would help. But often infrastructure assistance is given so that American multinationals can go in and take advantage of the aid given by the U.S., and then use that country's resources (including labor) to its own advantage.

There's a book recently published called "Confessions of an Economic Hit man" that details this. Much "foreign" aid is really used to open up foreign opportunities for Corporate America.

citizenship will really pressure the middle class for decades to come. Not to mention the 10 million more who are waiting to get in" Do we give them citizenship too? When does it stop? What about the people who came here legally, do we push them aside or give them preference. My two sons just lost their jobs due to insourcing from Russia, Italy and other countries. They pay them off the books in cash for less then they had to pay my kids. This is at the boardwalk in Seaside Heights NJ. I don't know if they have work visas or not. Just a few years ago they found out that there were workers there who were linked to Al-Qaeda, yet they are still importing them. So much for defending our borders when these companies will just ship them in to work cheap and not pay taxes, benefits, SS taxes, etc... It's a shame when a kid can't find a summer job anymore.

The truly entrenched opposition to closing the borders comes largely from business and Corporate America, despite the rantings of a few on this board. And most of the funding for the immigration protests came from business interests as well.

Tightening borders and reducing immigration would force employers to hire Americans, and pay them more. Neither Corporate America, or some of the smaller businesses as you described want that to happen. They'll stop at nothing to maintain their stream of cheap immigrant labor, even if it means completely sacrificing national security. The only "security" Corporate America is concerned about is the "security" of their bottom line. And they're securing this by employing illegal aliens to suppress wages, reduce their labor costs, and increase their profit margins as a result.

And they've enlisted the misguided dupes of the open border lobby to do their bidding by staging protests and making noise. These open borders' no-nothings have become the pawns of the Bush dictatorship and his Corporate allies.

as high as 200 million over the next 20 years. That, even at 66 million, would have a huge impact on wages. And more and more current citizens would lose their jobs to immigrants who would work for less, legal or not.

White collar American workers who are in technological fields are in serious trouble as well.

The biggest problem created by uncontrolled illegal immigration is wage suppression. According to economics professor George Borjas, immigration reduces the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700, or roughly 4%. (See http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1804778&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 )
If that reduction is applied to the roughly 143 million employed Americans, that reduces aggregate annual worker income by $243 billion, or $0.243 trillion. That's roughly 2% of our $12 trillion GDP. That's a loss in consumer spending of $243 billion (less taxes). Given that our entire GDP growth in 2005 was $384 billion, this is a significant amount. Considering that consumer spending is approximately 70% of GDP, that makes the "growth" in consumer spending around $269 billion.

Again, the loss of that $243 billion is no small amount. And it is also $243 billion less money that could have been taxed, costing the Federal government anywhere between $36-61 billion per year. (Increasing the taxable income of a single taxpayer making $42,500/year by $1700 increases Federal income tax by $425. Increasing taxable income of a married taxpayer filing making $42,500/year by $1700 increases Federal income tax by $255. Multiplying these numbers by 143 million amounts to $61 billion and $36 billion, respectively. Thus the income tax revenue lost is somewhere in between.)

Right-wingers will argue that this wage suppression is offset by business profits, and that these profits fuel investment. But investment capital is OVER-abundant at present. Increasing this excess even further will not result in more capital investment. It will result in higher CEO salaries, further overinvestment in the stock market, and further investment in foreign production facilities, the latter of which puts even further downward pressure on American wages.

Furthermore, business profits don't fuel consumer spending. And consumer spending is the engine that drives our economy, not investment. Without consumer spending, there are no returns on investment. And if no returns are anticipated on investment, no investment takes place.

The immigration-fueled reduction in wages does NOT help our economy. It hurts it. It reduces aggregate consumer income and the consumer spending it finances. The reduction in consumer spending reduces consumer production demand, further reducing demand for the labor to provide that production. The reduction in labor demand drives down employment and wages. The resultant labor demand reduction further reduces aggregate consumer income and further reduces consumer purchasing power.

As consumer buying power declines, so do investment opportunities, since those opportunities are created by consumer demand for production. Thus the increased profits resulting from reduction in labor costs create even more excess capital, while reducing investment opportunities still further.

Does anyone really think that wage suppression is "good" for the economy? Doesn't someone have to purchase the goods produced for business to profit? Won't reducing consumer income also reduce consumer goods purchasing? Won't a decline in consumer goods purchasing reduce business revenues and reduce potential profits? Once again, is immigration-fueled reduction in worker/consumer income really "good" for the economy?

I thought some actual numbers might be helpful.

Perhaps if you keep posting the real data and economic realities, people will finally understand.

Or maybe they'll keep calling us racists. My bet is on the latter, but hope springs eternal.

I'm hoping the preponderance of facts will eventually win out.

Lou Dobbs has repeatedly pointed out one simple fact on his show that tells the whole story. He correctly points out that real wages have declined for American workers. All statistics prove him correct.

More important is what declining real wages indicates. Declining "prices" for anything indicate that the supply is increasing more than the demand. That's the case with workers. The supply of workers in America is increasing more than the demand for them.

If the supply of American workers is increasing faster than the demand, how could we possibly need more workers? That's the point Dobbs makes. I'm making the same point.

Declining real wages prove there is an overabundance of workers in relation to jobs. There is no justification for increasing immigration "because we need more workers." We do not. The real wage decline is indisputable proof of that.

Below is an actual copy of real hourly and weekly wage information through March 2006. (Wages are given in units of inflation-adjusted 1982 dollars.)



Current real hourly wage information can be found at: BLS:Real Hourly Wages
Current real weekly wages can be seen at: BLS:Real Weekly Wages

The alleged unemployment rate is simply a complete farce. It's a tribute to the ability of the Bush dictatorship's ability to manipulate statistics. They simply reclassify truly unemployed workers as "not in the labor force." Then those workers aren't counted as unemployed, which lowers the unemployment rate.

Under the Bush dictatorship, twice as many people have allegedly "dropped out" of the labor force than dung Clinton's last 5 years. 7 million workers have "dropped out" since Bush stole his first election, vs. 3.5 million under Clinton. Thus 3.5 million more people should really be considered unemployed than is currently being claimed. To see the actual difference in these numbers go to: BLS:Not In Labor Force

The current number of 7.2 million would be 10.7 million if the excess "drop outs" under Bush were included in the total number of those unemployed. That would give us an real unemployment rate of 7%, not 4.7% as the Bushites falsely claim.

(Current manipulated numbers: 7.2 million unemployed divided by 150 million "participating" workers = 4.8% unemployment)

(Actual numbers: 10.7 million unemployed divided by 153.5 million "participating workers = 7.0% unemployment)

Is there anything here to suggest we need more workers?

But blaming immigrants for the wage drop while ignoring the social Darwinist policies of the RW isn't the way to go. Scapegoating immigrants diverts attention away from things like the lack of universal healthcare, the deficits, wasteful foreign adventures, lack of regulation of monopolies, crony capitalism, speculation and the boom / bust economy - any number of factors that contribute to the economic woes of the populace and have very little to do with immigration.

No one is ignoring any of the Right-Wing's Corporatocratic policies. But those other issues, such as the massive deficit, tax cuts for the rich, and unrestricted outsourcing have all come up for votes and have been defeated.

Now the only issue we can fight is the wage suppression resulting from illegal immigrants taking 7 million of America's 143 million jobs, and fight the prospect of more of them being taken in the future by even larger waves of illegal immigrants and "guest workers."

There's been no "scapegoating" of illegal immigrants. That's a worn-out, completely invalid talking point that's been fully debunked. This is about continuing to allow Bush's Corporate cronies to break the law and exploit illegal immigrants to keep American workers' wages down.

It's about time that people start standing up for the American worker, instead of being open-border pawns for the Bush Corporatocracy.

The Senate bill is full of labor arbitrage methods and you might be suspect by these facts.

Corporate lobbyists have swarmed the hill on this bill. They are US Chamber of Commerce, the ITAA and Bill Gates, the richest guy in the world.

The labor arbitrage Visas are H-1B, H-2B, L-1, F-4 and H-2C. Now H-2C has more labor protections that any given to American legal residents.

Nurses and Medical professionals can tell you about the H-2B
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/29/8259/63845


Here is some information on the H-1B
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/23/115858/162


It's a seriously bad bill and unfortunately our party enabled it. We need to get our party back in line with labor and stop giving corporate lobbyists whatever they want.

This is precisely the problem we have with the Corporate Republicans, so we just cannot tolerate it in the Democratic party.

As I have said before this issue could be come the "gay marriage issue" of this years election. The middle americans that were lost to Reagan will support the Right wing in the house on this issue and we should be aware of what their concerns are if we are to represent them.

The Democratic Party certainly had better wake-up. As of this moment, the House Republicans seem to be representing American workers better than the Democrats.

The gains Democrats might have made could easily disappear if the Senate Amnesty legislation passes. There's no doubt at this point which party voted in favor of the Bush Corporatocracy's position, and which party voted to protect the American worker. The Democrats need to be reminded who their core constituents really are.

"The House Republicans seem to be representing American workers better than the Democrats."

Sorry, making instant felons out of millions of people and anyone who tries to help them does not represent the interests or desires of this American worker. The House Republican bill is nothing but fences and felonies.

The Senate bill actually attempts to deal with reality. The reality is there are all these people already here, and they aren't going anywhere. We need to regularize their status, set quotas for temporary work permits, and in the long term, try to help Mexico figure out how to generate more jobs down there. And quit blaming the sorry state of American workers on the undocumented.

But hey, I'm sure the likes of Sensenbrenner and Hastert can use the support.

The Senate Amnesty bill offers amnesty to people who have broken our laws, and provides no real enforcement action. It's designed to protect the Bush-loving law-breaking employers who've hired illegal aliens from being prosecuted. That's why they want to amnesty for all the current illegal aliens. To protect the EMPLOYERS who are breaking the law from being prosecuted.

The Senate Bill's major goal is to grant amnesty to as many illegal aliens as possible, and amnesty to as many of the employers who've hired them as possible. The next most important "goal" of the bill is to increase the flow of cheap exploitable labor into this country. The result of these measures will be exactly what Bush-loving open borders advocates want: lower labor costs for Corporate America and big business, at the expense of the American worker.

This worker doesn't really like either bill. But I'd much rather have the House bill than the Senate sell-out.

And I'm all for making felons out of employers that hire illegal aliens.

The working class, the lower/middle class has been sold out to the higher class once again.

most Americans and trying to represent their interests over those of other nations or illegal aliens. And yes, these aliens will go away if they can't get jobs. Let Mexico fix Mexico and absolutely make felons out of people who hire illegal aliens and exploit them for greater profit margins. NO workers win the way things are now. Legal immigration in reasonable numbers is good. Illegal immigration and amnesty for law breakers (which is really also amnesty for employers) hurts America.

:kick:

ok, there is illegal immigration.


Borjas has some excellent papers on that and it shows illegal immigration is a net loss on wages.

He also showed that the influx on PhD post docs is creating wage depression.

H-1B most certainly depresses wages and there are multiple studies on that one.

On the other hand, controlled, legal immigration, per labor markets does increase overall economic growth, but only when it's sane and based on labor economics.

So basically there is the issue and law of supply and demand

But, the reality is there are between 10M and 20M illegals already here, working, many in an underground economy...making them legal
should help...BUT, that said, giving them social security benefits and so on looks like it will dramatically hurt, especially because
of the Stolen ID problem and sorting out which benefits go to which person using some American Victim's ID. I hear 100B recently in costs...

ok detailed references:

I'm just going to point to our site:
http://forum.noslaves.com

because we list credible references and detailed economic studies as much as possible for you to read and there are too many.

To date, I have no seen a verified study on the Senate bill, but if one adds up these individual studies it does look like a complete disaster for the American middle class.




http://forum.noslaves.com/index.php?s=9f9d99e2625a9b901a40db67c8407d94&showforum=18

Thanks for the link Robert.

NoSlaves.com looks like an excellent site.

I've actually seen one of the studies you referred to by Borjas on the effect of H1Bs on PhD's salaries. I even saved the link. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it at present. I suspect you have the link. Do you think you could post it here?

Peter Brimelow writes: George Borjas is the outstanding immigration economist in the U.S., which has gotten him into trouble. This is from Afterword to the just-published paperback version of his latest book.

www.vdare.com/misc/borjas_heaven_door.htm

Perhaps you can find the link you want at VDARE. You can definitely find Borjas urging that Elian be "saved" from Castro. (Borjas is a Cuban "exile".)

Here's more information on Peter Brimelow.
NEW ORLEANS -- They came from near and far, gathering inside the ritzy St. Louis Hotel for their 14th annual meeting.

There was Srdja Trifkovic, who says he is a "Byzantine man," not a Renaissance man, and who thinks that total economic collapse would be a good thing for white people. Former bank CEO David Hartman came to say that Social Security and Medicare should be halted so that whites will have more children to take care of them in their old age.

Sam Francis was there, too, comparing non-white immigrants to "foreign colonizers, like space aliens."

And then there was Peter Brimelow. Some might have expected the well-heeled financial commentator, book author and influential nativist intellectual to feel somewhat out of his element at this gathering of the very far right.

But these were very much Brimelow's people.

www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=152

Of course, other economists don't agree with Borjas (or Brimelow).

Yes, Immigration May Lift Wages

By VIRGINIA POSTREL
Published: November 3, 2005
FROM 1990 to 2000, the number of people working in the United States grew by more than nine million, or around 8 percent, from immigration alone. What effect did all those new foreign-born workers have on the wages of native-born Americans?

The answer seems obvious at first. An increase in the supply of workers should push down wages, just as a bumper crop of wheat drives down wheat prices.

That is exactly what some influential economic studies, notably by George J. Borjas at Harvard, have found. In a 2003 article, for instance, Professor Borjas calculated that immigrants had depressed the average wage of American-born workers by about 3 percent in the 1990's.

But workers are not as uniform as wheat, and 10 years is a long time - long enough for employers to invest in new production and take on more workers. The model of surging supply meeting fixed demand is not realistic.

As economists know all too well, changing the assumptions of a model can often change the results. In a new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, two other economists using methodology similar to Professor Borjas's but different assumptions get the opposite result.

In "Rethinking the Gains From Immigration: Theory and Evidence From the U.S.," Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano of the University of Bologna and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis estimate that immigration in the 1990's increased the average wage of American-born workers by 2.7 percent. (The paper is available at www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gperi.)

www.nytimes.com/2005/11/03/business/03scene.html?ex=1149480000&en=fe8c29f6ba4b44b1&ei=5070

(Registration Required)

the next 20 years would result from the Senate's version of the legislation. Where are the politicians who speak for the middle class workers who will suffer huge wage depression? Too busy accepting corporate donations, I suppose.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the biggest financier of the open border cause, as well as the biggest beneficiary. They also contributed heavily to fund the May protests.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the biggest Congressional lobbyist for open borders. They just can't survive without that cheap, illegal labor. CEOs just aren't making enough these days.

:kick: