Populists, Beware! [WSJ Pro-Illegal Op Ed has Two Trillion Dollar error]

The Wall Street Journal ^ | April 1, 2006 | EDWARD GILLESPIE

[Plutarch]

In coming weeks, Republicans in Congress must choose either a comprehensive immigration reform package including a guest-worker program or a narrowly focused border-security bill. The former would improve homeland security, help our economy and build greater Republican majorities. The latter, conversely, would ignore fundamental problems, hurt our economy and risk the party's majority status.

Lawbreakers should not be rewarded with citizenship, but respect for the rule of law need not conflict with two other pillars of conservative philosophy: freedom and economic growth...

--------snip-------------

Much of the resentment toward immigrant labor is based on the misperception that it is a drain on our economy and resources. However, researchers at the Academy of Sciences for the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform have demonstrated that immigrants add about $10 billion annually in net economic output due to the increased supply of labor and resulting lower prices. Furthermore, a typical newcomer pays $80,000 more in taxes than he takes out in benefits over the course of a lifetime.

[LowCountryJoe]

As a former party chairman, I hope Republicans appreciate the opportunity provided to us today. We can demonstrate that we are a party that believes in freedom, economic growth and the rule of law by supporting immigration policies that not only secure our borders but are also pro-freedom and pro-growth. If we do so, we will also be a party that enjoys the support of a majority of voters for generations.

Don't count on this Ed, there's plenty of Conservatives that disdain the pro-growth ingredients of capitalism and loathe anyone that wants to share a bit of freedom & opportunity in spite of what their legal status might be. It's far easier to let emotions get in the way and grab for the pitchforks.

Maybe God should modify the Second Commandment so that it now could end, "but only so long as he or she actually looks and speaks like you do"

[LowCountryJoe]

I view it from MY bottom line which is as a taxpayer and American worker who does not support lowering wages, who sees the result of having to pick up the tab to support them (on medicaid, welfare, overcrowded schools)and subsidize their employers.

Of course you view it from your bottom line. Maybe that's why taking a hard look at Simon's research may be something that is in order here.

[ClaireSolt]

I do not agree. I am for building more medical schools and training Americans for the best jobs. Why people are concerned about driving wages down at the bottom and not at the top is beyond me.

[Plutarch]

From Julian Simon’s research:

It doesn't matter what Julian Simon's research shows, because Gillespie didn't cite it. He chose to cite the NRS study and he did in error to his favor, for which he needs to be brought to account.

The WSJ doesn't have a bunch of dummies working for it. These people know what they're talking about. And as far as "shills" go...

A shill is not a dummie, a shill is a cunning person operating a deceitful enterprise. This describes the WSJ on the immigration issue to to tee.

shill    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (shl) Slang
n.

One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

v. shilled, shill·ing, shills
v. intr.

To act as a shill.

v. tr.

1. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise).
2. To lure (a person) into a swindle.

---

[Perhaps short for shillaber.]

shill

n : a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others v : act as a shill; "The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[Gillespie] has Republican credentials; after all, he was the RNC Chairman for a year and a half.

Believing that the shill has credibility because of his Republican credentials on this particular issue makes you the dupe.

[Ben Ficklin]

While you may be point the finger at WSJ, the data was developed by the National Academy. You are going to have to hustle to impugn their integrity.

Large Maority Favor Guest Workers

[Plutarch]

...the data was developed by the National Academy. You are going to have to hustle to impugn their integrity.

I am glad that we agree about the integrity of the National Academy, Ben. Their study shows that each illegal cost the taxpayers $89,000, whereas immigrants with some college each benefit the taxpayer. Why, Ben, would any conservative favor the continued importation and legalization of these treasury draining, Democrat voting, illegals by the millions, especially when we could instead substitute legal immigrants who might benefit us???

[Ben Ficklin]

We've been thru this so many times.

You want to use the "snapshot" method of measuring but economists use the thru-time method. The Thru-time method is the method that the US has always used with immigrants.

[Plutarch]

(1) The $89,000 figure is not a "snapshot". It is the net present value of the immigrant in his lifetime. It is also the figure used by the Academy that you say we must not impugn. It was also the definition used by Gillespie in his piece. You cannot dismiss it or pretend to be confused by it.

(2) Please answer my question as to why we should favor poorly educated illegals, who are so costly for the taxpayer, when we might substitute better educated legal immigrants who will benefit the taxpayer (according to the not-to- be- impugned NRS study)? This is true whether we look at a single generation or several.

[Uncle Hal]

I read the WSJ daily and generally agree with their positions on the editorial pages. However on this issue of illegal aliens, they are way over the top in promoting the amnesty and guest worker program. Like the liberal media, they carefully mix in legal immigration with the illegal variety and rarely distinguish between the two assuming we will not notice there is a big difference. Also they have not, to my knowledge, had one writer on their opinion pages supporting a tough illegal policy.

[Ben Ficklin]

On number 1, I will always disagree with you and agree with your CATO article.

As for number two, the US needs both low and high skilled imported labor. The study that Congress is using states that there are 483,000 low skilled jobs being created by the economy each year. Consequently, you will notice that these proposed guest worker plans start with a quota of 400,000. If those are applied for in the first quarter, an additional 10% will be created. If those are applied for in the second quarter, a second 10% will be created for a potential total of 480,000 which is about the same as the 483,000 estimate.

On the high skilled workers, I believe the quota reached 135,000 during the boom and was then lowered to 65,000 during the recession. As the eonomy has recovered that quota will have to be raised and there is mich discussion going on about the ultimate number.

[n-tres-ted]

Count me with Gillespie. The immigrant bashing ought to stop. We need them as they need us, for many reasons, not the least of which is as allies in the war on terror.

[Plutarch]

... the US needs both low and high skilled imported labor.

So, I see. Employers "need" to import low skill labor, because the social cost is borne by the taxpayer. Do you think that employers would "need" so many if they, not the taxpayers, had to pay that $89,000? Would you be in favor of a social cost levy on employers of low skill importees, or are you fine with the taxpayers paying it?

[ridesthemiles]

How a newspaper built on the business enterprises of the American employers can make such ludicrous statement, is beyond me.

Simple bookkeepers like myself can poke holes in this theory very easily.

[Ben Ficklin]

If you know anyone who wants one of these jobs, there are a lot of them out there.

[devolve]

[potlatch]

Looks great, like watching a movie show!

[Travis McGee]

QUISLING: a synonym for traitor, someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country.

[dixiechick2000]

Dang!


I missed it. ;o(

[devolve]

Sorry!

Tomorrow I'll have my 4th server up and post again

I've overwhelmed 3 large servers -

One other server will be OK tomorrow and a 2nd server in about a week

It's some new animated graphic FX we came up with for the borders and 911 threads especially

[dixiechick2000]

LOL!


I love your stuff.
And, I hope the internet is capable enough to handle it. ;o)

Ping me forever!