[TomGuy]

Carson also invoked the 'jobs Americans won't do' mantra, instead of relying on FACTS:

The 'jobs Americans won't do' have been debunked over and over.


• Many jobs often thought to be overwhelmingly immigrant are in fact majority native-born:
  
  
  • Maids and housekeepers: 55 percent native-born
  • Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born
  • Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born
  • Grounds maintenance workers: 65 percent native-born
  • Construction laborers: 65 percent native-born
  • Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 71 percent native-born
  • Janitors: 75 percent native-born
    
    
  
  
  Source: Jobs Americans Won’t Do? A Detailed Look at Immigrant Employment by Occupation
  Data from 2005 to 2007 [when GWB was claiming these were jobs Americans would not do].
  
  ==
  
  When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011 averages):
  
  
  • 77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). 
  • 65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)
  • 74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)
  • 75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)
  
  Source: Jobs Americans Won't Do?
  2011
  
  

[Paul R.]

Great post!

[Paul R.]

One question though (the wording has me confused). Are "legal immigrant workers" not part of the totals (100% that one starts out with) in the 2nd group of figures?

For example:

◾77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers).

If the number of legal immigrant workers in food prep and serving is substantial (seems likely), but not counted in the starting 100%, then that alters the results somewhat, even if it does not blow up the author's argument.

I went to the link and am still unsure on this point.