Defining moment? He hired a licensed contractor to do some work (a company owned by a guy named Fukunaga, of the Guadalajara Fukunagas, no doubt) on his house, the contractor hired some day laborers, the day laborers anonymously told the Denver Post they were illegals, the contractor still says they're legal and nobody's proving anything? That's almost as good as the story of why Linda Chavez isn't Secretary of Labor today.

Here in Georgia, local workers didn't disdain construction jobs until the labor market became flooded will illegal workers and wages practically dissappeared. Nor did they "disdain" the other jobs mentioned, so long as they weren't run quite so openly as wage/labor exploitation scams, feeding off an endless supply of illegal unskilled labor to keep prices low.

It's no surprise that business loves Bush's plan. According the the National Acamemy of Sciences, "Despite estimates that range into hundreds of billions of dollars, net annual gains from immigration are only about $8 billion. In dragging down wages, immigration currently shifts about $160 billion per year from workers to employers and users of immigrants' services."

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/index.html

Immigration is great, so long as it makes sense. The current set-up & Bush's proposal just doesn't.

Here's another book worth looking into:

http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/6677.html

Again, nothing wrong with immigration per se, but as structured today, it's a disgrace.

Tancredo wants to sound statesmanlike, but the problem for the GOP is (as Rush put it today) that there are probably 180 Democratic votes in the House for any sort of immigration 'reform'. Bush just needs about 35-40 Republican votes to get what he asked for yesterday. In the Senate, it might even be easier. Railing against 'them immigrants' just sounds like Pat Buchanan, and talk of using the military to seal the borders is right out of a comic book.

There is no quick answer, but the GOP needs to recognize that they cannot be reflexive - that is a losing proposition.

This proposal is a Leftist one, so its proponents must resort to Leftist methods to argue it.

Leftist argument #1: The Denver Post says Tancredo hired illegals; ergo, Tancredo did hire illegals; ergo, Tancredo is a hypocrite; ergo, his position is wrong.

Leftist argument #2 (as illustrated by Twn): Traditional economics are in abeyance when the question is the labor market and when the labor is (increasingly) illegal. Thus, (a) massive increases in labor supply surely will not produce concomitant reductions in wages; and (b) the fact that an illegal immigrant can underbid an American worker in every case has no bearing on the fact that illegal immigrants are increasingly filling these jobs. Rather, it must be because Americans "disdain" them.

Leftist argument #3: We can strengthen the law by subverting it; we can reduce crime by appeasing criminals; we can secure our borders by obliterating them.

We all want the cheap labor--we just don't want the kids sitting next to ours in grade school.

And let me anticipate Leftist argument #4: immigration restrictionists are racists.

Jim:

A comic book?

"A Zogby poll from 2002 found that 58 percent of Americans wanted to reduce immigration, 65 percent disagreed with amnesty and 68 percent felt the United States should deploy military troops to the border to curb illegal immigration."

The interesting thing about this current hubbub is that a large part of this program in regards to migrants was in effect for 22 years under the Bracero program, begun under Roosevelt in 1942 and ending during the first year of the Johnson administration. A similar proposal was introduced by Arizona Sen. John Kyl nine years ago though the Bush plan admittedly is more expansive.

Of course, the poential down side of this is if the benefits offered under a new guest worker program are too high, than just like manufacturing jobs that have gone elsewhere, domestic growers may find their produce being underpriced by foreign growers of the same items and will lose market share (Wal-Mart has no reason to buy domestic onions, lettuce or oranges for their Supercenters any more than they have to buy clothing or toys from doemstic U.S. companies, if they can get a better price across the border).

Paul:

But by two to one they favor letting them work here.

Instead of bickering over how many illegal Mexicans we'll let work in the US, and under what conditions, let's just annex Mexico.

The immediate economic impact won't be that bad, as the entire Mexican economy's only the size of Florida's; The long term impact of acquiring 100 million high-birth-rate Christians, who already share most of a culture, will be a great positive. Add in the growth prospects for Mexico's badly managed natural resources, and it makes no sense NOT to do it.

Paul:

If the military is there, will their weapons be loaded? Will they shoot to kill? Will they use tanks, APCs, A-10s, BlackHawks, and Hellfires?

That is the comic book - and the public wouldn't stand for it if it happened. Neither would Congress. Unless the US is actually 'invaded' by lots of illegals, the idea of using the military to guard the borders is comic book. Besides, what divisions will be available to do it?

Jim:

Your rhetorical questions apply equally to the Border Patrol. They carry weapons, and they are loaded; is that a comic book?

Is it really your contention that the presence of military personel would have zero deterrent effect? None?

The proposal is a libertarian one. Most of the Right Socialists who oppose it are painfully misguided about how economics works, and apparently believe economics is a zero sum game.

The alternative to immigration is of course having more jobs outsourced overseas and goods bought from overseas, or just plain economic inefficiency that decreases the living standard of every American.

Kind of ridiculous, all these commenters claiming to be on the "Right" and yet wanting to emulate Continental Europe and Japan, and their economic practices.

John (with no last name) has got it.

Orrin loves the idea of exporting grunt work, but with electronics, you can export just about any kind of work. Hotel chambermaid is one of the few safe careers left these days.

Harry:

And they're all Latino.

Harry:

And they're all Latino.

A friend of mine is a CPA. The new thing is to hire accountants in India to do US tax returns for $150 a pop, a price that US accountants can't match.

Harry:

Chambermaids were not so secure after 9/11. Admittedly, this was more true for upscale hotels, but still.

Paul:

When was the last time the Border Patrol killed a wetback? Or someone up north? Until they do, comparisons with the military (or with using the military) are useless.

The military is still a little unnerved by the 1997 shooting of Esequiel Hernandez Jr., a 16-year-old who was watching his family's goats along the Rio Grande in West Texas and either did or didn't deliberately fire at a group of Marines on patrol of the border area, who then returned fire, killing him.

There also have been some instances of wetbacks being shot by Border Patrol agents, but since their job description is in the agency's title, those incidents have been less controversial than having the military stationed along the border, though they still are there. I was driving N.M. State Highway 9 last Sunday coming back into Texas and saw three soldiers, a humvee -- and two port-a-potties -- parked alongside the road about three miles north of the border near Columbus, N.M.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and with the repeated terror alerts, an incident such as the 1997 one might not spark as much controversy in border areas as that shooting did, since the possible effects of an unguarded border are now well known.

Only if you count Filipinas and Tongans as Latinos.

The Bush plan is a very bad idea, but it may have the salutary effect of bringing the long overdue national discussion over immigration to the forefront. Both left and right underestimate the anger in the population over massive illegal immigration. It's not just the right that's revolting.

But unskilled workers can only compete on price. Thus, people who're in favor of massive unskilled immigration are:

a) driving down the living standards of workers in the short term by greatly increasing the labor pool
b) retarding the move towards automation, and thereby driving living standards down in the long term.

Remember, the South lost the Civil War in large part because it was not industrialized. And it wasn't industrialized because it had slave labor. We're seeing that repeated in the American Southwest, where agriculture could be automated - boosting productivity and living standards - but is stuck in a local minimum because of the availability of cheap labor.

It is also worth noting that cheap labor is not cheap to the taxpayer . The problem with unskilled illegals is that they are a net loss for the economy. They pay far less in taxes than they occasion in expenditures. Consider: Education alone costs about $7000 per child per capita in California. As the majority of unskilled immigrants are Hispanic (with a significant Asian minority), we'll use the Census figures for growth. Your average Hispanic immigrant family has about 3 children.

Do the math. 21000 dollars per year in *expenditures* for at least 13 years. That's more than a minimum wage (or lower) worker makes, let alone pays in taxes. doesn't begin to include all the other expenditures - bilingual ed, bilingual signs, higher crime rates, etcetera.

"Cheap" unskilled labor is only "cheap" because employers are not footing the full cost of the worker. All the social services and assimilation costs have to be borne by the taxpayer.

It's an unholy left-right alliance: cheap votes and cheap labor. More here from Harvard prof George Borjas on the economics of unskilled immigration.

www.gnxp.com

gc:

Those though are costs we're willing to foot rather than have our own kids go work in slaughterhouses, fields, etc. No illegal alien has a job that your mom dreamed of you doing one day.

Pay them enough, and someone will do it.

By employing illegal aliens, you're also retarding the move towards automation, and thereby driving living standards down in the long term.

Actually, Orrin, many mothers and fathers do dream of having their kids do the jobs they did as youngsters. Around here, that's picking pineapple or working on the cannery line.

They don't dream of having them do it for a lifetime, but a lot send their kids out to try it for a while.

Not many stick it.

Then, neither do the immigrants, who figure out pretty quick that they can make more money with less effort doing something else, so we have to import more labor to do the labor that we imported the first group to do.

Nothing wrong with that, in itself, but most of the discussion I've been hearing the last couple days just does not jibe with reality.

Non-immigration related anecdote but possibly relevant: Some years ago I was talking with a local businessman whose son had just turned 16.

He said, "I told him he had to get a summer job so he would learn the value of money. He got a job selling sunglasses at the swimming pool and made $10 a hour. He still doesn't know the value of money."

gc, how much more do you figure lettuce would cost if picked by Americans? Would you keep eating lettuce at that price?

Um, whoever is posting as me, I'm flattered that you like the original. I'd appreciate it, though, if you didn't pose as me. (That is, unless your initials are gc too, in which case - my apologies).

Harry, concerning the lettuce:

Many people fear the first part of such a response, claiming that prices for fruits and vegetables would skyrocket, fueling inflation. But since all unskilled labor — from Americans and foreigners, in all industries — accounts for such a small part of our economy, perhaps four percent of GDP, we can tighten the labor market without any fear of sparking meaningful inflation. Agricultural economist Philip Martin has pointed out that labor accounts for only about ten percent of the retail price of a head of lettuce, for instance, so even doubling the wages of pickers would have little noticeable effect on consumers.

The major point here is that overall, unskilled immigrants are net recipients of transfer payments. Thus, though you might save in labor costs or lettuce, you end up paying more overall in taxes for bilingual ed, bilingual signs, health care, education, crime, and so on. See that calculation above on education, or check out this post and this thread. I have a ton of stats if you're interested. Here's one of the most pertinent - even the open-borders guys at the LA Times estimate that $4.6 billion of the multibillion Cali budget deficit is because of illegal immigration:

So here's the bottom line: The total the state spends on illegal immigrants is no more than $4.6 billion a year, with CalWorks being a judgment call. This is a substantial amount, but clearly not enough to account for all of the state's budget gap, which is running $8 billion to $12 billion annually.

Actually, that's a major underestimate - he doesn't count the children of illegals as illegals, for one thing, which leaves out most of the education costs - but it's a start. Bottom line is that unskilled immigration depresses GDP-per-capita and is bad economic policy. Skilled immigration is totally different - if interested, read Harvard professor Borjas's book, Heaven's Door.

Godless Capitalist is making mincemeat out of you guys.

OJ:

Madness has blinded you. "Those though are costs we're willing to foot rather than have our own kids go work in slaughterhouses, fields, etc." What are you talking about? Every father takes pride in having his high school or college age son do hard physical labor for a time. I worked as a laborer, a lawn-mower, a landscaper, and my mother never shed a tear about it.

At the froosey grocery stores around my affluent neighborhood, I don't think anybody would even notice if lettuce went up 30 cents per head and stayed there.

Judd:

Yes, it's the rest of us who need less expensive food.

Paul:

Call and tell her you've decided to go work in a slaughterhouse.

So immigrants are not using these jobs a steps on a ladder to better employment like the rest of us? It only they who say, "Mother, it is my vocation to be a landscaper, and there I shall stay"?

Paul:

You work with many folks without American college degrees?

godlesscapitalist:

Having read the material at your first link, let me say that I agree with you, that the US should throw open the doors to skilled immigrants.

However, you are correct about the net negative economic effect of unskilled immigration ONLY if, as most businesses do, you're looking only one quarter or one year ahead.
Demographic data tell us that third or later generation Americans are essentially reproducing at replacement level, and that almost all of the population growth is due to immigrants and the children of immigrants.
Thus, if we wish the economy of the US to keep growing, which would be awfully nice if we wish to pay for the Boomer's retirements, it makes sense to allow large numbers of immigrants.
From this perspective, the costs that you enumerate can be seen as CAPITAL SPENDING.

The point about the children of unskilled immigrants being far less likely to become skilled labor, than the children of skilled immigrants, seems probable, but in the long run, it's irrelevant.
Almost all skilled labor in the US today are the descendants of unskilled labor, immigrant or not, unless you count 19th century farmers and millworkers as being skilled.

As for the problems of assimilation, that can be challenging, but the vast bulk of current illegal immigration comes from Mexico, and Mexicans are very nearly Americans. About the only groups who would have less trouble fitting into American society would be the Canadians and English/Irish.

Now: Retarding the move towards automation.
Since the US has been recording record gains in productivity in recent years, which has been attributed to investments by business in technology, it seems odd to claim that unskilled immigrants are somehow preventing automation from occuring, and the claim also assumes that such automation is always desirable.
Further, Wal-Mart is often used as an example of a company that pays low wages and benefits, and a while back at this blog we had a discussion about whether or not Wal-Mart was also destroying the US economy by depressing wages and transferring health care costs to taxpayers.
However, Wal-Mart is also hailed by technologists as being one of the most advanced users of technology and information, giving it such an advantage over other retailers that Wal-Mart, already a behemoth, is projected to grow at a 15% annual rate for the next... Infinity and beyond.
Also, Wal-Mart is in the vanguard of the movement to adopt radio tags and "smart dust", which will hasten checkout and reduce inventory shrinkage, as well as decrease the amount of out-of-stock.
Thus, we can clearly see that automation and a low-wage, unskilled workforce can go hand in hand.

Automation is also not necessarily a society-wide benefit. Unless the economy is already at full employment, automation will enrich many by a small amount, and by increasing unemployment, impoverish a few.

If such automation allows us to do something previously unattainable, or very difficult, then it's a net plus to society. If it merely allows McDonald's to take your order without cashiers, then there are winners and losers, and it's either a society-wide wash, or a net loss, as Americans currently will not let the unemployed cashiers starve, or go without shelter or medical care.

Why is not anyone here addressing the the cause of why so many of these people are coming to the US? Until Mexico and other nations in Central America undergo drastic political and economic reform these illegal will continue to flow over our boarders as easily as drugs do. It is simple supply and demand and no laws, and no military is going to stop it. I almost fell off my chair today when I read the Mexican president Fox said this "was a good start". If I was Bush I would tell him to shove it where the sun don't shine and institute some real reforms so all these people don't want to leave the nation you are supposed to be leading. Until the US starts to really look to it's own hemisphere as much as we do Africa for instance any debate on immigration "reform" is a mute point.

"Call and tell her you've decided to go work in a slaughterhouse."

Tell that to consrvative midwesterners who once earned middle class wages in meatpacking plants,jobs now filled by illegals.

Now ask them who they might vote for.

Some conservatives,like many libertarians,just can't seem to grasp why "Suck It Up,Loser" might not be a winning campaign slogan.

Indusrties using unskilled labor will grow,by definition these won't be high value-added jobs,those employed in them will continue to consume more in entitlements than they contribute in taxes.Period.Increasing the number simply increases the amount the public must shell out while reducing wage levels (increasing entitlement demands)and thus reducing gov't revenues(while increasing costs).Now thats bright.
And the costs quoted don't include everything.Housing,food stamps,health care,police,etc,are just part of the total cost.
The last numbers I remember seeing were from 1999,Texas spent about $7 billion cleaning up "colonias",shanty towns that crop up everywhere.And since the fed kicked in about that much again,even the Olympians of New Hampshire had their standard of living reduced as they ponied up more out of their paychecks for this.

We know have 3 very large groups of people who depend(or will depend) on the spoils system,Blacks,Latinos and Boomers.We can't afford all 3.

Choose wisely.

M;

They voted for unions, which is why their jobs are gone. You can't make money doing unskilled labor in a knowledge economy, so we need menials to do it.

"can't make money doing unskilled labor in a knowledge economy, so we need menials to do it."

then we don't need much unskilled labor,as there will be plenty of our own people to do these jobs,lacking the ability to do knowledge work.
And you've undermined your own argument.

I stated that the jobs filled by illegals are low value-added jobs and those illegals will continue to consume more in entitlements that they pay in taxes.Increasing the number of unskilled,legal or illegal,will simply increase the tax burden as wages decline.Labor is cheap only to the degree it is subsidized by net tax payers.VodkaPundit gets cheap tomatos on CO only because net taxpayers in CA pay very high taxes to subsidize farmers.And we're running out of net tax payers.Your argument that people don't mind paying this is equivilant to stating people don't mind paying taxes because of federal withholding.Tell it to Gray DAvis.

Sorry,OJ,unskilled 3rd world labor is not going to save S.S. and Medicare,much less "Western Civilization".

M:

You can't make them. Read the releases by the trade groups that hire for these jobs--they're ecstatic. There are worker shortages in all of them, despite a 6% unemployment rate.

Where's the evidence that people mind their tax rates?

"You can't make them"

Not as long as there is a welfare state.But we can't afford them much longer anyway.Someones going to be kicked off the gravy train and then there'll be hell to pay.

"Read the releases by the trade groups that hire for these jobs--they're ecstatic."

Of course they are,they get to reduce wages even more.More people who will remember Jr. fought for this when they go into a voting booth come November.

"Where's the evidence that people mind their tax rates?"

"Read my lips" sound familiar?
How do you think Jr. got where he is?
And there is always the steady migration from high tax states to low tax states.
And how about Gov.,or rather ex-Gov. DAvis of CA.
Plenty of evidence around.

And you still avoid my basic point about net tax payers and net tax consumers.Labor is cheap only to the degree it is subsidized and we're subsidizing the least productive sectors of our economy,which shows this not an economic argument at all.Or rather,not about our national economy,but about personal profit at the expense of the nation as a whole.

I didn't ignore it--you're wrong. We're willing to pay any price not to have to do the jobs our white selves.

Dead wrong, Orrin. M's meatpacking example is right on point.

Think of it this way: Once all retail purchases are made at Wal-Mart (about 2009, at the rate we're going), and all Wal-Mart merchandise comes from China (already the case), just who is going to be the customer.

It's the old "maintaining a precarious existence by taking in each other's washing" problem, which was stated way back in the 18th century.

Single-sector economies, even if as broad as "knowledge-based," are dangerously unstable.

Besides, ANY job that's knowledge-based can be exported, which is why I said being a hotel chambermaid is a safer career choice.

And there are pretty high costs to mechanizing some tasks that people might not like to pay, if they knew they were paying. Meatpacking is, again, a good place to look.

The old skilled packing plant butchers separated the meat from the bones and sold you the meat. Mechanical deboners don't do a very good job and IBP sells you bone chips for $4/lb.

I don't consider it an advance to set down to a plate of bone.

If a machine can do it the job is by definition unskilled.

Thus, if we wish the economy of the US to keep growing, which would be awfully nice if we wish to pay for the Boomer's retirements, it makes sense to allow large numbers of immigrants.

But if these immigrants are net transfer payment recipients (as demonstrated above), there won't be money for the Boomer retirements.

The point about the children of unskilled immigrants being far less likely to become skilled labor, than the children of skilled immigrants, seems probable, but in the long run, it's irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? We have a choice between skilled and unskilled immigrants. In fact, even if we decided to take 10 million immigrants per year (10 times today's number), we could fill them entirely with skilled workers from China, Korea, India, Russia, and elsewhere (including nontrivial #'s from South America and Africa). So why take workers who will be much longer term investments (e.g. at least 2-3 generations between Irish meatpackers and Irish professors) than those who'll hit the ground running? At a minimum, let's change our current distribution so that it's revenue neutral and pays for itself right away - e.g. 50% skilled and 50% unskilled (or a similar mix).

As for the problems of assimilation, that can be challenging, but the vast bulk of current illegal immigration comes from Mexico, and Mexicans are very nearly Americans. About the only groups who would have less trouble fitting into American society would be the Canadians and English/Irish.

Actually, I strongly disagree with this. I think that East and South Asian immigrants are the non European immigrants who most easily assimilate. You'll never hear about Asians requiring bilingual education classes, for example, or committing crimes at higher rates. Of course, that doesn't mean that *all* Mexican immigrants don't learn English by the second generation or are criminals. It just means that - as a group - they're slower to assimilate than the Asians, who seem to have hit the ground running.

it seems odd to claim that unskilled immigrants are somehow preventing automation from occuring

Compare farming in the Midwest and Canada with that in the Southwest.

, and the claim also assumes that such automation is always desirable. ...Automation is also not necessarily a society-wide benefit. Unless the economy is already at full employment, automation will enrich many by a small amount, and by increasing unemployment, impoverish a few.

You may or may not realize that this was the core of Marx's argument. But he was wrong - more automation means more productivity, which means more wealth with less work. Would you still want blacksmiths forging your iron, or movable type rather than laser printers? Automation causes temporary displacement but results in long run rises in the standard of living. It also - and this is the bit you're omitting - it also creates jobs *downstream* that were not possible beforehand.

One example - steel. Cheap, easy forged steel allowed the creation of the auto industry. Imagine if each auto fender had to be hand-hammered by a blacksmith - the price of a car would be ridiculous, and the auto industry wouldn't be profitable, and thus wouldn't exist.

godlesscapitalist:

I agree, let's cherry-pick every smart person in the world.

Your opening statement, reiterating the costs associated with unskilled immigration, is again coming from a short-term paradigm.
Since it's projected that the US has about thirty years before SS goes broke, you're essentially asserting that today's immigrants will, as a whole, continue to be underproductive for thirty years.
I strongly disagree.

Latinos neither need nor desire bi-lingual education, as evidenced by polling data and the results of English only education. That was forced on them by whitey.

Surely you recognize that there are other industries in America beyond agriculture ? What about my points re: Increased productivity, and Wal-Mart ?

You rebut the first paragraph of my second post by expanding on the second paragraph. While welcome, it doesn't address the issue of automation that DOESN'T allow for greater social benefit, but merely transfers wealth.

M.:

If one examines the impact of the Boomer's retirement, it becomes clear that, although it will increase the burden on the average taxpayer, it won't be as devastating as one might think. There will be some political jostling and some shifts in burden among various groups, but the US will be far from bankrupt.
Thus, we actually CAN afford blacks, Latinos, and Boomers.

Further, it's possible that future productivity gains will ease the burden enough that no more than grumbling ensues.

Harry:

Wal-Mart will never monopolize retail sales.
Even if they did, it might not be a bad thing, since Wal-Mart's cost-plus profit policy ensures that Wal-Mart employees can afford to shop at Wal-Mart.
How is society better off by enriching JC Penney stockholders at the expense of consumers ?

"If one examines the impact of the Boomer's retirement, it becomes clear that, although it will increase the burden on the average taxpayer"

Why should they shoulder ANY increase in their tax burden?
Are you using the same system of accounting projections as those of the original Great Society cost projections?
Well,why not,they were so accurate,after all.
The recent drug entitlment was just the down payment on the boomer retirement,it will get much,much more expensive.

"There will be some political jostling and some shifts in burden"

A stunning understatement,to say the least.The cost creating and maintaining the black "middle class" alone has run to the tens of billions of dollars per year,from direct welfare to AA programs to gov't grants and set aside programs,not counting the other indirect costs levied on the private sector.Now we will have to attempt to the do the same with the latino underclass,who won't settle for less.And that jostling will futher balkanize and polarize society and politics.

"How is society better off by enriching JC Penney stockholders at the expense of consumers?"

How is society better off enriching stockholders by subsidizing cheap labor via entitlemnet programs at public expense?
This is just another form of corporate welfare,only more expensive to the taxpayers and working class.WAl-mart employees apply for public health care as the comapny provides none and they can't afford to buy thier own policies.
And we're running out of net taxpayers,while the supply of net tax consumers is nearly endless.

Apparantly you either do not understand or are indifferent to,the social/cultural,economic and political costs of reducing wages to the lowest possble level.Even the attempt will cause a revolution,resurrecting Democrat economic statism and regulation of trade and strong pro labor policy at the expense of business and stockholders.

Revolution?

Your opening statement, reiterating the costs associated with unskilled immigration, is again coming from a short-term paradigm. Since it's projected that the US has about thirty years before SS goes broke, you're essentially asserting that today's immigrants will, as a whole, continue to be underproductive for thirty years.
I strongly disagree.

Michael - with all due respect, the Immigration Reform Act was passed in 1965. That was almost 40 years ago. Since that time, many of the newer immigrant groups have done very well. Russian Jews. Chinese. Ex-Communist Bloc. Indians. Koreans. And, though it's underappreciated, Muslims from the Middle East and Pakistan. All of these groups have one thing in common: they are primarily skilled immigrants , with at least a high school education. Even the 7-11 owners, taxicab drivers, and laundromat proprietors are usually college grads.

So I am asserting what has been true for the last 40 years: that unskilled immigrants (of which the bulk are Hispanic) are very likely to remain net tax recipients. Why do you believe the situation will magically change in the next 30 years? Hispanics - unlike Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans - have been the beneficiaries of economic and hiring preferences for almost 30 years. There is absolutely no reason to believe this trend will reverse itself. On the contrary, as the numbers increase, Hispanics will become as voluble an interest group as blacks - and with far less historical justification, given that the bulk are voluntary immigrants.

In any case, why bet on this scenario? Why not - at a minimum - agree to take in a revenue neutral stream of immigrants? That is, take in a group whose net effect on tax receipts is estimated to be at least zero?

What I don't get is that you seem to concede that unskilled immigrants are net recipients, but you don't concede that we don't have to take any unskilled immigrants at all . To say it again: we could fill our immigrant class with mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, architects, and so on.

A few other points:

-bilingual ed applies only to the second generation. The first generation still speaks mainly/only spanish, which means bilingual signs. As a practical matter, teachers need to be trained in Spanish as well in order to communicate with these parents. That has costs in balkanization and economic efficiency. I'm sure you've noticed that every website and touchtone service has a "En Espanol" option?

-as for automation...please, cite an example in which automation only "transfers wealth". Not to be insulting, but this is (literally) the Marxist view of how machines work.

although it will increase the burden on the average taxpayer, it won't be as devastating as one might think

Why do we have to increase the burden on the taxpayer at all ? Again, as pointed out above, we could take entirely skilled immigrants - or none at all. Hispanic immigrants have been concentrated in unskilled labor for nearly forty years, in stark contrast to the success of other pre-selected immigrant groups.

Another point to remember is the preferences ratio: right now it's 3 (whites + asians) to 1 (blacks + hispanics). Do you want to reduce that further? That will have very substantial - and negative - impacts on economic efficiency. I refer you to India or Malaysia, where there is a history of ethnic conflict over preferences and reservations.

OJ, you gotta admit - godlesscapitalist is making a lot of sense...

Can you refute his arguments?

Ronnie:

Nope. I don't understand any of the economics. But I do know this: We aren't going to stop immigration. We aren't going to round people up and send them back. We aren't going to do the jobs that they do for us now. The only question on the table is whether we give people who do our scut work some legal protections or just keep exploiting them. The latter choice makes us an ugly society, though not as ugly as the one the anti-immigrationists dream of.

Nope. I don't understand any of the economics.

Well, that's the problem OJ. How are we then to instate a sensible immigration policy?

Ronnie:

Let anyone who wants to work and can find a job come.

Let anyone who wants to work and can find a job come.

C'mon OJ, you seriously don't mean that right? Hopefully you DO realize how unfeasible that would be. Don't be blinded by ideology.

Ronnie:

Why? It might cause a little economic dislocation for awhile, but economics is secondary. The kind of folks who leave the Old World behind to embrace our way of life are the strength of this nation.

Easy for you to say in comfortable, 95% white New Hampsphire. How many unskilled immigrants does your home state take in annually?

Lay off the rhetoric OJ.

So, if that is the point, that you just don't like living with them, then move--it's an awfully big country.

OJ how old are you? 15? Honestly.