Lax immigration hurts the poor

The Boston Globe ^ | March 22, 2007 | Steve Kropper

[A. Pole]

SUPPOSE SOMEONE offered to import 350 foreign workers to New Bedford to work for less than the minimum wage. Since the unemployment rate is over 8 percent, we would expect public outrage. The city needs jobs, not more unskilled laborers. So it is no surprise that citizens seeking jobs started lining up at the Michael Bianco plant after Immigration and Customs Enforcement uncovered 350 illegal immigrants.

[...]

Contrary to popular belief, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. The victims may not have a voice, but they are low-paid, low-skilled American workers. Many are historically disadvantaged groups such as minorities and those with disabilities. . Some pundits use code words about the need to "control" wages. Whose wages? Carpenters? Child-care workers? House cleaners? Nurses? Why not teachers? The best way to raise wages for the poor is to restrict immigration. There are more illegal immigrants working in the United States than there are unemployed Americans who are looking for work or who have dropped out. Let's take care of our own first.

A 1997 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that wages of high school dropouts plummeted 30 percent between 1980 and 1985, with about half of the losses due to competition from immigrants. Citizens without a high school degree are another group of victims with no voice. Mass immigration depresses their wages because it floods the market with cheap labor.

Companies that flout the law and prefer to hire low-wage, powerless illegal immigrants have an unfair advantage over those that play by the rules. Companies that comply with the law are victims of illegal immigration.

[...]

There are few jobs Americans won't do, just wages they should not have to accept.

[...]

[kinoxi]

How dare they want an honest job?

[freedomfiter2]

Contrary to popular belief, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.


Exactly, it's a way to transfer wealth from the lower income workers to the wealthy.

[Hydroshock]

More people are paying the high cost of someone else's cheap labor.

[iopscusa]

Only 20years late for some sanity from the Globe!
The money statement for the open border idiots:
Mass immigration depresses their (poor US Citizens) wages because it floods the market with cheap labor. There are few jobs Americans won't do, just wages they should not have to accept.
The best way to raise wages for the poor is to restrict immigration. There are more illegal immigrants working in the United States than there are unemployed Americans who are looking for work or who have dropped out. Let's take care of our own first.
A 1997 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that wages of high school dropouts plummeted 30 percent between 1980 and 1985, with about half of the losses due to competition from immigrants. Citizens without a high school degree are another group of victims with no voice.
Companies that flout the law and prefer to hire low-wage, powerless illegal immigrants have an unfair advantage over those that play by the rules. Companies that comply with the law are victims of illegal immigration.

[Sam Ketcham]

Biased reporting. Illegal immigration hurts ALL AMERICANS!

Exceptions: Individuals wed to their political parties, GOP or Dem. then again they are usually called politicians, not Americans although they often try to fly below the radar.

Wonder where Bush has been for 6 years, and we know where Kennedy has been.

[P-40]

More people are paying the high cost of someone else's cheap labor.

That's is it in a nutshell. I know plenty of people that accuse WalMart of doing this and they always blow up when I extend their same argument to illegal immigration. :)

[Mr. Jeeves]

Lax immigration hurts the poor

Well, it represents a conscious decision to replace our native, shiftless poor with an allegedly hard-working, diligent poor from somewhere else. It's a novel approach to the inner city poverty problem - and, for example, black gang violence in Los Angeles has been greatly reduced by the influx of Mexican gang violence, so the progress is obvious. ;)

[GAB-1955]

"Wonder where Bush has been for 6 years, and we know where Kennedy has been."

Well, Bush has been fighting the war on terrorism first and foremost, facing a strong Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq. This is one of his virtues. His fault is this virtue; he can't shift priorities to other efforts without failing in the war on terror.

I would rather have strong enforcement of border security if only because it would reduce the chances of terrorist and drug smuggler infiltration into the United States, but Homeland Security is still being knit together as a cohesive unit, and you are seeing middle level staffers with their own agendas running ICE or the Border Patrol.

And yet, it's easy to say "Bush should do this;" it's harder to do it. Consider that in both elections Bush failed to obtain an absolute majority of the American electorate's vote. I don't know why people would vote for Al Gore, (even if he is my first cousin once removed; especially if he's my relative) or for a charmless charmer like John Kerry, but they thought either he or Ralph Nader would be better for them than Bush.

Anyone who has been in management knows you have to have "buy-in" from the project team and the stakeholders. Bush has been trying to get and keep "buy-in" for the war in Iraq. This means compromise, and it means turning Nelson's blind eye to some policies he would rather not. We can agree or disagree on whether or not he should. However, as far as I can see it, Bush's strength is his desire to get a few things done well, and I'd rather have that than a waffler or someone who is, in his own way, equally inflexible.

[A. Pole]

Bush has been trying to get and keep "buy-in" for the war in Iraq. This means compromise, and it means turning Nelson's blind eye to some policies he would rather not.

Compromise implies that your preferred position is very different. Any evidence?

[Malesherbes]

Well said, Mr. Jeeves. I have reluctantly concluded that, either deliberately or by shortsightedness, the people of both parties who run this country decided with the passage of NAFTA to unite the economies of the US and Mexico. Since this was an economic decision - blind to social and political consequences - it is ironically almost Marxist (since in Marxism economics trumps everything else.)

[Malesherbes]

Well said, Mr. Jeeves. I have reluctantly concluded that, either deliberately or by shortsightedness, the people of both parties who run this country decided with the passage of NAFTA to unite the economies of the US and Mexico. Since this was an economic decision - blind to social and political consequences - it is ironically almost Marxist (since in Marxism economics trumps everything else.)

[janetgreen]

Wonder where Bush has been for 6 years, and we know where Kennedy has been.

It's clear now that they've been in bed together the whole time, selling out America.

[Sam Ketcham]

Yes, Bush & Kennedy have been in bed together - remember when Bush was frolicking behind Kennedy in 2001 I believe. Just who is paying whom what for their time in bed together?

[Rosemont]

Lax immigration hurts almost everyone.