Posted on 08/10/2006 10:46:24 AM PDT by PDR
Big increases in immigration since 1990 have not hurt employment prospects for American workers, says a study released Thursday.
The report comes as Congress and much of the nation are debating immigration policy, a big issue in this fall's midterm congressional elections.
The Pew Hispanic Center found no evidence that increases in immigration led to higher unemployment among Americans, said Rakesh Kochhar, who authored the study.
Kochhar said other factors, such as economic growth, played a larger role than immigration in setting the job market for Americans.
The study, however, did not look at whether wages were affected by immigration. Advocates for tighter immigration policies argue that immigrant workers depress wages for American workers, especially those with few skills and little education.
Immigration supporters argue that foreign workers often take jobs that Americans don't want and won't take.
The Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization that does not advocate policy positions. The center studied census data on the increase in immigrants from 1990 to 2000, and from 2000 to 2004, for each state. It matched those figures with state employment rates, unemployment rates and participation in the labor force among native-born Americans.
The U.S. had 28 million immigrants -- legal and illegal -- age 16 and older in 2000, an increase of 61 percent from 1990. By 2004, there were 32 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
* Twenty-two states had immigration levels above the national average from 1990 to 2000. Among them, 14 had employment rates for native-born workers above the national average in 2000, and eight had employment rates below the national average.
* Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia had immigration levels below the national average from 1990 to 2000. Among them, 16 had above average employment rates for native-born workers in 2000, and 13 had below average employment rates.
* Twenty-four states had immigration levels above the national average from 2000 to 2004. Among them, 13 states had employment rates for native-born Americans above the national average in 2004, and 11 had employment rates below the national average.
* Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia had immigration levels below the national average from 2000 to 2004. Among them, 12 had employment rates for native-born Americans above the national average, and 15 had employment rates below the national average.
Immigrants tend to be younger and have less education than American workers. The study, however, found "no apparent relationship between the growth of foreign workers with less education and the employment outcome of native workers with the same low level of education."
However, Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, said his research shows that many young workers with little education are hurt by competition from immigrants.
"Employment for less educated natives has declined, and their wages have declined," said Camarota, who advocates stricter immigration policies. "There is no shortage of less educated workers in the United States."
"The study, however, did not look at whether wages were affected by immigration."
Well, duh.... That's the issue!
"The Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization that does not advocate policy positions"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
On a day like today you need a good laugh. The Pew "any" center has as much creditability as Dan Rather.
"The study, however, did not look at whether wages were affected by immigration."
------
Out of the AP, any surprise??? Probably was taken out.
Darn it - I see they said "employment" not unemployment.
that is not universally true.
No, they aren't hurting jobs. They are hurting people.
why is that "the" issue. Please explain yout thinking further.... or would you rather not think about until you have to figure out why a McDonald's hamburger (plain, no cheese) suddenly costs $5.75.
That's a rather flat counter....
well, we know what your criteria for analysis is....
>>that is not universally true.<<
Not to mention I couldn't even read the quote right..sorry about that.
That's right. Think only in terms of what's financially expedient. I hope your lawn care business is doing well this summer.
Well, the $5.75 hamburger will of course be the fault of those damn immigrants...
Uh, yeah, sure. I also suppose they didn't bother studying the impact on wages for those workers in sectors riddled with illegals - such as the decline in wages for meatcutters going from $19/hour to $7/hour.
That's the issue because we live in a capitalist economy where wages adjust ultimately to eliminate unemployment. If you import a lot of labor, the result is simply that wages go down relative to what they'd otherwise be. So it makes no sense to talk about whether it's causing unemployment. At most, the unemployment it's causing is transitory, and you shouldn't need a study to see that.
"All anyone needs to know about this biased study."
The poster knew, he just didn't care. It's in cases like this where I want to yell DUPLICATE POST!!!!! because I read this same baloney this morning.
And I'm sure you didn't bother studying the impact of meat prices falling.
do yourself a favor - take a couple of courses in economics and one or two in early 20th century U.S. and world history and then get back to me....
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.