No, this is the answer:
Posted on 05/21/2006 3:03:00 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Does illegal immigration help or hurt the U.S. economy?
It sounds like a simple enough question. But, like the classic Japanese movie "Rashomon," in which truth depends entirely on point of view, the answer hinges on where you fit in the economy.
"GDP per domestic person goes up," said James Smith, a senior economist at the Rand think tank in Santa Monica and lead author of the National Research Council's study "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration."
Since 1980, he said, all immigrants, including both undocumented and legal, have boosted GDP by $10 billion per year. "That's not to be sneezed at," he said. "On the other hand, we have a $10 to $11 trillion economy" so proportionately, it's a small impact.
His studies have compared cities with large immigrant populations to those with few or no immigrants. He found that wage differentials between high-school dropouts and more-educated workers were the same in cities, regardless of the size of immigrant population.
The impact of immigration on prices is closely linked to its impact on wages. If companies are paying lower wages, they can offer their products at lower prices. But many experts say the differences are marginal.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I think the main issue I have is that I don't want to see a bunch of people coming into the country illegally, and we don't know who they are, etc. The other issue I have is that I don't want them using resources, such as government assistance, medical care, schools, for which the taxpayers are paying for.
BUT in my opinion, the above issues will be addressed by securing the border and establishing a guest worker program and provide a way for those already here to register and redeem themselves, as President Bush's plan is proposing.
Another point, is that while clearly we need to deal with it sooner, rather than later, there are other much higher priority issues, where we need a Republican Congress: War on Terror, Judges, Taxes, social security reform, energy security, etc. Giving all that up, by putting the Dems in charge, who are really for open borders is NOT the answer.
Electing more Republicans is the answer.
Roger that, except for people like Mel Martinez (R-FL).
No, this is the answer:
Electing more conservativesis the answer, regardless of what they have letter they have behind their name!
Good article. It is obvious we are losing money to illegal immigration otherwise Bush would not have had to get the $1 billion in the Medicare bill expressly for illegal aliens.
We don't have a supermajority, that's why the Dems have been able to obstruct social security reform and other bills.
Ugh, don't remind me.
What an abomination that bill is.
We have a majority, that should be enough, but unfortunately the rinos usually vote with the dems. Don't you check the voting records. We need conservatives, not RINOS.
When you have 14 (I think) RINOs voting for SS benefits for illegals, as they did last week, what difference does it make which party they're in?
When you have Bush supporting Specter over Toomey and Martinez over McCollum in 04, what's the big difference?
Please- we're tired of hearing such obviously flawed logic. Most of us don't buy it anymore.
The "High School Dropouts" test again.
Notably the study didn't include high school graduates.
FairO, no matter how you many times you post otherwise, you need not surrender to Bush for worry of the election.
The opposite is going to happen if it a stalemate between repubs against open borders and others. The former will improve.
Bush's "comprehensive" scam is a false dilemma, a concocted crisis. He could have better secured the border for years, and indeed took money away from doing so despite Congress' directions. Therefore, there was no "need" to have borders, amnesty, more worker programs considered at the same time.
Bush kicked the can down the road to create this crisis and the feeling within the public that safety can only be bargained with giving Bush's elites something they want.
Bush has essentially called his base racist, areligious, unwelcoming, and phobic. He has very successfully placed his radical vision as the moderate one. Rove and the MSM has successfully framed dissent as "reight wing extremism."
Bush wants something big after 2008 I suspect.
Add to that: lazy ("jobs Americans won't do") and vigilantes.
Does that take into account the $20 billion+ that legal and illegal Mexican immigrants send home to Mexico each year? Mexico's entire national budget for '05 was $181 billion in US dollars, so the money sent home and spent in the Mexican economy equals 11% of Mexico's budget.
No wonder Fox is so incensed over efforts to curb illegal immigration. Why aren't our officials also incensed over the $20 billion that is taken out of the US economy each year? I know politicians consider $20 billion as pocket change, but by any reasonable standard it's still a significant amount. I guess their attitude fits the old Dirkson motto, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money".
for the life of me, i cannot understand this thralldom to a "guest worker program" by bush and some on this site.
UCLA recently did a study on the relationship between farm wages and the price of produce (the proverbial $5 a head of lettuce, and all that). per the study, farm wages account for 15% of the price at the market. in other words, of your $1.00 head of lettuce or pound basket of strawberries, farm wages are about 15 cents.
okay, everyone, let's put on our thinking caps ... what happens then if you double wages to $20 an hour, or treble them to $30, or, or, well, why not? times four to $40 an hour?
answer: head of lettuce costs a buck and a quarter. (yawn.) and, and ... all of a sudden we got a million or two american citizens in california off the welfare roles and making 80k a year, instead of a bunch of illegals living off the taxpayers. why is that such a bad idea?
and ... the $5 a head lettuce canard? the study concluded that farm wages would have to rise to $300 or $500 an hour (can't remember, but it was hundreds) for that to happen, and for that kinda dough, not only would i be the first in line to pick strawberries, but i would wager that a lot of people reading this thread would be right behind me in line.
and who would dispute that all of the farm positions would be filled by competent, capable, grateful americans ecstatic to have such a job at levels considerably less than $300 an hour. $100? $50? get it?
i'm in favor of a wall. enforcement. deportation. employers in jail. meaningful stuff.
but the answer in a way is simpler: we all pay thirty or forty cents more for a head of lettuce (big deal) and the problem goes away. moreover, potential prosperity for millions of unskilled and young americans.
and this is the crux of the problem with the whole guest worker nonsense which works as follows: place an ad: strawberry pickers for $4 an hour. no takers. (gee, whiz.) okay. then the farmer gets to bring in as much third-world trash as he wishes with the blessings of the federal government. huh?!?
well, how 'bout this instead: place another ad: $20 an hour for strawberry pickers? or $30? or whatever market forces require?
importing third-world slave labor, legally or otherwise, to undermine the basic economic law of supply and demand is not the answer. it's the problem.
why not an ad, instead of strawberry picker for four bucks an hour, oh, say, school teacher for four bucks an hour? or store manager for four bucks an hour? or engineer or doctor or nurse or tire guy for four bucks? (you know, the jobs americans won't do.)
"oh, i advertised but couldn't fill the positions. so now i get to import guatemalens."
all of them.
the answer is not to import cheap labor. the answer is to raise the pay of americans to the level that is necessary to attract and keep qualified people. simple. everyone (except george bush and the senate) knows this. (actually, they do, too. but they lie.) even harry reid. my five year old daughter knows this. it is an economic law, immutable as gravity.
and finally, what is this smug, superior attitude of everyone that strawberry pickers deserve to be abused with low wages, disrespect, etc.? what is inferior about a job (the jobs) that place food on our tables? that feed our nation as well as others?
just 'cause it doesn't take a degree from berkeley? (which i had thought we had all agreed was not necessarily a good thing?!?)
why not reward the people who actually do something good for each of us every day (putting strawberries on our tables) instead of the swine brainwashing our children to believe crap (professors at berkeley). who says a teacher should make more? (cushy indoor job. don't have to get your hands dirty. work half the year. etc. face it: if we weren't f*****g with the laws of economics, strawberry pickers WOULD be paid more than teachers.)
Good article. I agree, I hope a proposal like Bush's gets through. It makes a lot of sense to me. Meet the Press was pretty fascinating this morning. Sen Grahamn and a Fellow Republican thats in the House were debating it out. It was amazing how during that exchange that one can see a solution is there if we start listening to each other. I might post a transcript of it later if can find one.
Its a messy issue. There are sincere and honorable motives on all sides and then some not so pure. It seems the whole thing will come down to the "citizenship" proposals and it would be a shame that we are so close if no compromise cannot be had on that that it will be the good ole status quo for the next dew years or longer. Pundits, Politicians, and others in this debate need to start listening instead of demanding 100 percent purity at all cost.
People can have different views and fully support views like the President, Sen Grahmn, Sen Martinez, on this issue and not be rinos. It seems the charge of rino has been used alot this year. I can think of three issues right off the bat that rino was labled on quite a few. I wonder sometimes if we actually got rid of all the folks we have in the Congress that many consider rinos who would be left. I suspect that by the time it was finished we could fit all Republicans in Congress in the mens restroom on the hill with room to spare.
When you have most of those same RINOs plus a few more not so identified voting to shelve an amendment that would Disallow Citizenship to People Who Use Forged Documents to get into the U.S. and work in the U.S. (err did not the 9/11 use forged documents to do their dirty deeds - so, by that philosophy terrorists could still qualify for American Citizenship.)
The scumbags in the Senate that cannot find fault with not only breaking into our country but fooling us with forged documents still qualify - incredible, simply incredible.
And an insane high estimate for a 1951 mile wall is 6 bil.
Chump change, in comparison to the costs of not building it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.