Immigration and Wages

Via Tyler Cowen, new research from Ottaviano and Peri:

Using our estimates and Census data we find that immigration (1990-2006) had small negative effects in the short run on native workers with no high school degree (-0.7%) and on average wages (-0.4%) while it had small positive effects on native workers with no high school degree (+0.3%) and on average native wages (+0.6%) in the long run. These results are perfectly in line with the estimated aggregate elasticities in the labor literature since Katz and Murphy (1992). We also find a wage effect of new immigrants on previous immigrants in the order of negative 6%.

When you take into account the fact that immigration is beneficial to the immigrants and to the recipients of their remittances, and that cracking down effectively on illegal immigration would entail large direct costs, this makes the case for a crack-down look extremely un-compelling. You're talking about very small short-term losses that are offset by very small long-term gains.

Comments

Recently there was an article demonstrating that neighborhoods with large immigrant populations had much less crime than others. Maybe it was even brought up here. Bring on the immigrants!

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 24, 2008 3:24 PM

Yes, bring on the immigrants. I for one welcome the day when the US has a population approaching that of India and China. A billion Americans by century's end? I say why not!

Posted by Rob Mac | July 24, 2008 4:01 PM

I for one welcome the day when the US has a population approaching that of India and China. A billion Americans by century's end? I say why not!

Although a billion Americans by century's end is not very likely (that's the highest of the high end estimates), I fail to see why anybody would trust the government to shoot for a particular future limit, and attain it. I mean, most Americans enjoyed immeasurably higher living standards in 2000 than in 1900, but I'm sure shouts of "300 million Americans by century's end!" must have sounded pretty scary to my great grandfather's generation.

Most of the world's rich people live in very densely populated countries; it's difficult to make a case that says density equals poverty, much less do so with any degree of precision. You can't even credibly make a case that densely populated countries lack areas of great natural beauty. England, Germany and The Netherlands offer some of the loveliest countryside on the planet. I think we should enact strict environmental policies, anti-sprawl/pro-density policies, and then chill out about the population densities faced by our elderly grandchildren.

Posted by Jasper | July 24, 2008 4:16 PM

FROM: http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/BearsLairHome

"Since the majority of location-dependent jobs in Western countries are low-skill it therefore follows that if governments wish to protect local living standards, they need to discourage low-skill immigration. Except in Japan, they have not been doing so; both in the EU and the United States low-skill immigration, frequently illegal immigration, has got completely out of control and is immiserating the working classes. The Economist and the Wall Street Journal calling for looser immigration laws are like Reform Bill-era Whig grandees calling for the workhouse; their urgings are theoretically driven by aristocratic concern for the poor, but in practice betray a complete lack of understanding of what the poor actually want and need."

Immigration was low during the New Deal era, and highest during the eras of Republican rule from the civil war up to the depression, and from the late 60s till now. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by kafka | July 24, 2008 4:39 PM

Ottaviano & Peri's work contains an assumption that any Progressive should find troubling. Their estimates of a long-term positive effect on wages relies on their assumption that natives & immigrants are not perfect substitutes in the labor market. In plain language, that means they are assuming the existence of a largely unassimilated underclass of immigrants _over_the_long_term_. This is the opposite of a progressive outcome. Once you take away this assumption, even Ottaviano & Peri find a long-term negative effect on the wages of the unskilled.

Furthermore, Ottaviano & Peri are focused on _all_ immigration, including foreign PhDs like themselves. This isn't what most people are concerned about. If you confine the analysis to the unskilled, non-high school, poor english immigrants that are the source of controversy, the estimates of negative wage effects would be larger still.

Finally, given your other recent post on the intractable problem of concentrated poverty on educational achievement, do we really want to import more impoverished high school drop-outs?

Posted by DCreader | July 24, 2008 4:46 PM

...low-skill immigration, frequently illegal immigration, has got completely out of control and is immiserating the working classes.

As numerous studies much like the one Matthew links to have demonstrated, this assertion is simply false. The downward pressure on the wages of the unskilled exerted by the immigration of the unskilled has only a modest impact on wages. This is obvious when you think about it, because otherwise we'd all be a lot poorer than our ancestors in 1607.

Posted by Jasper | July 24, 2008 4:54 PM

In plain language, that means they are assuming the existence of a largely unassimilated underclass of immigrants _over_the_long_term_.

You seem to be assuming that the unassimilated underclass of today stays unassimilated, which is absolutely not the case. The paper may assume that there will always be immigrants who fit that description, but it's perfectly reasonable to think they are always *recent* immigrants, who become assimilated at a reasonably quick rate.

Posted by Mike | July 24, 2008 4:59 PM

Apparently no one else here is a subscriber to Atlantic Premium. In that service, MattY spend more than a few seconds on his posts and he actually thinks things through.

For instance, in AP, MattY finishes the post by noting that there are massive hidden costs to IllegalAliens sending money home.

In the Premium version of this post, MattY discusses how that money flow leads to massive PrivateAndPublicCorruption. In the Premium version, MattY realizes that IllegalImmigration - once *all* the costs are considered - is extremely expensive.

Click my name's link and look through my archives to find out all the other things that MattY would mention in Atlantic Premium, if it existed.

Posted by Click here to find out what's really going on | July 24, 2008 5:59 PM

Apparently no one else here is a subscriber to Atlantic Premium. In that service, MattY spend more than a few seconds on his posts and he actually thinks things through.

What the fuck?!??! Does he spell-check there, too?

Posted by scythia | July 24, 2008 6:19 PM

When you take into account the fact that immigration is beneficial to the immigrants and to the recipients of their remittances

As a citizen and resident of the US, there's no rationale to take this into account, especially since remittances are a drain on the US economy.

Otherwise, the Ottaviano and Peri analysis shows that our current immigration treads really screws other immigrants, and moderately screws poor working Americans. But, that's OK because I can get cheap help to landscape my yard. Did I miss something?

Posted by cmholm | July 24, 2008 6:47 PM

Dude, it's Orange Line Special! He's a regular troll on reason.com. You can tell because of his weird wiki-speak, using capitalization instead of spacing (ie, "IllegalImmigration" or "PrivateAndPublicCorruption").

It's just so nice to see that libertarians and liberals are so close that now we're sharing racist trolls, too. Brings a tear to the eye.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | July 24, 2008 6:58 PM

Shorter cmholm: if you're born somewhere else, sucks for you!

Speaker of sharing commenters with reason.com, I read there, but don't comment much, so I know the cast of characters. There was a "joe from Lowell" who commented here about some urban development related thing, and I think it was our beloved resident liberal "joe" from Hit & Run.

Posted by too many steves | July 24, 2008 7:10 PM

In order to get a better idea of the seamy network that MattY supports, look into one of the major companies that profits when IllegalAliens send money that was earned illegally home. They're so bad that even the NYT came close to doing an expose on them.

That company has used a portion of their profits to get involved in politics, such as by opposing at least one candidate who supports our laws (TomTancredo). In other words, they took some of the profits from indirect illegal activity, and used it to oppose a candidate who opposes that illegal activity. That should disturb anyone who opposes PoliticalCorruption, but apparently that doesn't include MattY.

A group to which they'd previously donated money also sued an AZ AG who was trying to prevent MoneyLaundering. That group - in addition to being linked to the company - is headed by someone linked to the MexicanGovernment. But, wait, there's more: even some bloggers are linked to that group.

Why would MattY support all of the above? Is he highly tolerant of illegal activity and PoliticalCorruption? Is he just ignorant? Is he just a party hack doing what he's told? I'll leave it up to the reader to decide.

Posted by TLB | July 24, 2008 8:02 PM

Mike said:
"You seem to be assuming that the unassimilated underclass of today stays unassimilated, which is absolutely not the case. The paper may assume that there will always be immigrants who fit that description, but it's perfectly reasonable to think they are always *recent* immigrants, who become assimilated at a reasonably quick rate."

Mike, I'm assuming nothing. The paper assumes that a given cohort of immigrants stay unassimilated over the long term. So for the rest of their working lives (30 years?) they represent an unassimilated underclass. The faster they assimilate they bigger their downward pressure on native wages. What a choice...

Posted by DCreader | July 24, 2008 9:24 PM

Here's yet another thing MattY is supporting: the Bush admin helping banks make money from funds that were earned illegally.

But, wait, there's even more! MattY is also supporting the FederalReserve taking a taste.

When you strip away all the studies and posts from hacks, it all boils down to one thing: earning money from illegal activity.

Posted by TLB | July 25, 2008 12:01 AM

You know what's funny, TLB. Once upon a time I was a union carpenter working in a pre-fab shop as a truss builder. I watched the union fold and the race to the bottom that happened when we had to compete with an illegal workforce working for piecerate. Those bastards are running from spot to spot and if they fall and shoot the other one in the head with a nail gun or they are moving too fast and throw a switch on a roller where their co-worker gets caught in the works and torn in half that's just part of the day.

I don't buy for a second that having a captive, semi-slave, illegal workforce is good for them, for me, or anyone else but some slimy housing contractor.

But I still can't bring myself to want to say anything because you are so loathesome. Congrats on your PR work.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2008 12:18 AM

"But I still can't bring myself to want to say anything because you are so loathsome. Congrats on your PR work."

Ed Marshall, if it wasn't for TLB (among others) then the commenters here would likely call *you* loathsome for your preceding 2 paragraphs. Instead you were able to triangulate off of TLB by calling him loathsome and you will thus probably keep your cred here as a good liberal.

Posted by scottynx | July 25, 2008 1:06 AM

Isn't it funny how Ottaviano and Peri always find that immigration is great, and Borjas always finds that it isn't? Maybe somebody's a little bit biased, and if you jump to a conclusion about which one is biased and you haven't read their papers (and, having tried to read some of Ottaviano and Peri's papers, I'd be surprised if more than 10 people in the world have really read and understood them), then maybe you're a little biased yourself.

Posted by c23 | July 25, 2008 10:19 AM

It's disgusting how latte liberals never consider the specific effect of illegal immigration on African-Americans. As Carol Swain at Vanderbuilt persuasively has argued, whites are more likely to swap African-AMericans out of jobs than white working poor.

Regardless Matt, let's take this study with the dubious assumptions at face value. A .6% wage cut for the working poor -- NICE! Sure, that's trivial, they won't miss it, and damn it, I need to save a quarter on my produce.

Posted by Jake Hewitt | July 25, 2008 10:30 AM

Nobody on the right is advocating deportation. Just simple verification of new-hires would stop and reverse most immigration flow. It would also have the effect of locking most illegals at their current jobs. This is a nice compromise between mass deportation and mass amnesty, neither of which is popular.

Posted by bjk | July 25, 2008 10:45 AM

Locking people in their current jobs, awesome! It's not like the freedom to leave your job if you hate it and get a different one is an essential human right or anything. If you have a job that you're not allowed to leave, it's, what, indentured servitude? But hey, they weren't born here, sucks for them!

Posted by too many steves | July 25, 2008 11:43 AM

I really dislike responding to "too many steves", and if MattY wrote better quality posts I wouldn't have to.

However, obviously, those IllegalAliens who are "locked into jobs" have a very easy out: go back to their home countries. If legal workers - in this or other countries - are "locked in", then the left can complain about that from a stronger position than trying to complain about those who break our laws finding the impact inconvenient for them.

"too many steves" should have been able to figure that out for himself, but I guess that's too difficult. And, if MattY had written a post that was intellectually honest, comments like that probably would not have occured.

Posted by TLB | July 25, 2008 12:32 PM

Looks like I'm getting under somebody's (very white) skin. Maybe someday I'll get there with Sailor, too.

Posted by too many steves | July 25, 2008 12:40 PM

"As a citizen and resident of the US, there's no rationale to take this into account, especially since remittances are a drain on the US economy."

Illegal Mexican immigration is driven by Mexican poverty, especially rural poverty that has been worsened since NAFTA let us dump subsidized agricultural goods on the Mexican market. Remittances help to reduce poverty in countries like Mexico. Picture a man's extended family with an elderly mother and father, a wife, two children and two younger brothers. Now picture this man coming to the US (for this example, it doesn't matter if he's legal or illegal). He works in the US and sends money back home. Without remittances, there would be a greater chance that those brothers and maybe his older child would come here as well. Remittances are also a big reason why countries like Ghana have found recent economic success.

"It's disgusting how latte liberals never consider the specific effect of illegal immigration on African-Americans."

What's interesting is that African-Americans actually continue to have rather positive views of Mexicans and illegal immigrants compared to whites.

People are pretending that some simple policy changes, like asking for an ID, will easily end high rates of immigration. When Maoist China required employers to verify that their employees were locals (workers could only live and work in their hometown), this created a large black market for forged documents that workers and employers would buy up. What drives Mexican immigration to the US is the fact that the American-Mexican border has the biggest median wage gap in the world. As long as Americans are so much richer than Mexicans and we continue to destroy Mexico's rural economy, Mexicans will come here by any means possible. If you really want to lower Mexican immigration, help Mexico become rich. We could start by ending our agricultural subsidies.

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2008 12:55 PM

Reality Man writes: Remittances help to reduce poverty in countries like Mexico.

Yes, in the same way that subsisting on candy reduces hunger.

As long as Americans are so much richer than Mexicans and we continue to destroy Mexico's rural economy, Mexicans will come here by any means possible.

They won't come here if they can't find work. And, they won't be able to find work if we discredit those politicians, pundits, bloggers, and others who support allowing them to work. So - just as a wild example - if MattY is forced to choose between supporting illegal activity and his career, I'm going to guess that he's going to choose the latter and he isn't going to provide the cover for politicians who support illegal activity (like BHO). We simply move that up the chain, from MattY to people like DavidBrooks and to politicians.

And, Reality Man is trying to sell the left on the extremely bad policy of making things worse for all concerned rather than developing the workable solution of discouraging supposed bad U.S. behavior against LatinAmerica and encouraging those in LatinAmerica to fix their own countries.

I don't know whether Reality Man is a pro or an amateur like me, but he certainly writes like a paid shill. Do you work for someone, Reality Man? Are you someone we know by another name?

Posted by TLB | July 25, 2008 1:17 PM

"They won't come here if they can't find work. And, they won't be able to find work if we discredit those politicians, pundits, bloggers, and others who support allowing them to work."

And if I had gills, I would be a fish. Conservatives for years rightly pointed out the fact that over-regulation just perverts incentives and leads to black markets. When it comes to immigration, they forget their own lessons.

"I don't know whether Reality Man is a pro or an amateur like me, but he certainly writes like a paid shill. Do you work for someone, Reality Man? Are you someone we know by another name?

Posted by TLB | July 25, 2008 1:17 PM"

I'm in my early 20's and have been teaching English in Asia, so I guess I've been working for... TehMongolHordesOhNoes!!!!11!1 What is it like to live your entire life based on paranoia?

"And, Reality Man is trying to sell the left on the extremely bad policy of making things worse for all concerned rather than developing the workable solution of discouraging supposed bad U.S. behavior against LatinAmerica and encouraging those in LatinAmerica to fix their own countries."

False dichotomy. Understanding how black markets work is not "making things worse for all" but just recognizing reality, which you have never done. Ending our destructive agricultural subsidies would be good for Americans (it would get high-fructose corn syrup out of everything by driving up the price of it relative to sugar) and good for the world including Latin America and wouldn't mean that Latin American counties could not or would not reform as well.

Meanwhile, you don't even understand the reality of how spacing works in the English language. You can only criticize people for not speaking English when you can figure out how to write it like someone who isn't a mental patient. Are you a mental patient Kelly? You sure sound like one. Are also still a virgin? I wouldn't be surprised. Speculation is fun!

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2008 1:38 PM

This is sloppy economics. Even if you buy into the P/O model, the economics of low skill immigration are dismal. P/O don't even try to take into account the negative externalities associated with low-skill immigration. There are any number of issues.

1. Crime - Contrary to various claims, illegal immigrants are a very high crime group. Roughly 10% of the U.S. jail population is illegal (according to the GAO). Since illegals are only 4% of the population, they are a large net crime burden. Don't believe me? Ask the family that was wiped out by an MS-13 killer in San Francisco a few days ago.

2. Taxes - The Heritage foundation has studied the tax costs illegal immigration. Each low skill immigrant household pays around $10,000 in taxes and consumes around $30,000 in public services. That's a net $20,000 loss to the American people. Here is an amazing fact. The average low-skill immigrant household consumees more in public services than it earns... (average earnings are below taxpayer funded services consumed).

3. Wages - If you actually read the P/O papers, you will find that they shows huge empirical wage losses for workers (native and immigrant) in Caifornia and elsewhere (correctly). However, these wages losses are simply a "magical" phenomina happening for some other reason. The P/O model also predicts that California should have higher than national wages (because of immigration) and natives should be moving to California to take advtange of the complementary workers (low-skill immigrants). Both conclusions are exactly wrong. Natives are fleeing California and wages are rock bottom (far below other states).

4. Contrary to P/O, immigrants are massively displacing American workers in the labor force. This is an empirical (reality based) conclusion. Take a look at Grogger, Hanson, and Borjas who wrote “Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks”

The abstract tells the story

“The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skill black men, fell precipitously from 1960 to 2000. At the same time, the incarceration rate of black men rose markedly. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in black employment and incarceration. Using data drawn from the 1960-2000 U.S. Censuses, we find a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates. As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point.”

Now some of you may argue that these folks are on the right. However, some folks on the left have an even more devastating paper out. Take a look at Sum, McLaughlin, Khatiwada, and Palma who wrote “The Nation’s Temporary Guest Worker Program, the New Immigrant Workforce, and The Steep Deterioration in the Nation’s Youth Labor Markets”. A few quotes tell the story

“America’s teen and young adult labor markets have been devastated over the past seven years. Employment levels and rates of employment among all teens and most young adult subgroups (20-24 years old) have declined markedly since 2000, especially males, those with no post-secondary schooling, and youth from low income families”
“Declines in youth employment have been matched almost one for one with increased employment of new arrivals over the past 7 years”

5. Education – Unskilled immigration is crushing public education in the United States. This is a sad truth found in every study of America’s future labor force. Don’t believe me? See “Coming US challenge: a less literate workforce” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0206/p02s01-legn.html). A useful quote

“US workers may be significantly less literate in 2030 than they are today. The reason: Most baby boomers will be retiring and a large wave of less-educated immigrants will be moving into the workforce. This downward shift in reading and math skills suggests a huge challenge for educators and policymakers in the future, according to a new report from the Educational Testing Service (ETS).”

The sad reality is that unskilled immigration is a major burden on the U.S. It must be stopped. At the end of the day we can have Open Borders or we can have the American Dream. We can not have both.

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 25, 2008 2:14 PM

This is sloppy economics. Even if you buy into the P/O model, the economics of low skill immigration are dismal. P/O don't even try to take into account the negative externalities associated with low-skill immigration. There are any number of issues.

1. Crime - Contrary to various claims, illegal immigrants are a very high crime group. Roughly 10% of the U.S. jail population is illegal (according to the GAO). Since illegals are only 4% of the population, they are a large net crime burden. Don't believe me? Ask the family that was wiped out by an MS-13 killer in San Francisco a few days ago.

2. Taxes - The Heritage foundation has studied the tax costs illegal immigration. Each low skill immigrant household pays around $10,000 in taxes and consumes around $30,000 in public services. That's a net $20,000 loss to the American people. Here is an amazing fact. The average low-skill immigrant household consumees more in public services than it earns... (average earnings are below taxpayer funded services consumed).

3. Wages - If you actually read the P/O papers, you will find that they shows huge empirical wage losses for workers (native and immigrant) in Caifornia and elsewhere (correctly). However, these wages losses are simply a "magical" phenomina happening for some other reason. The P/O model also predicts that California should have higher than national wages (because of immigration) and natives should be moving to California to take advtange of the complementary workers (low-skill immigrants). Both conclusions are exactly wrong. Natives are fleeing California and wages are rock bottom (far below other states).

4. Contrary to P/O, immigrants are massively displacing American workers in the labor force. This is an empirical (reality based) conclusion. Take a look at Grogger, Hanson, and Borjas who wrote “Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks”

The abstract tells the story

“The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skill black men, fell precipitously from 1960 to 2000. At the same time, the incarceration rate of black men rose markedly. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in black employment and incarceration. Using data drawn from the 1960-2000 U.S. Censuses, we find a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates. As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point.”

Now some of you may argue that these folks are on the right. However, some folks on the left have an even more devastating paper out. Take a look at Sum, McLaughlin, Khatiwada, and Palma who wrote “The Nation’s Temporary Guest Worker Program, the New Immigrant Workforce, and The Steep Deterioration in the Nation’s Youth Labor Markets”. A few quotes tell the story

“America’s teen and young adult labor markets have been devastated over the past seven years. Employment levels and rates of employment among all teens and most young adult subgroups (20-24 years old) have declined markedly since 2000, especially males, those with no post-secondary schooling, and youth from low income families”
“Declines in youth employment have been matched almost one for one with increased employment of new arrivals over the past 7 years”

5. Education – Unskilled immigration is crushing public education in the United States. This is a sad truth found in every study of America’s future labor force. Don’t believe me? See “Coming US challenge: a less literate workforce” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0206/p02s01-legn.html). A useful quote

“US workers may be significantly less literate in 2030 than they are today. The reason: Most baby boomers will be retiring and a large wave of less-educated immigrants will be moving into the workforce. This downward shift in reading and math skills suggests a huge challenge for educators and policymakers in the future, according to a new report from the Educational Testing Service (ETS).”

The sad reality is that unskilled immigration is a major burden on the U.S. It must be stopped. At the end of the day we can have Open Borders or we can have the American Dream. We can not have both.

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 25, 2008 2:16 PM

This is sloppy economics. Even if you buy into the P/O model, the economics of low skill immigration are dismal. P/O don't even try to take into account the negative externalities associated with low-skill immigration. There are any number of issues.

1. Crime - Contrary to various claims, illegal immigrants are a very high crime group. Roughly 10% of the U.S. jail population is illegal (according to the GAO). Since illegals are only 4% of the population, they are a large net crime burden. Don't believe me? Ask the family that was wiped out by an MS-13 killer in San Francisco a few days ago.

2. Taxes - The Heritage foundation has studied the tax costs illegal immigration. Each low skill immigrant household pays around $10,000 in taxes and consumes around $30,000 in public services. That's a net $20,000 loss to the American people. Here is an amazing fact. The average low-skill immigrant household consumes more in public services than it earns... (average earnings are below taxpayer funded services consumed).

3. Wages - If you actually read the P/O papers, you will find that they shows huge empirical wage losses for workers (native and immigrant) in California and elsewhere (correctly). However, these wages losses are simply a "magical" phenomena happening for some other reason. The P/O model also predicts that California should have higher than national wages (because of immigration) and natives should be moving to California to take advantage of the complementary workers (low-skill immigrants). Both conclusions are exactly wrong. Natives are fleeing California and wages are rock bottom (far below other states).

4. Contrary to P/O, immigrants are massively displacing American workers in the labor force. This is an empirical (reality based) conclusion. Take a look at Grogger, Hanson, and Borjas who wrote “Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks”

The abstract tells the story

“The employment rate of black men, and particularly of low-skill black men, fell precipitously from 1960 to 2000. At the same time, the incarceration rate of black men rose markedly. This paper examines the relation between immigration and these trends in black employment and incarceration. Using data drawn from the 1960-2000 U.S. Censuses, we find a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates. As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point.”

Now some of you may argue that these folks are on the right. However, some folks on the left have an even more devastating paper out. Take a look at Sum, McLaughlin, Khatiwada, and Palma who wrote “The Nation’s Temporary Guest Worker Program, the New Immigrant Workforce, and The Steep Deterioration in the Nation’s Youth Labor Markets”. A few quotes tell the story

“America’s teen and young adult labor markets have been devastated over the past seven years. Employment levels and rates of employment among all teens and most young adult subgroups (20-24 years old) have declined markedly since 2000, especially males, those with no post-secondary schooling, and youth from low income families”
“Declines in youth employment have been matched almost one for one with increased employment of new arrivals over the past 7 years”

5. Education – Unskilled immigration is crushing public education in the United States. This is a sad truth found in every study of America’s future labor force. Don’t believe me? See “Coming US challenge: a less literate workforce” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0206/p02s01-legn.html). A useful quote

“US workers may be significantly less literate in 2030 than they are today. The reason: Most baby boomers will be retiring and a large wave of less-educated immigrants will be moving into the workforce. This downward shift in reading and math skills suggests a huge challenge for educators and policymakers in the future, according to a new report from the Educational Testing Service (ETS).”

The sad reality is that unskilled immigration is a major burden on the U.S. It must be stopped. At the end of the day we can have Open Borders or we can have the American Dream. We can not have both.

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 25, 2008 2:20 PM

All,

Sorry about the duplicate posts. Browser problems. Please delete all but the last copy.

Thank you

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 25, 2008 2:22 PM

The BlackMarketInLabor is a whole lot different from that in other things. So, there goes that talking point.

If most politicians woke up tomorrow and realized that supporting a BlackMarketInLabor would harm their career, the BlackMarketInLabor would dry over a relatively short period. All that would be left is things like StreetCornerDayLaborers. For a tangible example, a vile group in Maryland runs DayLaborer centers and even advertises on Craigslist. They fully support IllegalImmigration, even telling them how to avoid being picked up in raids. And, a large part of their funding comes from local governments and they obtain political cover from local officials. If those local officials realized that supporting a BlackMarketInLabor would harm their careers, the funding and support would dry up.

Posted by TLB | July 25, 2008 2:42 PM

TLB, linking to a site dedicated to "Monitoring the propaganda from supporters of massive immigration" is like linking to Pravda to prove that communism is teh awesome. All it shows once again that you live in a bubble. When are you going to learn how to write in English? It might help people take you seriously. I've mostly been replying to you because you amuse me with your antics. Dance for me, my LittleMonkey!

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2008 2:58 PM

Some folks doubt that immigration laws can be enforced. History shows that they can be. Eisenhower removed 1 million illegals with just 1000 federal agents. Took a few months.

See "How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico" http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

States and communities that have cracked down recently have seen large outflows of illegals.

The bottom line.

Enforcement works.

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 25, 2008 3:15 PM

The reader will note that no counterargument to the page I linked above was provided, simply empty chatter. If anyone would like to try to present a (valid) counterargument to the points I raise at that link, let me know.

Posted by TLB | July 25, 2008 3:35 PM

TLB,

Don't hold your breath.

Open Borders is a matter of "faith", not facts.

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 25, 2008 3:40 PM

Ed Marshall, if it wasn't for TLB (among others) then the commenters here would likely call *you* loathsome for your preceding 2 paragraphs. Instead you were able to triangulate off of TLB by calling him loathsome and you will thus probably keep your cred here as a good liberal.

You don't know me very well. I get called all sorts of things all the time here by liberals. I still think TLB is a nasty scumbag with a brainpan full of seriously evil worms doing their typing. If you don't I'd re-read all his bullshit and try and figure out what his problem really is. Because it's not what my problems are.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 26, 2008 12:45 AM

"The reader will note that no counterargument to the page I linked above was provided, simply empty chatter."

HAHAHAHA! "Why is no one taking my crayon doodles seriously?" Once again, you amuse me by thinking that you actually have arguments to offer. If you want to link to something, link to an actual source.

"Some folks doubt that immigration laws can be enforced. History shows that they can be. Eisenhower removed 1 million illegals with just 1000 federal agents. Took a few months."

Markets take time to adapt to changes. As you can see, the black market in labor did react over time to changes.

In addition, the operation you link to above, Operation Wetback (that's the actual name), also decreased the freedoms' of American citizens and also led to American citizens being unjustly deported. According to PBS:

"In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned."

http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/timeline/20.html

Do you really want a policy of racial profiling of brown people? If you do, as a brown American, fuck you, you anti-American piece of shit.

Posted by Reality Man | July 26, 2008 2:57 AM

Reality Man,

Illegal aliens don't get to hide behind their American born children. That was the law in the 1950s. It is still the law and we deport illegals with American born children every day from this country.

In case you don't remember, Elvira Arellano tried to use her child to protect her from her criminal conduct. Didn't work, nor can any nation (including ours) allow it to.

Illegals get to choose whether as parents they take their children home with them or leave them behind in the U.S. Initially, Elvira exploited her child as a political prop. More recently, she has chosen to be a mother and they are (apparently) now living together in Mexico.

However, you have provided yet another data point about why we have to eliminate birth-right citizenship. It’s not in the Constitution, lest you claim otherwise.

As for asking for identification, that’s not just the law of the land, that is the Constitution of the United States. Check out the Hiibel case.

However, I must say I find your skin color obsession more than slightly disturbing. Apparently, you only have a problem when your people are subject to law enforcement. Of course, when black people, whites, and legal immigrants of all colors have their lives destroyed by illegal immigration that’s OK, right?

Please don’t try to fool anyone with this “black market” nonsense. The reality (not yours) is that enforcement work. The Census Bureau has found a significant fall in the illegal alien population in just the last year.

See “Illegal-Immigrant Population Dropping: New Report Finds Significant Decline Since Last Summer” (http://www.cis.org/IllegalPopulationDrop). The first paragraph should help overcome your aversion to the truth.

“A new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of monthly data collected by the Census Bureau shows that the illegal-immigrant population has declined significantly between last summer and May of this year. The study is the first to find quantitative evidence that illegal-immigrants are leaving the country. It also examines the extent to which stepped-up enforcement and the downturn in the economy account for this trend.”

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 26, 2008 5:50 PM

Reality Man,

Just one more note. Your suggestion that Eisenhower's crack down on illegal immmigration was somehow racist is absurd. LULAC supported the effort.

Check your history.

Posted by Peter Schaeffer | July 26, 2008 5:55 PM