Edwards on Immigration

My own views on this remain a bit of a work in progress, but I think I agree with John Edwards. It's fascinating that there's been so little pressure on the Democratic candidates to address this issue and so much on the Republicans. It seems to me to be a topic that divides both parties, but where Republicans simply have much stronger feelings than do Democrats.

Meanwhile Kaus notes that near the end of their most recent polling memo (PDF) Carville & Greenberg aren't finding a ton of enthusiasm for the Senate compromise. It should be said, though, that the compromise with a description pulls about even. Without the description, it's horribly unpopular.

Comments

MattY and JE have something else in common, namely they're lightweights on this issue.

JE says he doesn't favor amnesty. However, what he supports will be seen as amnesty around the world, and millions and millions and millions will respond by coming here illegally. Why can't he figure that out? Can he figure that out, but he's just a liar?

And, it's obscene for him to think that learning English is in any way controversial in general, or controversial in the context of the massive increase in legal immigration and continuation of illegal immigration that he supports.

And, here's yet another example of JE lying about this issue: youtube.com/watch?v=jGqxLeD1Qg8

Let me ask again a question I've asked a few times and MattY still hasn't answered, and this time I'll make it even more specific.

Several non-profit orgs have direct or indirect links to the MexicanGovernment, including major ones you've heard of, such as the ACLU and the SPLC. And, those groups invariably have an agenda that's aligned with that of the MexicanGovernment.

Does MattY see a problem with non-profit orgs having some form of link to a foreign government and then (for one reason or another) pushing that government's agenda inside the U.S.?

Won't legalization give those non-profits even more power? Won't they use that to (for one reason or another) continue to push the agenda of that foreign government?

Does MattY see a problem with that? If so, what does he intend to do about it?

Posted by John Edwards, our tool | June 19, 2007 10:31 PM

The most telling part of the Des Moines article you link to, Matt, is when Edwards states--and prefaces it with an acknowledgement many find it "controversial" to say so--that any serious immigration legislation, one that doesn't create a bunch of second-class and which properly puts the penalties on business which flout the law, has also got to include the expectation that immigrants will learn English. The crowd apparently ate that up.

Obviously you can get into all sorts of murky theoretical and even nativist territory when talking about language and politics. But seriously, all most people are looking for is the assurance that the federal government is not going to become a tool for forcing localities to absorb the numerous real costs (both economic and cultural) of a large and legally guaranteed minority language population. This is not a know-nothing argument against bilingualism, now or forever; it's just a reasonable reaction to the reality of overworked schools and social services, in conjunction with an affection for the "melting pot" ideal. Embracing this principle shouldn't be the controversial deal-breaker amongst liberals which Edwards identifies it as. Democratic Kansas Governor Sebelius was willing to take the symbolic act of enshrining the promotion of English into state law, and it's hasn't caused her polls amonst Hispanics to plummet. Other Democrats should take heed.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | June 19, 2007 10:45 PM

Steve Sailer comment in 3...2...

Posted by AP | June 19, 2007 10:48 PM

That the description dramatically changes the picture is very encouraging.

It's too bad the bill's supporters waited so long to deliver good talking points that people can digest. It wasn't until Tony Snow came on a talk show after Reid pulled the bill that I heard anyone say that it constituted the largest spending increase in border security ever proposed. They have failed to get the most important point across though, and that it that we are safer if we know who is here, and that we are better able to inspect and monitor immigrants if we increase legal immigration. It's not a point that requires any kind of intellectual ability to comprehend. When 40 guys run across the border, you can't catch them. If one does, you can. The other 39 will line up and you can at least check their fingerprints and do a background check, ensure they don't have any diseases, and employ sophisticated databases to monitor them, and have them pay for all of this instead of paying for it out of citizens' tax dollars.

Aside from this, the economic benefits of freer labor markets don't seem to be in dispute aside from Borges who is a lone ranger in the economic community. Even his writings state that the net effect of immigration on all American wages is 0, and only a percent or two reduction for the unskilled.

The restrictionists have gotten us into our current mess where millions of immigrants are not permitted to pay taxes, we don't know who is in the country, and the restrictionists want me and other tax payers to give the government even more money for border security than we already do instead of having immigrants pay for it as under the current proposal. Keep them out so we can't afford lawncare and eating out, take more of our money to pay for border security? The logic escapes me.

Posted by Marco Pignone III | June 19, 2007 10:56 PM

It should be said, though, that the compromise with a description pulls about even. Without the description, it's horribly unpopular.

That worked so well for the 1994 Clinton health care plan!

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 19, 2007 10:57 PM

A compromise that should work for everyone...
Every employer is required to pay the minimum wage and provide non-abusive working conditions.
Any illegal alien who turns in an employer for not paying them the minimum wage or for abusive working conditions gets citizenship.
Index the minimum wage to inflation.
Don't mess with anything else. No additional amnesty, etc. Let the 12 million here continue to be here, let employers employ them subject to the current enforcement, etc.
Oh yeah, and this is controversial, make them all learn English.

Posted by Homechef | June 19, 2007 11:00 PM

I really don't get the English thing. I like the Spanish, it's really not that hard to pick up if you are an English speaker. I'm not great with Spanish but if there is an impasse, I've never ran into a situation where the Spanish speaker living in America isn't better able to bridge the divide with English than I am in Spanish.

If you are dialing up some line for something and hear "prensa dos para el español", and you are freaking out you are crazy. I know I live in Chicago, and it's incredibly common to have a Polish line. The Poles have been here since there has been a Chicago, they are illegal in about the same sort of numbers as the Central and South Americans, and no one goes ballistic over them.

I'll go with all the rest, Homechef.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 19, 2007 11:15 PM

_"The restrictionists have gotten us into our current mess where millions of immigrants are not permitted to pay taxes"_

Actually, illegal immigrants _are_ allowed, and even encouraged, to pay taxes w/o serious risk of immigration penalties. They can (and often do) apply for Individual Taxpayer Numbers and then file income tax returns. Often they even receive returns. Tax agents are not allowed to inquire into immigration status. This is all beyond the fact that many illegal immigrants pay SS wage taxes _to other people's accounts_ and of course pay sales taxes and other similar taxes.

Posted by Matt | June 19, 2007 11:25 PM

And, of course, the latter results in the FederalGovernment profiting from IllegalActivity. It doesn't stop with the IRS: the FederalReserve is trying to tap into the flow of money that Mexicans in the U.S. send home, meaning that that agency is profiting from IllegalActivity as well.

But, wait, it doesn't stop there either. The FDIC is even working with the MexicanConsulate in Chicago to give home loans to IllegalAliens.

Perhaps the Feds could go into the drug trade, or perhaps the market in Brazilian garbage workers' kidneys.

All supported by the Democratic leadership, the same MastersOfIrony who tried to give us "Culture of Corruption".

Posted by John Edwards, our tool | June 19, 2007 11:43 PM

The issue is not that employers are paying less than minimum wage. That's the bare, well, minimum. The issue is that since illegal immigrants cause a glut of unskilled labor, there is no market pressure to increase the going wage to a level above minimum wage.

According to the CBO, the average immigrant from Mexico and Central America has 9 years of education. Is it too much to ask that any economic immigrants we take (that is, refugees excepted) have at least a high school education?
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:OpY5PAYJX_IJ:www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm%3Findex%3D6853%26type%3D1+DALLAS+FED+illegal+immigrants+mexican+education+levels+8th+grade&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Posted by beowulf | June 20, 2007 12:43 AM

You know who is really profiting from illegal activity? Police! They just want more crime to make more money!

Posted by Rob | June 20, 2007 12:49 AM

I clicked on the link expecting some fleshed out thoughts on immigration, but no such luck. Perhaps a prominent blogger will ask Edwards some of these questions for clarification at some point:

1) The 1986 immigration bill promised legalization/amnesty to illegal aliens along with border enforcement and employer sanctions for hiring illegals. We got the amnesty, but not the enforcement. Why will this time be different?

2) Unskilled, uneducated immigrants tend to consume more in government services than they pay in taxes. Unlike the storied Ellis Island immigrants, Mexican Americans have tended to stay poor and poorly educated even after a few generations in America. If the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens are legalized and eventually become citizens, we will end up with tens of millions more poor people dependent on government services. What impact will this have on the generous social programs Edwards envisions? Won't tens of millions of new poor people compete with current poor Americans for government resources?

3) On Saturday, Bob Herbert of the NY Times lamented the paucity of job opportunities for inner-city black teens, with only 18% of black teens employed last summer. "It’s an environment that is all but guaranteed to spawn bad choices," said Herbert. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal's Sudeep Reddy reported that teens are competing with illegal immigrants for entry level positions. Question for Edwards: what effect do you expect importing tens of millions of unskilled workers will have on black teens looking for work? What effect will it have on African American adults, for that matter, who currently have an unemployment rate of over 8%?

Posted by Fred | June 20, 2007 1:03 AM

It's fascinating that there's been so little pressure on the Democratic candidates to address this issue and so much on the Republicans.

I'm mystified that you would find this mysterious. The Dems held up their end of the bargain in trying to enact comprehensive reform, the overwhelming majority of the defections having occurred on the GOP side. So we did address the issue, and Dem presidential candidates are free to say they support the President's plan, or some other comprehensive plan that maybe has fewer or no guest workers. And contrary to the vocal anti-immigrant minority, there is simply no percentage in Democrats supporting an enforcement-only plan.

It's time we called the Kaus position of "enforcement first" for what it is: a disgusting lie. The whole idea in the minds of people like Kaus is to set benchmarks that they know never will be met, intend never to be met, so the current masses of undocumented will either stay that way indefinitely, or (the crazier of them hope) the climate will be more favorable for mass deportations. But certainly never, ever to become citizens of this country.

That's, I suppose, fine by itself, but for them to pretend to care about the working class, when they plainly intend that the undocumented will stay that way, undercutting the labor of citizens and legal residents, for the foreseeable future, is just revolting.

Posted by kth | June 20, 2007 1:06 AM

It's not revolting to me. I find it amusing, frankly, when people like Fred pretend to be concerned with the job prospects of black teenagers when they think it might be an appealing argument against immigration.

These people want to do absolutely nothing to enable social mobility in this country, but they consistently whip out the need for social mobility as an argument against immigration, and they wonder why no one takes them seriously.

Posted by Steve | June 20, 2007 1:18 AM

Steve:

What do you propose to do to increase 'social mobility' more than it is decreased by unskilled immigration -- or do you just not care? I find it tough to take soi disant 'progressives' seriously when they don't address this. You folks understand supply and demand, so you know that a greater supply of uneducated, unskilled workers decreases wages for native unskilled workers. You also know that unskilled immigrants consume more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. This has been an established fact for some time:

Because of their much lower average incomes and resulting lower tax payments, coupled with their heavy use of means-tested programs, Mexican immigrants have a significant negative effect on public coffers. Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education level at arrival, the estimated life-time net fiscal drain (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is negative $55,200.

Any rational person would wonder how you can reconcile 'progressive' goals with an immigration policy that exacerbates current social problems, and reduces the amount of government money available for social spending. How can you reduce poverty in America by importing more poor people? It makes no sense.

Posted by Fred | June 20, 2007 1:40 AM

Matt,

The ITNs are very difficult to obtain for most illegals, at least in my area. As per REAL ID, they can't get driver's licenses, and the IRS office wants an original birth certificate, not a notarized one. Many illegals try to get ITNs and simply cannot. When the IRS used to give SSNs to illegals (Before 2000 or so) it was very easy to pay taxes, and many illegals with SSNs continue to pay taxes today. Those who came more recently who cannot obtain ID or ITNs cannot file returns.

By the way, the "stolen" SSNs are usually sold by the citizen who doesn't want to pay taxes. He or she then works under the table and collects social security later because an illegal who purchased his SSN paid his taxes for him. Sometimes the illegal pays back the citizen's school loans. For some reason, the media always refers to these numbers as "stolen." The IRS isn't that sharp, but they do notice if someone files 2 returns and will resolve the discrepancy. These "stolen" numbers that are used year after year were knowingly sold.

People who are permitted to pay taxes usually do, although anyone paid in cash lies about their income, illegal or not. At least they pay some taxes. People who are not permitted to work legally usually do not. The restrictionists who pushed REAL ID have shifted more of the tax burden from illegals to citizens. The simple solution, of course, is to require immigrants to pay their own way, at the door, and reduce our tax rates, instead of having them pay smugglers.

Posted by Marco | June 20, 2007 1:42 AM

HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
I HAS A VAR
IM IN YR LOOP
UP VAR!!1
VISIBLE VAR
IZ VAR BIGGER THAN 10? KTHXBYE
IM OUTTA YR LOOP
KTHXBYE

Posted by ed | June 20, 2007 2:13 AM

What do you propose to do to increase 'social mobility' more than it is decreased by unskilled immigration -- or do you just not care?

Considering you've done nothing to show how unskilled immigration decreases social mobility in any way, there's very little I could propose that wouldn't do more to help the problem. Instead, you've postulated an amazing fantasyland where illegal immigrants are slackers who never get an education or a decent job, even generations down the road, and yet through pure magic these losers manage to hold everyone else back as well.

Picking apples is not anyone's ticket to the middle class. Changing sheets in a hotel is not anyone's ticket to the middle class. Education, which you guys don't want to fund, can help get people there if they want to. Unions, which you guys hate with a white-hot passion, offer a ticket to the middle class. When you can say you support the right to collective bargaining, then you might be able to make a credible case that you actually care about social mobility.

You want to help out these black teenagers? Fine, legalize the underclass and ensure that homegrown Americans are able to compete on a level playing field. How is it that hardworking Americans (not that you believe blacks are hardworking, Fred) keep losing all the jobs to lazy Mexicans? Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with people working below minimum wage and not insisting on overtime or other standard worker's rights. So let's even up that discrepancy, and may the best man win.

Posted by Steve | June 20, 2007 2:27 AM

Actually, the "stolen" SSNs are usually sold by the citizen who doesn't want to pay taxes. He or she then works under the table and collects social security later because an illegal who purchased his SSN paid his taxes for him. Sometimes the illegal pays back the citizen's school loans. For some reason, the media always refers to these numbers as "stolen." The IRS isn't that sharp, but they do notice if someone files 2 returns and will resolve the discrepancy. These "stolen" numbers that are used year after year were knowingly sold.

People who are permitted to pay taxes usually do, although anyone paid in cash lies about their income, illegal or not. At least they pay some taxes. People who are not permitted to work legally usually do not. The restrictionists who pushed REAL ID have shifted more of the tax burden from illegals to citizens. The simple solution, of course, is to require immigrants to pay their own way, at the door, and reduce our tax rates, instead of having them pay smugglers.

Posted by The Old Man | June 20, 2007 3:49 AM

Steve:

"Considering you've done nothing to show how unskilled immigration decreases social mobility in any way..."

I've pointed out that unskilled immigration decreases the wages of native unskilled workers; if you don't consider that an example of decreasing social mobility, perhaps you need to better define that term, or scrap it.

"Instead, you've postulated an amazing fantasyland where illegal immigrants are slackers"

There's a fat straw man. When did I call illegals "slackers" or say that they weren't hard workers?

"who never get an education or a decent job, even generations down the road,"

Actually, what I wrote was: "Unlike the storied Ellis Island immigrants, Mexican Americans have tended to stay poor and poorly educated even after a few generations in America." This is supported by census and other data. See, for example, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington's article "The Hispanic Challenge" in Foreign Policy where he notes that, by 1990, 41% of fourth generation Mexican-Americans had not graduated from high school, and only 10.7% of fourth generation Mexican Americans were earning more than $50,000 per year (compared to 24.8% of non-Mexican Americans).

"and yet through pure magic these losers manage to hold everyone else back as well."

Why use the pejorative term "losers"? The argument against unskilled immigrants isn't that they "hold everyone else back" -- of course they don't. They just hold back unskilled Americans and the working poor, by competing with them for jobs and exerting downward pressure on their wages. Unskilled immigrants won't hold back Dalton- and Harvard-educated liberal bloggers, because they don't have the skills to compete for those jobs.

"Changing sheets in a hotel is not anyone's ticket to the middle class."

Even entry-level jobs can be the first rung on the economic ladder for disadvantaged youths. From the the Bob Herbert column I linked to above:

A steady job could make all the difference. Along with the paycheck comes a sense of the possibilities. Kids develop a clearer understanding of the value of education and are more likely to stay in school. The heightened sense of self-worth that comes from gainful employment can be a bulwark against negative peer pressure. Contacts are made and a work history established.

“The more you work today, the more you’re going to work tomorrow,” said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies. “And the more you work while you’re in school, the easier it is to transition to the labor market when you graduate.”

"Unions... offer a ticket to the middle class."

Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union is arguably the savviest union leader in America, but it would be a stretch to claim that unions like his offer "a ticket to the middle class": he recently negotiated a contract for Houston janitors that boosted their pay to... wait for it... $7.75.

"How is it that hardworking Americans (not that you believe blacks are hardworking, Fred)"

Projecting much, Steve?

"keep losing all the jobs to lazy Mexicans?"

Why are you calling Mexicans lazy? How many straw men can you fit in one post?

"Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with people working below minimum wage"

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Posted by Fred | June 20, 2007 4:44 AM

Fred,

You ignore that on the Supply and Demand curve, both curves can move. You can't just move the supply curve, note the lower wages, and be done with your analysis. When it comes to labor, the increase in the supply itself causes the demand curve to shift. People aren't like apples. They demand goods and services.

Also, your studies regarding Mexican Americans fail to note the improvement in education and earnings from one generation to the next. Regardless, have you bothered to ask whether such studies have controlled for immigration status? Don't you think that mighth have a significant effect on educational attainment and potential earnings? Illegals can't get student loans, and few colleges will accept them. That makes it much less likely that they or their offspring will become investment bankers given the correlation between one's educational attainment and that of one's parents.

Marco

Posted by Marco | June 20, 2007 6:34 AM

Marco,

I don't doubt that ITNs are hard to get for many illegal immigrants (but you don't need, or should not need, a REAL ID to get one.) My point was only that the claim that illegal immigrants cannot pay taxes is false. And it's surely a minority of stolen SSNs that are explicitly sold by people who want to work for cash. There are large criminal ID theft rings who steal the majority of them. Obviously this isn't a good thing (nor is your senario, though it's a clear minority case) but again, my only point was that the claim that illegal immigrants do not or cannot pay taxes is flatly false.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | June 20, 2007 7:14 AM

Matt has unwittingly nailed it. To a Republican, every proposal comes "without the description". And stays that way, no matter how often you try to explain it. They just stare at you blankly, like a cat studying a doorknob.

As Fred has so often demonstrated here.

Posted by serial catowner | June 20, 2007 8:03 AM

It's pretty obvious that some people here want this bill, and don't give a damn how flawed it is. They are the people like steve, calling people racist (and hiding behind a thin veil of deniability), they don't want a real debate. They don't want to take the views of others into consideration. They want what they want, and they don't give a damned about how it will impact anyone else.

It doesn't matter why Fred mentions the fact that this will hurt employment among the black youth, all that matters is that it will. It will also break the backs of those unions some claim are the ticket to a middle class lifestyle. Exactly how do you expect unions to survive the importation of workers who aren't allowed to unionize? If you think that number will stay at 200,000 once the guest worker program is out of the spotlight, you're kidding yourself. Business interests will lobby endlessly to get that figure bumped up to 1,000,000 or more.

In the end, it's really not possible to argue that a nation with no labor shortage needs to import workers. That's the truth of it, we have no shortage of labor. What we have is an unwillingness among employers to raise wages. This is the flaw of economic theory, it is not based on natural law and as such it's principles are not real. They require human choices to be made, and humans do not make rational choices. They make emotionally appealing choices. Like skimming profits and keeping wages low. That's how we get endless advances in productivity but we never receive the wage increases that economists claim should follow naturally from productivity increases.

Posted by soullite | June 20, 2007 8:12 AM

Re "It's fascinating that there's been so little pressure on the Democratic candidates to address this issue and so much on the Republicans "
-----------
It not a puzzle at all -- it's the well-known reality distortion shield whereby Democratic leaders screw the common citizen like a dog while loudly proclaiming they are the champions of that same citizen. And the news media largely goes along with the hoax.

The Republicans have never made any pretense of being anything other than whores for the rich. What's hilarious is the ease with which they can constantly show that the difference between themselves and the Democratic leadership is ..uh..
not so much.

Posted by Don Williams | June 20, 2007 8:39 AM

They are the people like steve, calling people racist (and hiding behind a thin veil of deniability), they don't want a real debate.

Fred has posted on this very site that he thinks blacks and hispanics have a different, inferior work ethic than everybody else. I guess whether that's racist is in the eye of the beholder, but I do not apologize for thinking his primary motivation in this thread is something other than concern for the job prospects of black teenagers.

Consider Fred's 4:44am post, where he makes the following three claims:

1) Mexican immigrants are taking away unskilled labor jobs from blacks and other low-income Americans;

2) These jobs are important, because they can be "the first rung on the economic ladder";

3) Yet Mexicans, even after several generations, remain poor and uneducated.

Does anyone not see the shoddy logic at work here? Unskilled labor jobs are a source of great opportunity, unless you're a Mexican, apparently. Fred suggests that Mexicans simply aren't as good at seizing those opportunities as non-Mexicans, and therefore we should overrule the free market which assigns those jobs to Mexicans, and make sure those jobs go to someone else.

The fact is that the working poor of all races simply have fewer opportunities at social mobility in today's America. The beauty of adopting Fred's worldview is that everyone else gets to blame the Mexicans - after all, if black teenagers could get some of those entry-level jobs that go to Mexicans, blacks as a whole would be so much better off! The only losers in this blame game are the Mexicans, because they have no one else to attribute their own lack of advancement to.

Posted by Steve | June 20, 2007 9:06 AM

I'll tell you why this Democrat doesn't have strong feelings about it... I don't understand the urgency. In some ways, this whole debate reminds me of the run-up to Iraq (obviously, it's not the same thing in significant other ways), in that suddenly this is proclaimed to be a matter of the utmost urgency -- we must pass a bill NOW!!!! -- and I don't see it. Yes, the current state is a problem, but it's been a problem for years, so while I'd like to see it fixed, I can wait for a better bill, from a more Democratic Congress (and, hopefully, a Dem president). The only urgency I see is Bush's need to get a legislative victory, and pardon me if I don't get excited about that agenda. What baffles me is why any Dems are.

Posted by Glenn | June 20, 2007 9:18 AM

Re "I don't understand the urgency. In some ways, this whole debate reminds me of the run-up to Iraq (obviously, it's not the same thing in significant other ways), in that suddenly this is proclaimed to be a matter of the utmost urgency -- we must pass a bill NOW!!!! -- and I don't see it. "
-----------

1) That's because you're looking at it in terms of the national interest -- instead of the PERSONAL SELF-INTEREST of political leaders.

2) Democratic politicians receive a lot of their campaign financing from billionaires who are also strong supporters of Israel. People like Haim Saban, the Israeli billionaire , whose think tank at Brookings was putting out all those books and OpEds in 2002 warning us that Saddam was trying to build a nuclear bomb, that Saddam might be close to success, and that we need to take him out NOW.

3) Haim gave the current agenda of the Israel Lobby in his recent Haaretz interview:
a) the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran to Israel must be scotched NOW.
b) George Bush has been the strongest supporter Israel has ever had, but he has lost all political capital and can do nothing. A Republican President in 2009 won't be able to do anything with a Democratic Congress.
c) By contrast, Hillary will be "good for Israel" and will deal with Iran

4) So how can the billionaires use their money to install Hillary? Well, they need to go with an expensive TV-based propaganda campaign in urban areas.

They need to pander to the Hispanic Lobby which are swing voters in those areas -- in New York City, California , Florida, Texas.

That way they can exert the full force of their money while ensuring it will be too expensive for anyone to challenge their agenda.

5) Hence, Haim Saban recently bought Univision -- the Spanish TV network that is not only the largest Spanish network in the USA but is huge -- it is the 5th largest TV network in the USA.

Hence, the primary focus of Haim's dependents within the Democratic Congress has become a driving need to make 12 million illegal immigrants from Mexico into US citizens.

Posted by Don Williams | June 20, 2007 10:09 AM

Note that the entire debate re whether the immigration bill is in the National Interest misses the entire point:

Mr National Interest doesn't give shit to Democratic members of Congress.

Nor do all those unemployed Afro-Americans.
Nor do all those blue-collar workers.

So fuck them.

Of course, those Afro-Americans and blue-collar workers are the people who actually fight this country's wars. They are the ones who serve in the Army and Marine Corps combat units.

So they will be the ones to die in Iran --just as they have been the ones to die in the Israel Lobby's war in Iraq.

Welcome to "democracy".

Posted by Don Williams | June 20, 2007 10:16 AM

Don Williams -

"Of course, those Afro-Americans and blue-collar workers are the people who actually fight this country's wars. They are the ones who serve in the Army and Marine Corps combat units."

Army and Marine Corps combat units are mostly comprised of suburban and rural whites.

Posted by Harry | June 20, 2007 12:04 PM

Marco:

"You ignore that on the Supply and Demand curve, both curves can move. You can't just move the supply curve, note the lower wages, and be done with your analysis. When it comes to labor, the increase in the supply itself causes the demand curve to shift. People aren't like apples. They demand goods and services."

What are you trying to say here: that it's OK if unskilled immigrants lower the wages of native unskilled workers because those unskilled immigrants will increase demand for goods and services? What is the salutary economic effect from this that you are groping towards that would make unskilled immigration a boon for native unskilled workers?

"Also, your studies regarding Mexican Americans fail to note the improvement in education and earnings from one generation to the next."

Fail to note? You didn't look at this study I linked to above. Take 30 seconds to fill out the free registration, and then look at the sidebar on page 10 (might be p. 9 in PDF format). See the "Education" and "Economic Status" sections, which break down achievement in these areas across four generations of Mexican-Americans.

"Regardless, have you bothered to ask whether such studies have controlled for immigration status?"

Reading comprehension is a skill you should work on. I referred specifically to fourth generation Mexican Americans. These, by definition, are American citizens -- as were their parents and grand parents.

Posted by Fred | June 20, 2007 12:25 PM

Steve:

I'm going to ignore most of the spurious accusations and innuendo that you used as a substitute for argument above and ask a question in response to this statement of yours:

"The fact is that the working poor of all races simply have fewer opportunities at social mobility in today's America."

How will importing tens of millions more poor, unskilled immigrants help working poor Americans?

Posted by Fred | June 20, 2007 12:45 PM

RE "Army and Marine Corps combat units are mostly comprised of suburban and rural whites."
--------
a) I had referred to blue-collar workers as making up a large chunk of the Army's combat units. That includes whites.
b) Whites make up the bulk of the Army because we are the largest population unit --roughly 66% I believe.
c) 21 % of Army enlisted personnel are Afro-American -- which is well above their percentage of US population.

I'm going to do something so ..bizarre.. that it makes my head hurt. I'm going to cite an article by someone named Steve Sailor:

http://www.daveyd.com/polarticlesoldiersblack.html

Posted by Don Williams | June 20, 2007 1:12 PM

Fred: Your questions can and would be answered with politicians stock speeches. Mine are designed to both make them answer the question and also be able to be asked very quickly, i.e. in pressure situations not long drawn out chats.

Rob: There have been cases where PDs have gone after people in order to get their stuff, which they (legally) sell off to make money.

For more examples of corruption, see this page:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/DemocraticParty

Posted by John Edwards, our tool | June 20, 2007 1:43 PM

Matt (not the famous one),

Your point is well taken. I was wrong to state that illegals are "not permitted" to pay taxes, but it is also flatly false that they are necessarily able to do so. Frequently, they are not, and in at least certain communities, they are usually not due to documentation requirements. The IRS website gives the impression that the requirements are very lax, while that is not the case at my local office. As I stated, my local IRS office will not provide ITNs to many persons, including, but not limited to, Chinese illegals who have only notarized birth certificates as ID. If you look on the IRSs website you will see a list of ID documents they claim to accept, including "civil birth certificates" and drivers licenses. They cannot get drivers licenses in my state, and the IRS wants their original birth certificate, which almost none have.

Regardless, as I stated, our laws are obviously not designed to promote immigrants paying their own way, and there are clear disincentives for their doing so. The refusal to provide legal status is a major disincentive. Persons who are told they will be deported if caught are not likely to want to invest in this country. If they are told they will get to stay legally, they are likely to increase their investment in their community in tax dollars, education or training that will increase their long term earnings potential, including English language skills. Restrictionists have created disincentives for the very behaviors they claim to desire in our immigrant populations, namely paying their own way and learning English.

I could be wrong that most SSNs are sold knowingly, but I know that many are, as I know illegals who who purchased such numbers. I made the point because I have never seen that stated in the media, despite that it is well known among those who have discussed the issue with illegals. While I'm not happy about SSNs being stolen, as long as they are used to decrease my share of the country's tax revenue, I don't see how anyone is harmed.

Posted by Marco | June 20, 2007 2:09 PM

Illegal aliens who do file taxes with ITNs cost us more money than those who don't file taxes. Taxes are withheld from their wages in most cases anyway; filing just gets them access to refunds and government grants like the EITC. In most cases, those who qualify for the EITC have a negative effective tax rate.

Posted by Harry | June 20, 2007 3:59 PM

Fred,

You're missing the point. I'm not an economist, but I'll do my best. Unlike a supply and demand curve where the quantity side represents a good, when you are talking about a labor market, you are dealing with quantity of workers. They are people, not goods, and the shifting of the supply curve AUTOMATICALLY shifts the demand curve because people demand goods and services. My macroeconomics professor always referred to the "widget" market in his supply and demand curves. The labor market is very different as the persons constituting the shift in the labor supply themselves cause the demand curve to IMMEDIATELY shift in conjunction. Unlike goods, people need things to survive and want things to enjoy while they do survive. Also, to the extent that the capital market has not yet responded to the higher level of supply and demand in the labor market (and there is much evidence that the capital markets respond very quickly... see Mariel Cuban and Russian Israeli studies, sorry no time to provide specific cites right now), investment in labor intensive activities increases until the market reaches equilibrium.

Further, you cannot assume that unskilled immigrants necessarily compete with unskilled Americans for jobs. Actually, a relatively small number of them do in my experience, and whether I am right that the number is "relatively small" or not, it is entirely obvious that many such immigrants do not compete at all. They produce completely different goods and provide completely different services, and where that is the case, the supply curve doesn't budge. The unskilled Chinese, by and large, operate Chinese restaurants. As their numbers increased, the number of Chinese restaurants increased proportionately. Very few compete for the kind of restaurant jobs Americans tend to be employed in. American citizens rarely open Chinese restaurants or apply for jobs in Chinese restaurants. Thus, the entire supply and demand analysis is irrelevant to the extent that immigrants' skills are "complementary" to those of Americans. The Vietnamese immigrants dramatically increased the number of nail salons, for another example. The created their own jobs rather than competing for jobs that Americans previously held.

The shifting of the demand curve, the concept of complementariness, and comparative advantage, explain why the U.S., a country with consistently high levels of immigration for a couple hundred years has the world's highest median income per capita.

Regarding assimilation of Mexican Americans, you are ignoring that these studies do not control for immigration status, as I said. I know that the fourth generation are Americans. However, most Mexican immigrants have been illegal, and as stated in my previous post, illegal status creates disincentives to invest in education and English language skills. The children of illegal immigrants are at a severe disadvantage given these factors as there is a correlation between the educational attainment of parents and their children. There is clearly an effect on educational attainment of subsequent generations that cannot be dismissed. It doesn't vanish from the illegal generation to the family's first generation of citizens. Each generation affects each subsequent generation to some extent, and while some children of illegals end up at Ivy League schools, the children of legal immigrants would seem at a considerable advantage to their counterparts with illegal parents. Regardless, each generation of Mexican-Americans receives approximately two more years of education, on average, than the last from what I have read. Not ideal given the very low educational levels of the average illegal, but the improvement cannot be ignored. I would be willing to wager that that number would be even higher if you allowed the immigrant generation to apply for legal status upon their arrival in the U.S. as was the case when my grandfather arrived from Italy at the turn of the century.

Posted by Marco | June 20, 2007 4:31 PM

What's good for Taco Bell is good for the country.

Posted by Don Williams | June 20, 2007 4:46 PM

I'm going to ignore most of the spurious accusations and innuendo that you used as a substitute for argument above...

Are you actually denying that you said blacks and hispanics have a different work ethic from the rest of us? Come on, say it. Deny you ever wrote it, so you can be exposed as a liar as well as a racist.

How will importing tens of millions more poor, unskilled immigrants help working poor Americans?

I never said it would help. The evidence suggests that it wouldn't particularly hurt, that the effect of immigration on domestic wages is miniscule. Immigrants are simply a convenient scapegoat for Republicans who don't want to do anything real to help the working poor.

Posted by Steve | June 20, 2007 5:26 PM

"Are you actually denying that you said blacks and hispanics have a different work ethic from the rest of us? Come on, say it. Deny you ever wrote it, so you can be exposed as a liar as well as a racist."

Show me what comment of mine you find racist offensive and I'll be happy to respond to it.

"I never said it would help."

So then why do it? Especially since any new social spending you might favor to help poor Americans would be diluted if it needs to be spent on tens of millions of new poor immigrants.

Posted by Fred | June 20, 2007 5:52 PM

Harry,

I don't think persons with ITNs can get the EITC, but I could be wrong. I think you have to have legal status.

Regardless, detrimental entitlement programs are our fault. While it should be considered that many immigrants descendants are more likely to constitute a net benefit in economic terms, I agree with restrictionists on one point, and that is that immigrants should be required to pay their own way like they used to. This would be an easy fix of course. It's not a legitimate argument against increased immigration. It is an argument for entitlement reform.

Posted by Marco | June 20, 2007 5:56 PM