Back to the Border
One issue that has languished so far in the early days of the Democratic Congress is comprehensive immigration reform. And the clock is ticking loudly. Reform advocates agree that if anything is to actually be achieved, it's going to have to be during this calendar year -- before everything grinds to a halt for the '08 elections.
Here are three interesting pieces on the subject I want to highlight.
First, we see that Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff has been aggressively lobbying lawmakers to line up behind comprehensive reform. Before everyone goes batty, this is good news. Someone has to work the right flank of this issue and Chertoff is the perfect guy. Apparently he's been selling reform to the restrictionists by emphasizing the enforcement aspect. If that will get them on board for broader reform that will give some standing to the 12 million undocumented who labor with no status, so much the better. It might also help explain the otherwise useless flurry of ICE workplace immigration raids we've seen since last December.
The second piece refers to a new study by researchers at UC Davis. Bad news for the shut-the-borderoids on both the right and left. The study finds that immigration has "boosted the average wages of the native-born worker in California by at least 4 percent between 1990 and 2004." Poof! There goes the favorite argument of the yes/but liberals (and neanderthals) on the subject.
Third, my distinguished USC colleague, Professor Dowell Myers is interviewed in the L.A. Times where he asserts that the very future and security of the boomer generation is directly linked to the success of the younger, immigrant population. Myers says, in fact, the same president we will elect next year will be the first one to face a bona fide shortage of workers, a crisis that will hit the hardest in 2015. Without our steady stream of new, immigrant workers neither will there be a sufficient tax base to support the entitlements of an aging native population.
Wonderful details, all these, that get in the way of conventional (and obsolete) thinking about immigration. And that includes "illegal" immigration.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
“Ironically, the biggest losers as a group due to immigration into California after 1990 are immigrants who arrived before 1990, Peri said. Without the newer influx of immigrants, he said, the earlier immigrants’ wages would have been 17 to 20 percent higher in 2004.”
Yeah, that study really knocks the wind out of arguments that illegal immigration depresses wages….
February 28th, 2007 at 12:05 am
But then why should we worry about the wages of those folks competing at the bottom of the labor market ? After all, at this point most of them aren’t “native born”.
(Try not to shoot yourself in the foot when you come up with more of this dispositive “data”.)
February 28th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Surprising as it may seem, Reg, I read the piece before I posted it and am totally comfortable with its substance…. that’s why I linked to it.
No doubt, if you could build a Great Wall of the Southwest, seal the borders, defy the laws of the global marketplace and/or move the U.S. to be contiguous with Sweden, the resulting labor shortage would indeed probably result in a 20% wage increase.
But that’s not the point, is it? That’s not our reality and it aint gonna be. The study finds immigrants can be absorbed and wages can still rise.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:35 am
I’m just telling you what the reality is…and you don’t obviously don’t give as shit about wages and working conditions among nearly 40% of the workforce in California.
You cited a study that supposedly pulled the rug out of what liberals such as myself have been saying about the impact of illegal immigration on the bottom rungs of the labor market. Except it didn’t. It proved my point.
It’s pretty damn simple. Sorry.
Also the study shows no such thing as “immigrants can be absorbed and wages can still rise”. It shows clearly that immigrants wages are being depressed at rates even higher than I had suspected. This study documented nothing more than a shift in the demographics of the labor market and the fact that for those at the bottom – who now are not surprisingly mostly “foreign born” – unbridled immigration hurts. A lot.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:35 am
The Department of Defense has identified 3,149 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans this week:
BARNETT, Jeremy D., 27, Sgt., Army; Mineral City, Ohio; First Cavalry Division.
BIGGERS, Ethan J., 22, Specialist, Army; Beavercreek, Ohio; 101st Airborne Division.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:54 am
This site is becoming pathetic.
1. I don’t think there’s anyone who trusts Chertoff on any side. Maybe HughHewitt is still hanging in there, but that’s about it. And, it’s good to see that this site is advocating PotemkinRaids rather than trying to expose them.
2. The “new study” is actually a retread from 2005. It was debunked at that time: tinyurl.com/2yyxhj Now, certainly, he might have added things and changed things, but I’m sure it has the same old flaws. And, once again, Cooper doesn’t look for the story behind the story. Is this new report simply propaganda designed to fool the public, almost all of whom are not degreed economists?
3. Yeah, an LAT interview that no one is going to read is going to have world impact.
Perhaps just to get a “comprehensive” view of this issue, Mr. Peri (#2) would like to discuss the economic impact of giving the government of Mexico even more political power inside the U.S.
While many people might not know it, that country is extremely aggressive, explicitly saying that they’re going to be lobbying for the same thing Cooper supports. They even sent some of their legislators to Washington recently, where several Dems joined with them in public support for that “reform”.
And, the MexicanGovernment has direct or indirect links to several non-profit orgs, such as the ACLU, AFSC, MALDEF, SPLC, etc. And, some of the organizers of last year’s ImmigrationMarches have links to MexicanPoliticalParties and the MexicanGovernment.
So, perhaps Cooper could do some real journalism here and ask Mr. Peri to put a dollar figure on giving the MexicanGovernment even more political power inside the U.S. What value is there in saving a few cents on lettuce if we have to factor what the MexicanGovernment wants into our internal political decisions?
February 28th, 2007 at 8:26 am
The Mexican government, led by a right winger who was pretty much helped into office by US organizations – is trying to use progressive American groups to influence our domestic policy?
Protocols of the Elders of Baja?
February 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
The second piece doesn’t have the word ‘illegal’ in it. Its not clear that it is even relevant to the discussion of illegal immigrants. Of course immigration is good for America. It always has been except for the native Americans.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:22 am
immigration good? well, at this point in time the Netherlands has a population that is 40% muslim; France’s is over 30%; Belgium is at 40%. and these islamists vote as a block;
these muslims are not looking to “assimulate” into their “new” countries; but they aim to change it to islam and sharia law.
“sharia law” is being promoted actively by islam for the entire world, not just arab nations….where the entire world will be under a “caliphate’, and all other religions extinct.
they do not hide this.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Yeah Grouch its all those Mexican Moslems we’ve got to worry about.
Good grief!
Do your keepers know you’ve escaped?
February 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
howdy FUBAR richard !
do you think that islamists are staying away from our porous southern borders because the mexicans have first choice? wow.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am
for FUBAR richard, entellligenst anal-leest, those muslims in France, Netherlands, Belgium are all legal immigrants. and thus can vote, etc., for their interests/desires/goals (but that would be tooo much for an entellligenst anal-leest such as you to comprehend)
February 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Well it sure ain’t the GOP or have you noticed their hunger for Terrorist contributions.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Seriously, its the inane comments of people like Grouch that make it easy for people like Marc to dismiss critics of illegal immigration as cranks.
February 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
hey FUBAR richard (entellligenst anal-leest). it is facts that france/belgium/netherlands, and other EU countries have absorbed vast numbers of muslims, who now are trying to subvert/convert those govts to their viewpoint.
but it is okay ricky boy, i can understand someone of your intelligentical ability to obscufate and refuse to look at actual facts. facts which can be confirmed easily, except for those who will not even try, but “BGMC” all their life ( Bitch–Gripe–Mumble–Complain)
the GOP hunger for terrorist contributions? what about murtha in the 1980′s was caught on FBI surveilance tapes negotiating bribes with arab sheiks? plus what murtha sez on the tapes is damning. guess murtha was a repub before being a dem ??
February 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Does anyone have a fly-swatter?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Hey Reg, calm down old buddy and please don’t stoop to insulting me personally. My kid’s a union organizer so I think it a bit absurd that you charge me with not giving a shit about 40% of the wage earners in California.
The debate over immigration is not a moral but pragmatic one.
So let’s get past the mudthrowing and get down a couple of simple policy questions that are before us. I will tell you in BRIEF sentences what I think about them. I would be curious to see your BRIEF and to the point answers on the actual issues before us.
1) Should we leave things as they are regarding immigration?
Of course not. It’s inhumane to create a shadow, illegal work force of millions.
2) Should we blockade the borders with walls and troops?
No. Wont work and send the wrong message. But, of course, the US like any other country should enforce its borders and heightened measures seem reasonable under current conditions.
3) What should we do with the 12 million people already here?
it’s in everybody’s interest to try to identify them and regularize their status here. An earned citizenship or at least an earned residency program seems the most practical and humane way to do this. Criminal background checks, proof of employment, length of residency, children who are U.S. citizens, payment of a penalty fee all seem like reasonable rules to impose.
4) What should we do about future immigration?
Currently the U.S. allows about 1/2 million immigrants per year legally into the country but it absorbs about another 1/2 million. Expanding our current visa allotment, be it through a guest worker program or any other euphemism, by another 1/2 million would pretty much dry up the “illegal” problem New immigrants would be legal, would not recur to indentity theft to collect a paycheck, would be able to use mechanisms of worker defense like workmans comp, osha etc and would be easier to organize into unions.
5) If the above were implemented, should there be stricter workplace enforcement?
Absolutely. Not only that, but we would have to and should impose a secure national ID card or some similar system that is more efficent than the current Basic Pilot scheme. Employees and certainly employers who violate the new rules of residency should be liable to harsh sanctions.
Now, Reg, what part of the above would you like to amend?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Grouch… you’re sounding more like Crank.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Ah ha, everyone’s over here on this thread. Right, I hear Tijuana is riddled with Islamic fundamentalist cells, I mean it has to be true because it’s obvious and logical, right?
February 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
[...] Marc Cooper offers “Back to the Border”: The second piece refers to a new study by researchers at UC Davis. Bad news for the shut-the-borderoids on both the right and left. The study finds that immigration has “boosted the average wages of the native-born worker in California by at least 4 percent between 1990 and 2004.” Poof! There goes the favorite argument of the yes/but liberals (and neanderthals) on the subject. [...]
February 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I’m not even reading the links. Ask construction workers who can’t get jobs because of Mexican lowballing if they are 4% better off. Ask if the professors at UC-Davis if our country benefited 4% of so by having slave labor in the 19th century. Maybe we need to bring in truck loads of Mexican professors to get better value than what UC-Davis gives us now.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
The author of the study (#2) replied to an email I sent, reprinted at my name’s link. It helps reveal the fallacy of those who seek to use economics alone to push for an amnesty.
As for Cooper’s latest, I don’t know where to begin.
First, I don’t want a “secure national ID card”, and I don’t think anyone who can understand the implications should either. Chuckie Schumer even wants it to be biometric. Giving up our freedoms is a bit too high a price to pay for saving 10 cents on a head of lettuce.
I note also that Cooper provides the same false choice that Bush, Chertoff, etc. etc. use. He ignores the third option of simply enforcing our current laws.
Why aren’t our laws currently being enforced? Doesn’t that indicate a very deep problem? If they aren’t being enforced now, why should we trust those who are in effect blackmailing us, saying they’ll only enforce the laws they support?
The idea that sending the message that we’re “amnesty happy” will dry up illegal immigration is nuts.
February 28th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Marc your solutions miss one very important point. As long as the Mexican Government has a dual incentive (get rid of potential “troublemakers” and provide a source of hard currency “imports”) there will be a never ending stream of would be immigrants willing to brave the dangers of the journey to get here. So your limits are meaningless. Mexico will simply continue to shove them out by hook or by crook. Nafta has been a wonderful engine to depopulate the Agricultural sector of Mexico’s economy and all those machilladoras that were supposed to take up the slack vanished into a Chinese Sunset.
So, unless and until, we do something about that – via some form of converting NAFTA into a North American Economic Union where the governments must meet certain standards (like enforcing a pretty good set of regulations already on their books) We’ll just keep going round and round . . .
February 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
This should really help…more word play from the left.
Bill would mandate nicer term for illegals
TALLAHASSEE — A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term “illegal alien” from the state’s official documents.
“I personally find the word ‘alien’ offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children,” said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. “An alien to me is someone from out of space.”
Maybe people from space are offended by references to them with a term to describe illegal Mexicans.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Marc- of course you care…which is why I said what I said to make a point.
First off – I stand by my interpretation of this data. It seems pretty obvious on its face.
On your #1 – obviously not.
Pt. #2 – No. I’ve never been for building bigger walls. It won’t work and it’s offensive to me on several levels.
Pt. #3 – I’ve always been for some path to citizenship for using folks who are here – although I’d be inclined to limit it to folks with families that are here. (And I absolutely draconian measures at the level of social services to the poor.)
Pt. #4 – I’m for increased immigration if and when we’ve truly absorbed the people who are already here. One of the things that I think is most dishonest about the “not to worry” folks is they rarely if ever talk about the pressure that immigration has put on public school systems and social service that are already over-stretched. This is a serious problem – again hurting those who are already here and at the bottom. And a bracero program is just one of the worst ideas ever. This is a pro-business strategy on its face. Welcome legal immigrants at a rate that can be assimilated into the workforce and into schools, etc. But don’t create an official second-class worker.
Pt#5 – Workplace enforcement is, as I’ve said time and again, the key to controlling this. No jobs for people without proper ID (and it’s going to have to be 21st century ID, via Social Security verification) and the flow is sharply reduced. Personally, I don’t think that the advocates for “undocumented workers” want any such thing nor do a lot of business that propser on the backs of illegal labor. I think that anyone who doesn’t emphasize this aspect of any plan isn’t to be trusted on the issue.
My own point #5 is to officially invest, via a “Marshall Plan” in local and regional Mexican infrastructure as part of an effort to create attractive catalyst areas of development and draw private investment from the U.S. into a Mexican manufacturing sector, via incentives that favor Mexico over China. I’m no expert on this stuff – but somethings got to be done to improve conditions below the border and I think we should make it an official policy of the U.S. government to assist this effort in a major way. But cut out the Mexican officials at the national level. This is a project for smarter folk than me, but somebody’s got to come up with a viable plan.
But first and foremost, I’d like people to be a bit more honest about the issue. Trying to make it sound like illegal immigration is a great thing, that nothing can be done to reduce it, and that it doesn’t create tensions and serious problems for delivery of social services, educational systems and labor markets in the U.S. just won’t wash. As the study shows…
February 28th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
On point #3 – I don’t know what “using” is doing in that sentence and I “absolutely oppose draconian measures…”
God, that’s a sloppy mess.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Marc: how many of the Mexican, Central and South American poor and uneducated do you want to let in, and how fast?
Could a bilingual-bicultural America avoid the problems of Sri Lanka or Belgium?
If control of one’s borders is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty, which can hardly be denied, are you for or against sovereignty?
February 28th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
And that’s “my own Point SIX” – sheesh…
February 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Reg, I see no substantial policy difference between us, as suspected. Some differences on framing perhaps but so what? of course some sort of Marshall Plan is needed to quell the upheaval in the sender communities. Agreed. But politically, man, you aint never gonna get there until you at least get to some policy that recognizes the humanity of those who have already been sent. it’s enough to read Grumpy Old Man’s question to realize how far we are from that!
Grumpy Old Man: What kind of question is that? We let in your mick-wop-limey-kraut relatives, didnt we? Or were your folks Iroqouis? You know those hungry, unwashed, smelly, uneducated europeans who came to America and formed violent gangs to shoot their way into the mainstream. Many of whom ate potatoes or pasta and spoke English like they were braying donkeys?
What fear and underlying xenophobia you probably unconsciously reveal. Anyway, Ive got some pretty bad news for you: maybe it’s your own myopia or language limitations (lack of formal education in foreign languages?) but we already live in a bi-cultural and bi-lingual America. Not only in L.A. and New York but just about everywhere there is any concentration of manual labor. Wake up and smell the frijoles, hue. I can’t think of two places more distinct from the U.S. (and from each other) than Belgium and Sri Friggin’ Lanka. You’ve got to be kidding.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Bi-lingual ? Apparently we don’t use the same ATM. It’s “multi-lingual.”
February 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
In case someone thinks the ad hominem deserves a response, I speak five languages, three of them pretty well, including Spanish and Portuguese. Just because we let in the poor of Europe when the frontier hadn’t quite closed and industry was growing rapidly, and my grandmother worked as a seamstress for a while doesn’t mean it’s wise to have unrestricted immigration in the present era, or that I’m obliged to support wide-open immigration uncritically.
Our earlier immigrants came from many lands, and many languages were spoken, from Armenian to Norse, and there was no widespread ideology that rejected acculturation as a goal. As a result, most learned English (and other American ways) by the second generation. Now the great bulk of newcomers (at the lower end of the social pyramid at least) speak one language–Spanish. They can easily travel back and forth, and diversocrats resist Americanization. They may not be Buddhists and Hindus, or Wallons and Flemings, but Blacks and Mexicans are killing each other in South LA (not that anyone will notice until Britney dries out and Anna Nicole is in the ground). A divided America is a risk; how great a risk depends on what you predict about acculturation, which in turn depends on some effective control on numbers and rates of immigration, and whether you favor encouraging English-learning in the schools.
I admire the many hard-working Mexicans and others driven out by a corrupt and inefficient system back home, but very large numbers and lack of control are a problem. If we could control the border better there’d be reason to support a generous program for those who have invested a large part of their lives here with the connivance of corporate America, and a wink from the Feds. Without border control such a program would just be a stronger magnet.
BTW, people who want the federal government to control everything from multi-guess tests in the schools to cigarettes to SUVs but cavil at the basic notion of sovereignty–controlling the border–seem a bit inconsistent to me.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
It is ideologically true that if capital is free to run around and find the best place to make a profit, then workers should also be free to transcend national borders to find where they can make the highest buck.
Capitalists obviously try to prevent that because the status quo keeps capital in the dominant position. So called “free marketeers” who don’t believe that need to be called out as the hypocrites they are. Today’s typical US liberal say they support this, while righteously (and hypocritically) calling for “labor and enviroronmental” standards – that do little more than add bureacratic hurdles to developing countries and local producers.
What no one seems ready to deal with is that there are serious costs and unexpected consequences with “freedom” of trade, capital or labor. Europeans understand this and therefore support a social development fund to smooth out the regional imbalances.
But as for those of us demonized as leftists/socialists who put the most vulnerable first, the question should not be to let the market work its destructive magic, but to use our brains – to do the research to find out what sectors will be most hurt and plan for their assistance. If it does not make sense to empty out Detroit’s manufacturing base – or Georigia textile workers – we should feel no shame about protecting them. If Mexico opening its corn market means the devastation of its rural heritage (and towns) AND higher prices, did that make sense? Much other “trade” in goods and labor is mutually beneficial.
Opening the US’ borders wider to provide vital workers (in agriculture, computer sci. etc.) is smart. But just opening the floodgates to anyone that makes it here (like only Cubans get today) is a recipe for disaster. The deadly, desperate attempts will only increase and we will be in trouble as soon as the next recession hits. Nevermind all the other stuff about schools, overcrowding, the impact on the uneducated…) Even though economists are happy to hit 5% unemployment, we should strive for 0%.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:53 am
“….workers should also be free to transcend national borders to find where they can make the highest buck. Capitalists obviously try to prevent that….”
What make this so obvious to you Left?
.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:12 am
heart attack ! i almost had a dirtyword heart attack to find that i agree with reg. our national borders are a disgrace, with our border patrol liable for shooting armed drug mules….like those 2 border patrol agents now in fed prison; and it NOW comes out that the drug dealer that testified against them was also STILL smuggling in dope after his agreement to testify….what person trying to come into this nation would refuse an opportunity to have “free access” into the u.s.a. for their testimony against the very people trying to stop them?
with those in charge of our borders being hunted down by big-wig D.A.’s looking to get famous, who would want to stay a border patrol agent??
March 1st, 2007 at 9:50 am
Reg, where did you get your 40% of the workforce number? The study Marc links to says that, “Today, the foreign-born are 14 percent of the U.S. workforce and 33 percent of California’s.” And the Census states that 26.2% of the California population is foreign born (I have no idea how they account for the difficult of counting illegal immigrants).
This article is also a must read: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-inmates1mar01,0,7469220.story?coll=la-home-headlines
March 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
It’s not quite forty – the figure I saw, looking at several articles which discussed this study, and which one I can’t remember – said that the number of “native-born” Californians in the workforce was 62%. Anyway, if it’s a third rather than 40%, we’re still talking about an incredibly high proportion of the workforce where the downward pressure on wages from immigration is clearly documented by this study (immigrants BEFORE 1990 seeing their wages stagnated or depressed by 17-20% by the influx of immigrants AFTER 1990 desperate to work on the cheap. I also think there are methodological questions about the “averages” of increased income for “native-born”. For example, are we talking about affluent couples able to increase their income considerably because of the availability of cheap nannies and housekeepers averaging up the losses of, say, black men with little education who are edged out of the low end of the market by more desireable immigrant labor ? Never forget what Mark Twain said about statistics: “There are lies, damnable lies and…” – guess what ?
March 1st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
well, at this point in time the Netherlands has a population that is 40% muslim; France’s is over 30%; Belgium is at 40%. and these islamists vote as a block.
Nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_in_Western_Europe
June 18th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Good article. It’s very unfortunate that over the last 10 years, the travel industry has already been able to to handle terrorism, SARS, tsunamis, influenza, swine flu, and also the first ever entire global economic collapse. Through it all the industry has really proven to be powerful, resilient as well as dynamic, finding new approaches to deal with adversity. There are generally fresh troubles and the possiblility to which the sector must once again adapt and respond.