Immigrant labor doubted as benefit

The Washington Times ^ | 2-24-05 | Stephen Dinan

[citizen]

Eaxctly:

The paper is an update of a report written in 2002 using numbers from 1998, which found a net cost of $54 billion to native workers that year. The new paper is being released today by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that supports stricter immigration limits.

$54 billion in '98, $68 billion in '02, how much in $05 after BIG increases in Illegal penetration since '02?

[BTW, I fear the above $$$ listed are quite low, another study pegs it recently at $314 billion/year]

[Aetius]

I think I agree with you generally, but I would say that;

1. Doesn't Japan admit very few immigrants of any kind, even legal? I think they are one of the most automated societies on earth, and I think they have no qualms about saying they want Japan to remain Japanese.

2. Studies examining the costs of the different immigrant groups would be welcome, but I don't think its unreasonable to analyze the effects of both legal and illegal immigration together when looking at their effect on things like wage suppression, social service costs, etc. I mean, if the ability to hire an illegal immigrant under the table allows for wages to be driven down, then so too would the ability to hire a legal immigrant at a wage at or approaching minimum wage. Clearly the former is worse, but it makes no sense to focus on illegal immigration exclusively when many of the effects are basically identical.

[Dane]

1. Doesn't Japan admit very few immigrants of any kind, even legal? I think they are one of the most automated societies on earth, and I think they have no qualms about saying they want Japan to remain Japanese

I was in Japan 10 years ago, they still had elevator operators(there's automation for you), and second Japan birthrate is so low they are going to lose population next year,

The number of men in Japan has begun to shrink for the first time since records began, heralding a fall in the overall population from next year. The decline in the number of men signals a historic shift in Japan's population, the ageing of which is likely to have a profound influence on the country's pension system, labour market and tax base.

[dennisw]

Right - I understood illegal ones were a net drain. What surprises me is legal ones in general aren't much more of a bargain.

No surprise to me. Our immigration has been overwhelmingly from poor 3rd world nations ever since 1967 immigration act of Senator Edward Kennedy. The more recent immigrants from these place don't uplift themselves as well as the previous ones. Mexico send us tons of impoverished legal immigrants via family reunification. Filipinos and Hindus are better educated

[Aetius]

From what I've read, I get the impression that the Japanese simply don't want any sort of large-scale immigration into their country, and that unlike the United States, that popular majority sentiment is not ignored by govt. I know they have their own illegal alien problems, but I just can't see the Japanese buckling to pressure, and adopting a multicultural ideology over that of their nationalistic one.

If they don't raise their birthrates, then eventually they will be in trouble, but I don't think they have much to fear in the short-term.

[NewRomeTacitus]

I don't think its unreasonable to analyze the effects of both legal and illegal immigration together when looking at their effect on things like wage suppression, social service costs, etc.

I mean, if the ability to hire an illegal immigrant under the table allows for wages to be driven down, then so too would the ability to hire a legal immigrant at a wage at or approaching minimum wage. Clearly the former is worse, but it makes no sense to focus on illegal immigration exclusively when many of the effects are basically identical.

It is unreasonable to consider the effects of legal immigrants and illegal aliens together because (as this report intended) combining them only serves to obfuscate the critical fact that illegal aliens do not belong here and are stealing from us all through involuntary subsidization. If anything, this "study" diminishes the positive contributions valued newcomers make to our society and glosses over how they, unlike the invaders, strive to join the American ideal instead of attempting to recreate the environments they escaped from.

This report reminds me of the Soviet Union's ceaseless reshuffling of facts to promote it's agenda. History castigates them and will do the same to these attempts to whitewash a trend that harms the majority of Americans for the sake of a privileged minority's profit margin.

[skeeter]

If they don't raise their birthrates, then eventually they will be in trouble, but I don't think they have much to fear in the short-term.

I don't see how Japan can raise its birthrates - only 20% of the land is developable, and that much is overdeveloped already.

The solution to Japan's problem is the same as our's, which is continued technical innovation & a cultural shift away from the nanny state. This crap about stuffing more people onto fewer sq miles - losing national identity in the meantime - is a bill of goods sold us by special interests with another agenda.

BTW re: the reference by a previous poster concerning elevator girls - its called "service" & I wouldn't mind if we rediscovered how to do it here.

[Aetius]

I agree that Japan does not need to open its doors to mass immigration, and I respect them for ignoring international calls to do so.

[Aetius]

I agree completely that there is a huge difference between legal and illegal immigration. Clearly, legal immigrants deserve to partake of American society seeing as how they came here the right way.

But, it goes to reason that many of the same negative fiscal effects of illegal immigration are also caused by legal immigration, since the pool for both is largely the same thanks to the family reunification visas that dominate legal immigration. Clearly, legal immigrants are going to have their incomes subject to the full array of taxation, but to the extent the legal immigrants are low-skilled and under-educated, then they are most likely to use more in public services than they generate.

I know its hard to have a rational discussion about immigration w/o someone poisoning it w/ the bogus charges of racism and xenophobia. As such, its obviously easier to talk about illegal immigration than legal immigration, because public sentiment is logically more favorable to the latter. So I understand the focus on illegal immigration, and as I said, I agree that it must be addressed.

But all I'm attempting to further say is that the impact of legal immigration must also be examined. Just because the immigration is legal, doesn't mean it doesn't have similar negative effets on wages, social services, etc, as illegal immigration.

It would be great to have studies break it down by type as well as considering both lumped together. But I can understand looking at them both together, since as a result of the federal govt's refusal to stop illegal immigration, and its periodic granting of amnesty, results in a situation where an illegal immigrant is almost indistinguishable from legal ones.

[NewRomeTacitus]

That can't be said enough. We should return to pre-1965 immigration standards and political correctness (and Ted Kennedy) be damned.

And for the damage he has wrought I'm certain he will.

[Coleus]

Americans Lose $68 Billion to Illegals
NewsMax ^ | 02/24/2005 | Donald R. Davis and David E. Weinstein