Deficit for 2009 could top $1 trillion

[David Hilditch]

Matter of fact, go to states like Montana, the Dakotas, or smaller towns in the midwest where illegals haven't arrived yet and guess what....Americans are doing those jobs!.

I'm sorry if you think I'm always contradicting you, but you should go to Iowa and you'd find plenty of illegals, eg. meatpacking, agriculture, household services. Maybe not to the density of California or New York, say, but in significant numbers, as also in other midwestern states.

[Sickbag]

Those jobs that president Bush categorized as "jobs americans won't do".

Bush should know all about jobs Americans won't do.He's spent eight years doing just that.
What we need is a foreigner in The White House.

[flyboy2548m]

I'm sorry if you think I'm always contradicting you, but you should go to Iowa and you'd find plenty of illegals, eg. meatpacking, agriculture, household services. Maybe not to the density of California or New York, say, but in significant numbers, as also in other midwestern states.

And this is good news?

[David Hilditch]

I'm sorry if you think I'm always contradicting you, but you should go to Iowa and you'd find plenty of illegals, eg. meatpacking, agriculture, household services. Maybe not to the density of California or New York, say, but in significant numbers, as also in other midwestern states.

And this is good news?

Not especially, but I was reporting the fact without judgment.

[GerryW]

I still don't think this country is suffering from a butcher (or mammogram technician) shortage.

Who says I would work as a butcher? I would come as a pensioner.

[flyboy2548m]

Who says I would work as a butcher? I would come as a pensioner.

Even better! The country for sure has no shortage of those.

[GerryW]

Who says I would work as a butcher? I would come as a pensioner.

Even better! The country for sure has no shortage of those.

And I would even bring money, what about you?

[Putt4Par]

Matter of fact, go to states like Montana, the Dakotas, or smaller towns in the midwest where illegals haven't arrived yet and guess what....Americans are doing those jobs!.

I'm sorry if you think I'm always contradicting you, but you should go to Iowa and you'd find plenty of illegals, eg. meatpacking, agriculture, household services. Maybe not to the density of California or New York, say, but in significant numbers, as also in other midwestern states.

I know that certain factories are notorious for having illegals, such as meat packing in Iowa, etc.... However you missed the point I was trying to make: that in many of these smaller towns in the midwest (for example) you'll find many americans doing the jobs that GWB claimed "Americans won't do" and hispanic leaders say that illegals are needed for....such as fast food restaurant cooks, landscaping, construction, etc...

[tds]

I don't think Bush means that these jobs literally won't get done if Americans won't do them. Or if he did, it's obviously not completely true.

On the other hand, it's an empirical question of the overall effect on the economy. I'm glad my "state" doesn't have Montana's economy.

[Putt4Par]

I don't think Bush means that these jobs literally won't get done if Americans won't do them. Or if he did, it's obviously not completely true.

On the other hand, it's an empirical question of the overall effect on the economy. I'm glad my "state" doesn't have Montana's economy.

I have a problem with people whose main purpose in arguing to is argue. Now, are you for or against illegal immigration? Make your position clear and then we can debate.

GWB said, in more than one occasion, that we needed to legalize these people because they do jobs "americans won't do". You can interpret that in any way you want but it sounds pretty clear to me: we need them because they do jobs americans will not do. And yes, it is completely untrue and an idiotic thing to say, but what did you expect from Bush.

In regards to your little controversy punch about the economy of Montana: are you really saying that illegals help the economy of some states? Don't just throw little comments.....make your position clear. I think illegal aliens affect the economy of a state. They depress wages, take jobs from legal residents, are a huge burden to hospitals and ERs, are a huge burden to our schools, etc... Live in California for a little while and you will see. The state spends about $10 billion a year supporting illegals, and this is "after" you consider the little taxes they pay. In L.A. schools are terrible, hospitals are closing, and even when the population of the state is growing, this growth is fueled by more illegal aliens. You will find that americans are getting out of L.A. as fast as they can because of the quality of life. That is what happens when you import a third world country into your state.

[tds]

I don't know exactly what I think, that's why I'm interested in discussing it.

My point re Montana is just that they aren't a great economic model. That's for all sorts of reasons, I'm sure - suggesting it was down to immigration was (clearly) tongue-in-cheek. Sure, I have a general perspective of sympathy towards economic migrants of both kinds, but even being hard-headed I think the idea that illegals en masse are a drain on the economy is arguable. It's also quite obvious that there are going to be many individual illegals who contribute more than they cost. Simplistic tax cost/revenue analyses don't go far enough - what is the effect on profits, employment, productivity, prices etc? To me it seems a very complicated question.

[David Hilditch]

I don't know exactly what I think, that's why I'm interested in discussing it.

My point re Montana is just that they aren't a great economic model. That's for all sorts of reasons, I'm sure - suggesting it was down to immigration was (clearly) tongue-in-cheek. Sure, I have a general perspective of sympathy towards economic migrants of both kinds, but even being hard-headed I think the idea that illegals en masse are a drain on the economy is arguable. It's also quite obvious that there are going to be many individual illegals who contribute more than they cost. Simplistic tax cost/revenue analyses don't go far enough - what is the effect on profits, employment, productivity, prices etc? To me it seems a very complicated question.

I would just add that studies show that a majority of illegals contribute to the economy rather than cost. Sure, some cost, but for the majority the impulse is to function below the radar screen as much as possible, so any fear of non-conformity or non-payment of taxes is often their operatonal basis in life. Most illegals who work on the books pay tax, yet gain no electoral or social security benefits, for example. Those who work off the books have more money to recycle into the economy. They're also more than willing to pay for themselves, eg. in accommodation, child care, in order, once again, not to attract themselves to the authorities' attention. Studies also show that illegals commit less crime than legals or citizens.

As I have said earlier, before the heavy mob descend on me, I do not condone illegal immmigration, but I do deplore the vigilantism that is creeping across the land, and the militarization of the border, and so on, plus, as I said above, there should be more oversight of employer checks and more sanctions on law-breaking employers.

One other factor which perhaps needs to be looked at is the automatic right of US citizenship to children born in the US of illegal immigrants.

[flyboy2548m]

As I have said earlier, before the heavy mob descend on me, I do not condone illegal immmigration, but I do deplore the vigilantism that is creeping across the land, and the militarization of the border, and so on...

IOW, you don't condone illegal immigration, but neither do you condone actually doing anything about. Very Hilditchian. Oh, and don't flatter yourself, I doubt any "heavy mob" would find you particularly interesting.

[David Hilditch]

As I have said earlier, before the heavy mob descend on me, I do not condone illegal immmigration, but I do deplore the vigilantism that is creeping across the land, and the militarization of the border, and so on...

IOW, you don't condone illegal immigration, but neither do you condone actually doing anything about. Very Hilditchian. Oh, and don't flatter yourself, I doubt any "heavy mob" would find you particularly interesting.

Haha, by "heavy mob", I meant you and P4P - irony, you know. As for what I'd do, if you would read more carefully and not jump to conclusions, I have already said that I would create economic disincentives for illegal immigration, increase pressure on businesses to abide by the rules and look at the citizenship for kids rule (which also incentivizes a lot of illegal immigration in and of itself). I would also look at "chain migration" for legal immigrants more strictly.

[Putt4Par]

Sure, I have a general perspective of sympathy towards economic migrants of both kinds, but even being hard-headed I think the idea that illegals en masse are a drain on the economy is arguable. It's also quite obvious that there are going to be many individual illegals who contribute more than they cost.

From my experience, people that think like you do not live in California, Texas, or Arizona.....states that have been heavily affected by illegal immigration. People in my home state (somewhere in the midwest) are also very sympathetic to the "poor immigrant who only wants a better chance at life" and don't think it is a big issue. That is because the levels of illegal immigration haven't risen to the point where the whole economy and make up of the state is affected.

Talk to people in California and ask them what they think about illegal immigration and I can assure you that you'll have a hard time finding somebody as sympathetic. Why? because they are being affected daily.

If we were talking about a few people I would understand. But the current exodus is about 5,000 people a day, or about 25 full B737 airplanes. That is not immigration....it is a downright invasion.

Some may contribute more than they cost, but overall they cost more than they contribute. And you have to add other issues:

1. Schools: imagine your kid going to a school where half of the kids come from a poor country and don't speak english so they slow the whole class down.
2. Wages: imagine your blue collar job is taken by somebody that will do it for half your salary.
3. Hospitals: average wait time in an ER in SoCal is 7 hours and many ERs are closing because they can't continue to give free service and survive.
4. Violence: many second generation illegal immigrants end up in gangs because they feel out of place and not integrated in this society.
5. Hispanics, as well as blacks, continue to do poorly in school and many dropout from school - so they will need more services.

The point is.....if we are going to allow people in we should allow people that will contribute: engineers, doctors, scientists, etc... and not bring in a full blown third world society in mass....a society that has very little allegiance to the U.S. and that their only contribution will be to flip burgers at a McDonalds, send money to their countries, and decrease the unemployment rate in their countries.

[Putt4Par]

I would just add that studies show that a majority of illegals contribute to the economy rather than cost.

Ah, nope, not really. Not sure what studies you are talking about but I doubt you'll find any study that will say that. The studies I have seen (and can quote) show that in California the state spends $10billion in services for illegals.....this is the delta after you consider the little they contribute.

Sure, some cost, but for the majority the impulse is to function below the radar screen as much as possible, so any fear of non-conformity or non-payment of taxes is often their operatonal basis in life.

They usually get a fake SS card and use that. The problem is that their income is so low that the federal taxes they pay are minimum. I read recently that the government has this large amount of money paid in takes on April 15 that they can't figure out where it belongs.

They're also more than willing to pay for themselves, eg. in accommodation, child care, in order, once again, not to attract themselves to the authorities' attention. Studies also show that illegals commit less crime than legals or citizens.

Many of them collect WICS (many), and live 10 to an apartment so the cost is minimum. They don't help our real estate industry at all. However, they send their kids to school, use ERs as their doctor, and pay very little in taxes.

[Sickbag]

Ah, nope, not really. Not sure what studies you are talking about but I doubt you'll find any study that will say that.

One of the alleged adverse labor market consequences of illegal immigration is that undocumented workers take jobs away from US citizens or otherwise lower the wages and working conditions of native workers. There is only slight statistical evidence for this view, and most of it is derived from case studies of a single labor market or specialized occupations or industries. When the broader US economy is examined, it is difficult to find strong evidence of negative effects on native workers. A study by Huddle et al (1985) based on field studies in the Houston-Galveston metropolitan area claimed that for every 100 working undocumented aliens 65 jobs are removed from legal residents. Martin (1986) finds evidence of job displacement by unauthorized workers in agriculture, food processing, services, and construction, and argues that processes of network recruitment and subcontracting lead to the exclusion of American citizens and legal residents from many workplaces. Cobb-Clark & Kossoudji (1994) also speculate that undocumented Latina women may provide long-term labor market competition for US workers employed in specific labor market niches.

But the balance of the empirical evidence suggests an alternative interpretation. After reviewing this evidence, Bean et al (1987: 685) conclude that "studies of labor market impact have found that the effects of immigrants (both legal and undocumented) on the wages and earnings of other labor force You Ygroups are either nonexistent or small (and sometimes positive)." In a study of the Los Angeles labor market, an area with a large proportion of undocumented workers, Muller & Espenshade (1985) find no evidence that undocumented migrants are taking jobs away from native-born blacks, a group with whom aliens are likely to be competing. Similar conclusions are reached by McCarthy & Valdez (1986). Based on an examination of metropolitan area labor markets in the US southwest, Bean & Lowell (1985) conclude that undocumented Mexican immigrants are labor market substitutes for other legal Mexican immigrants and labor market complements with native-born Mexican Americans. No consistent or statistically significant patterns exist between undocumented migrants and the majority white population.

In additional analyses of 1980 census data, Bean et al (1988) discovered that undocumented migrants have little effect on the earnings of individuals in five other labor force categories. A greater concentration of undocumented Mexican workers in southwestern metropolitan labor markets increases native female earnings by a small amount (a 10% increase in the supply of Mexican illegals raises female earnings by about 0.5%) but has no measurable effect on the wages of blacks, native-born Mexican Americans, or on native white workers. Bean et al (1987) argue that the overall empirical findings are more consistent with the position that undocumented workers hold jobs that other groups find unattractive than with the widely held public perception that illegals compete with natives and especially with native-born minority workers for jobs and wages.

Thomas J. Espenshade Annual Review of Sociology 21.(Annual 1995): pp195(22).

You need to read a bit more.

[David Hilditch]

Ah, nope, not really. Not sure what studies you are talking about but I doubt you'll find any study that will say that. The studies I have seen (and can quote) show that in California the state spends $10billion in services for illegals.....this is the delta after you consider the little they contribute.

Delta ? Data maybe ? Anyway, look, you make it sound as if it's all one thing and not the other. These things are rarely black or white. You constantly bang on about costs, but there's tons of stuff out there showing that illegal immigration is much more nuanced in its costs versus benefits for those who want to see. I know that preconceptions and prejudices will lead you to the interpretations that suit your viewpoint. Each of us can point to his own locality where we live or work, or our own personal experiences. These are meaningless and tell us nothing. The road accident rate in Providence, Rhode Island, or San Antonio,Texas, tells us nothing about the national statistics or risks in road safety. Sickbag has just said you need to read more. For me, I would direct you to the work of Professor George Borjas, who may be the foremost neutral objective academic on the subject. His work shows that it's not an either/or. Illegal immigrants are not just a cost, they are also consumers as well : after all, when the pipe bursts, they call a plumber, they get their cars serviced, they buy groceries, they want their kids educated. They even pay taxes. The flip side of lower labor costs is lower costs of goods and services for consumers. He does say the benefits are not huge, to be fair, but they are also not zero, which is the point.

The real crime is that the country has had a dysfunctional approach to the whole problem. We'd certainly be better off with fewer unskilled illegals if we had an equivalent increase in visas/green cards for legal immigrants with some real skills that the country needs.

[flyboy2548m]

....Snipped.....a bunch of crap from the eighties....a little from 1994...snipped


You need to read a bit more.

You need to read some stuff from the current millennium.

[tds]

Delta ? Data maybe ?

I assume P4P means 'delta' as in 'difference' - i.e. expenditure on illegals less taxes paid by illegals.

Aside from that, thanks for the pointer to Prof Borjas. A quick Google reveals that http://www.borjas.com has a freely available archive of stuff he's published from the late 1970s to date.

[flyboy2548m]

We'd certainly be better off with fewer unskilled illegals if we had an equivalent increase in visas/green cards for legal immigrants with some real skills that the country needs.

I think we'd be a lot better off with fewer illegals regardless of how many PhDs did or did not get imported. Sort of like we'd be better off with fewer murderers regardless of the change in number of Mother Teresas.

Just a thought.

[tds]

I think we'd be a lot better off with fewer illegals regardless of how many PhDs did or did not get imported. Sort of like we'd be better off with fewer murderers regardless of the change in number of Mother Teresas.

I know that's your opinion, but the whole issue is whether or not the analogy is valid. If illegals are, in actual fact, a net positive, why want less of them - except where less of them is in exchange for something better?

[David Hilditch]

We'd certainly be better off with fewer unskilled illegals if we had an equivalent increase in visas/green cards for legal immigrants with some real skills that the country needs.

I think we'd be a lot better off with fewer illegals regardless of how many PhDs did or did not get imported.

The country doesn't need more PhDs, it needs people with skills. The wider point I tried to make is that the country needs to structure its immigration programs away from current neglect towards meeting more skills/employment demands on a needs basis and away from family based migration. I think a points based system such as exists in Canada and Australia makes more sense today. Couple that with making illegal immigration less economically attractive, with more official visas available to encourage workers with those skills with the highest point scores, and we may be moving in a better direction. Illegal immigration needs to be made economically unappealing - all this talk of militarizing the border and shooting the suckers who try to leg it across is missing the point. They will still come across if it is economically appealing.

[Sickbag]

I think we'd be a lot better off with fewer illegals regardless of how many PhDs did or did not get imported. Sort of like we'd be better off with fewer murderers regardless of the change in number of Mother Teresas.

Just a thought.

i think there's a case for screening immigrants for misanthropic tendencies

[Putt4Par]

One of the alleged adverse labor market consequences of illegal immigration is that undocumented workers take jobs away from US citizens or otherwise lower the wages and working conditions of native workers. There is only slight statistical evidence for this view, and most of it is derived from case studies of a single labor market or specialized occupations or industries. When the broader US economy is examined, it is difficult to find strong evidence of negative effects on native workers. A study by Huddle et al (1985)

....In additional analyses of 1980 census data,

You need to read a bit more.[/quote]


Sickbag (or Half Bottle's alter-ego),

Your sources are old. Yes, 30 years ago there were only about a third of the illegal aliens we have now and yes, the jobs they did were more related to agriculture, etc... Now they are doing jobs such as: construction, landscaping, restaurant, etc... What, before they took over those jobs nobody did them in the U.S.? It is ridiculous. I have heard these debates in California and hundreds of people call saying that they were fired because their companies could pay illegals much less, especially in construction and landscaping.

There is a Wendy's pretty close to my house and about six months ago I noticed all the people working there were from Mexico. They can barely speak English so they are pretty new to the U.S. I am assuming they are illegal, unless they were able to come here with a "skilled worker" H2 visa because they are very proficient at flipping burgers and managing the drive thru window and no other american can do that (definition of the "skilled worker" visa requirement). Explain to me what happened to the americans that used to work there a few months ago. And what was the motivation of the owner to hire these illegals? (hint: $$$).

This is not a matter of reading more or less. I can see examples in my daily life.