The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If Democrats moved sharply to the right on immigration, as requested by Beinart, and maintained their current stance on economic issues, I'd probably stop voting. Why would I vote for a hawkish, neo-liberal party that also panders to the racist right on immigration? I could not bring myself to vote for CEOs who talked about "controlling our borders", I'd rather die than do something so undignified.

Beinart supported the War in Iraq. I'd suggest that his ability to prognosticate is very limited and that his intellectual capabilities aren't very impressive either or, worse, he's very intellectual dishonest. I'm far from an expert on the economics of immigration - I'm barely a dilettante - but many of his statements are opinion posing as fact or conventional wisdom. Many labor economists would dispute his claims about the affects of immigration on the wages of the low-skilled/native-born - the conventional wisdom that Beinart portrays simply isn't present and quoting Krugman - a trade specialist - and Borjas - a very controversial figure to say the least - does not lend much credence to his claims.

It's fine for Beinart to inveigh against the accepted wisdom within the professional class in the US that immigration is good, beautiful and so on but he'd be better off making the case that we simply aren't honest enough about the difficulties associated with diversity and tolerance rather than arguing that immigrants strain the welfare state - they don't, that's nonsense - or that low-skill immigrants saddle the economy - has he looked at the manner in which housing prices are skyrocketing and the problems facing farmers in California? Immigration generates tremendous economic benefits. This is inarguable, it is settled science, it is a fact comprehensible by 7 year olds etc. The question is how we use these benefits; we have failed miserably to put them to good use but this is not an argument against immigration, it is an argument against the failed centrist dickheads who control the Democratic Party and the reactionary troglodytes on the right.

Immigrant led families absolutely strain the welfare system. The claim that they don't is based on the fact that children of immigrant led families are often citizens but they wouldn't be citizens if their parents weren't allowed to immigrate either legally or illegally in the first place.

Also, why are you bringing up the housing crisis? That's counter intuitive. There's a housing crisis because of immigration. If there were less people, the price of housing would go down. That's not even economics, that's just basic math.

Well, what is the "welfare system"? If we use a very restricted notion of the welfare system that only encompasses benefits for prime-age workers/residents, you'd be correct, but these benefits are pretty miniscule and, frankly, compose a pretty insignificant share of federal/state outlays. The "real" outlays go to the elderly and immigrants, without question, help us maintain SS/Medicare and, more importantly, push down the cost of elderly care, healthcare costs etc. If you look at the budget and ignore second-order effects, I'm sure that you can produce a result that shows that immigration isn't fiscally prudent but this isn't economics. It's the work of fools. Immigrants can be treated as factors in production processes that generate output which composes the economy and that, in turn, is taxed along the way. It's hard to estimate the degree to which immigration fosters this process, which is why it's easy for people to believe in misconceptions that you promote, but the effects are real and inarguable.

Economics is counter-intuitive: yes, immigrants need housing but if they disproportionately are a factor in the production of housing, they actually push housing costs down. Simultaneously, if you haven't noticed, demand from immigrants for housing is reduced relative to native-born Americans. You are the one who is uneducated on these topics.

For sociological reasons, I'm willing to consider constraining immigration but, there isn't an economic argument against immigration. If you want to expand output, both in the US and abroad, the best thing you can do is to expand immigration. The "quality of life" outcomes can be debated, the effects on politics of immigration can be nasty and we can discuss these things but the arguments you are making are wrong.

[Famous Mortimer]

My 2 cents of the topic -

Immigration's role in preventing a collapse of Medicare, SS & entire US economy - US has an ageing population. The number of people who are old vs in the working age is disproportionately higher & could cause a budgetary crisis. An influx of people in their working age paying taxes is what is supporting this system (many just pay taxes & never get anything in return). Without immigration, it would collapse.

You are being extremely misleading to the point of lying.

What you say would only be true if immigrants were paying a lot of taxes.

While it's true that SOME immigrants pay taxes and don't use a lot of services in return, that is not true of most of them.

Immigrants are more likely not to pay any federal income tax at all (because they are more likely to have low paying jobs and more likely to have children, thus more likely to actually pay NEGATIVE taxes) and their families are more likely to use services than native families.

[Jeffster]

Immigration & inequality data comparison has to one of the dumbest comparison ever. This is why people need to study Economics.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Neither of you must know anything about economics or common sense then. If you increase the supply of labor you drive down wages, while at the same time allow business owners to derive greater profits due to the lower labor costs. So increased labor supply means incomes for people at the bottom and middle go down as a share of the total, while greater profits means incomes for those at the top go up as a share. To just flatly say there is no effect from immigration on inequality without actually going through the real mechanics to debunk it, you prove that your reaction was simply knee-jerk because you are in favor of mass migration for other reasons and obviously do not really care about reducing income inequality by addressing all factors that contribute to it.

I never said immigration was the sole reason for inequality, but you can't deny it is a contributing factor. So let's agree to raise taxes on the wealthy, establish universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, adjust our trade deals so we don't allow outsourcing to nations that fail to meet our standards on human rights, environmental regulations, workplace safety, child labor, etc. and reduce the amount of immigration to only highly skilled people for occupations where there is a labor shortage. Why would Democrats refuse to make that reasonable compromise?

[Jeffster]

My 2 cents of the topic -

Immigration's role in preventing a collapse of Medicare, SS & entire US economy - US has an ageing population. The number of people who are old vs in the working age is disproportionately higher & could cause a budgetary crisis. An influx of people in their working age paying taxes is what is supporting this system (many just pay taxes & never get anything in return). Without immigration, it would collapse.

How is a system that will require constant population growth forever, be sustainable? What population for the US is too much in your opinion? 500 million? 1 billion? 2 billion? What would be the impact on the environment for such large numbers?

Or is your plan to just keep the system going for your lifetime, and you don't really care about what future generations will have to do down the road when they have to choose between keeping the ponzi scheme running or facing the reality of an overcrowded nightmare? I guess you don't really care about climate change either, right? That's something the future US with a population of a billion or more people will have to deal with when you're long gone, so who cares?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Allow undocumented immigrants to sue and make the penalties for underpaying severe.

There would be less people to build houses as well. Immigrant families still pay taxes, and don't get much in the way of benefits.


People immigrated to the US because there were jobs. Mexican immigration has been going down for a long time. Immigration had been shown to have long term benefits.

http://www.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

You are so out of touch on this issue. You are supposed to be the party of the working class and you are using arguments from the Wharton Business school. "Most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages." What did Keynes say about the long run again? That's right "In the long run we are all dead." So they admit that immigration does depress wages, but if you look over a long enough period of time, like say 30 or 40 years, then it all evens out so it's all good, right? Meanwhile, American families are suffering from depressed wages and lost jobs during their peak working years when they are trying to support families, but it's OK because we have the new Democratic party here to tell them that in the long run things are going to be to great.

Your party was involved in allowing a huge influx of immigrants and trade deals that took away jobs and depressed wages for American workers, and your solution is to continue the same policies, and just have those workers who lose out go on welfare. Most people don't want to live off of handouts, they want jobs, they want to feel like they are needed. What the hell happened to the party of FDR? What happened to big government works programs in times of high unemployment? Don't just blame Republicans, this is all on your party. You guys had compete control in 2009, with Congressional majorities not seen in a generation and you did crap with it. We should be subsidizing private businesses to take on long term unemployed, and creating temporary government jobs constructing and cleaning up public roads, buildings, parks, etc. We should also be paying to help retrain laid off workers. Again, don't just blame Republicans, you guys had the power and didn't do it.

Stop relying on the old talking point "America is a nation of immigrants" as a way to justify mass immigration now and forever. We've had periods where immigration was reduced and it worked out. The new arrivals became part of the melting pot, and we had the greatest expansion of the middle class in our nations history. Now the share of the US population that are immigrants is the highest it's been since the Gilded Age. It's no coincidence that the periods of high immigration overlap with the periods of high income inequality in US history. Also, we are at the point where unskilled labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation, so we should adjust our immigration policy to only bring in highly skilled immigrants in areas where there is an actual shortage. Let our own unskilled citizens have those few jobs that remain, and let them earn a decent wage doing them, instead of flooding the market with cheaper labor, all so the top 1% can extract bigger profits.

You guys also keep using talking points one would expect from a right wing business executive when you say they do the jobs Americans won't do. The reality is they do jobs at wages so low Americans won't do them, or can't afford to support a family doing them. You claim we wouldn't have enough construction workers if it weren't for illegal immigrants, when it was their presence that drove down wages and took away jobs in the industry, and forced Americans to look elsewhere for work with the hope they could find better paying jobs. If they weren't here then those jobs would pay a higher wage and more Americans would take them. So again, if your argument boils down to needing a permanent underclass of cheap exploitable labor to keep our country going, then you have no business calling yourself a party of the working class. Just admit you are either complicit in that exploitation or are useful idiots for the wealthy 1%.

Using arguments from a business school to justify not treating people like locusts because they immigrated to the US is "anti-working class" now? The actual article states that there in general isn't a significant effect on native workers, though immigrant laborers unfortunately face a decline of around five percent. Plus, you don't get to act like people have no right to human decency because they were born in a different country then you.

And to address some of your trash later in this thread, A. maybe poverty rates would be a better measure, B. People don't tend to immigrate when there are no jobs available, eg in an economic depression that hurts wages, C. The people who made immigration easier in the 80's were the same people who began a bunch of  damaging reforms that caused problems, eg killing unions, and finally D. Ice cream cone sales go up during june. Drowning deaths go up during june, does that mean that ice cream causes drowning? No, the truth is that the heat of summer makes swimming and ice cream more appealing. Correlation does not equal causation.

[Jeffster]

Allow undocumented immigrants to sue and make the penalties for underpaying severe.

There would be less people to build houses as well. Immigrant families still pay taxes, and don't get much in the way of benefits.


People immigrated to the US because there were jobs. Mexican immigration has been going down for a long time. Immigration had been shown to have long term benefits.

http://www.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

You are so out of touch on this issue. You are supposed to be the party of the working class and you are using arguments from the Wharton Business school. "Most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages." What did Keynes say about the long run again? That's right "In the long run we are all dead." So they admit that immigration does depress wages, but if you look over a long enough period of time, like say 30 or 40 years, then it all evens out so it's all good, right? Meanwhile, American families are suffering from depressed wages and lost jobs during their peak working years when they are trying to support families, but it's OK because we have the new Democratic party here to tell them that in the long run things are going to be to great.

Your party was involved in allowing a huge influx of immigrants and trade deals that took away jobs and depressed wages for American workers, and your solution is to continue the same policies, and just have those workers who lose out go on welfare. Most people don't want to live off of handouts, they want jobs, they want to feel like they are needed. What the hell happened to the party of FDR? What happened to big government works programs in times of high unemployment? Don't just blame Republicans, this is all on your party. You guys had compete control in 2009, with Congressional majorities not seen in a generation and you did crap with it. We should be subsidizing private businesses to take on long term unemployed, and creating temporary government jobs constructing and cleaning up public roads, buildings, parks, etc. We should also be paying to help retrain laid off workers. Again, don't just blame Republicans, you guys had the power and didn't do it.

Stop relying on the old talking point "America is a nation of immigrants" as a way to justify mass immigration now and forever. We've had periods where immigration was reduced and it worked out. The new arrivals became part of the melting pot, and we had the greatest expansion of the middle class in our nations history. Now the share of the US population that are immigrants is the highest it's been since the Gilded Age. It's no coincidence that the periods of high immigration overlap with the periods of high income inequality in US history. Also, we are at the point where unskilled labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation, so we should adjust our immigration policy to only bring in highly skilled immigrants in areas where there is an actual shortage. Let our own unskilled citizens have those few jobs that remain, and let them earn a decent wage doing them, instead of flooding the market with cheaper labor, all so the top 1% can extract bigger profits.

You guys also keep using talking points one would expect from a right wing business executive when you say they do the jobs Americans won't do. The reality is they do jobs at wages so low Americans won't do them, or can't afford to support a family doing them. You claim we wouldn't have enough construction workers if it weren't for illegal immigrants, when it was their presence that drove down wages and took away jobs in the industry, and forced Americans to look elsewhere for work with the hope they could find better paying jobs. If they weren't here then those jobs would pay a higher wage and more Americans would take them. So again, if your argument boils down to needing a permanent underclass of cheap exploitable labor to keep our country going, then you have no business calling yourself a party of the working class. Just admit you are either complicit in that exploitation or are useful idiots for the wealthy 1%.

Using arguments from a business school to justify not treating people like locusts because they immigrated to the US is "anti-working class" now? The actual article states that there in general isn't a significant effect on native workers, though immigrant laborers unfortunately face a decline of around five percent. Plus, you don't get to act like people have no right to human decency because they were born in a different country then you.

And to address some of your trash later in this thread, A. maybe poverty rates would be a better measure, B. People don't tend to immigrate when there are no jobs available, eg in an economic depression that hurts wages, C. The people who made immigration easier in the 80's were the same people who began a bunch of  damaging reforms that caused problems, eg killing unions, and finally D. Ice cream cone sales go up during june. Drowning deaths go up during june, does that mean that ice cream causes drowning? No, the truth is that the heat of summer makes swimming and ice cream more appealing. Correlation does not equal causation.

Using arguments from the Wharton Business school means zilch considering they will always be on the side of business owners. Wage stagnation began at the same time the immigrant share of the population increased, and outsourcing to countries with lax regulations began. It's far easier to bust a union if you can fire the workers and replace them with cheap illegal labor, or outsource the factory to a foreign country. Your party, that is supposed to be the party of the working class, actively worked with Republicans to allow it to happen.

People have the right to fight for human decency in their own countries, and we can use trade to reward countries that treat their people well, or punish countries that abuse their own people if we choose. There is no right to immigrate to the USA, and we are allowed to choose who can come here. Again, it appears you are putting the welfare of foreigners over your own citizens.

We had a falling immigrant share of the population between the 50's-60's, and saw huge gains in income for our own workers. The Depression and War was over by then, so it was a political choice to not allow massive waves of immigrants during that period, not immigrants staying away due to the economy. It was also a political choice to increase the number of immigrants after that.

Why are you guys refusing to do an all above approach to inequality? You want to just look at one side of the issue, thinking you can fix the whole problem, while you ignore half of it. We can raise taxes on the wealthy and raise the minimum wage, while we also negotiate better trade deals so they won't allow outsourcing to countries that have fewer regulations and allow their people to be exploited, and we can reduce the rate of immigration to only highly skilled people needed to fill an actual skill shortage.

Because let's say we only address half of the problem, like what you want to do, and we raise taxes on the wealthy and raise the minimum wage. Since you did nothing to address trade deals, or the presence of illegal labor, or the rate of legal immigration, the wealthy can flee to countries with lower income taxes, and relocate production to countries with cheap labor and lax regulations, and still import their goods to our markets with no trouble. Then all the jobs that couldn't be outsourced are now under competition from increased immigrant labor, so some businesses will hire illegal labor to pay less than the minimum with no benefits, or the presence of legal immigrant labor will increase competition for jobs and force people to take a pay cut down to the new minimum. Controlling the supply of labor is one power a government has through its immigration policy. Our policy has been designed to benefit the wealthy for decades with mass immigration of both legal and illegal labor at the expense of native workers.

[hopper]

You must not remember but the filibuster was already a nuisance in the 2007-2008 Congress. The nuclear option was originally brought up by Republicans in 2005 over judges, so the idea was already out there.

No, I didn't. But again, I have to say, eliminating it after a brief period of severe abuse* is still drastic. You're talking about throwing out a procedural tool that has been in place in some form for many generations. That is exactly the kind of bs I hate - changing the rules immediately when you find yourself thwarted. It's what I see Republicans doing anywhere they have power and want just a little bit more (see: North Carolina). And again, it's easy for people to be fed up now, but that is the result of over a decade of abuse.

* what you consider to be sufficiently abusive to justify gutting the filibuster is probably different than mine. The escalation since the 80s is a lot less important to me than the surge shown since Democrats took over in 2007.

The Democrats purposefully kept in the legislative filibuster because deep down most of them didn't really want to pass the progressive legislation they promised their voters. They could always use Republican obstruction as an excuse why they failed, and then ask to be re-elected so they can try again, promising next time they'll surely come through. It's so glaringly obvious it's just a big scam.

Ugh. Ok. I'm sure a few appreciated that outcome, but that sounds mostly like conspiracy talk that is favored among the left as a way to vent their frustration of the party not being sufficiently liberal.

I won't indulge that.

Didn't NC Dems do rule changing when Republican Governor Jim Martin was elected Governor in the late 80's? The Dems nearly dominated NC Politics till 2011 on the state level.

[hopper]

Exactly.. the Republicans controlled Congress for 18 of the last 22 years. As the legislative branch they are in charge of laws and appropriations.

Well the US House yes Republicans have controlled for 18 out of the last 22 years with the exception of 2007-2010. At the US Senate Level its 15 out of the last 22 years since the Dems controlled the US Senate from 2007-2014.

[Virginiá]

Didn't NC Dems do rule changing when Republican Governor Jim Martin was elected Governor in the late 80's? The Dems nearly dominated NC Politics till 2011 on the state level.

Maybe, but not only do I prefer to keep things within the current generation in this respect (for a couple reasons), but two wrong's also do not make a right. I'd also argue to what extent they went. The NCGOP is making a lot of moves to consolidate power, to the point where it might be fare to say that they don't even really care about how the government is structured or whether they even have elections, so long as they call the shots.

I mean for gods sakes, now they even seem to be open to just impeaching the last Democratic statewide office holders to try and increase their chances of taking over those offices.

[hopper]

Didn't NC Dems do rule changing when Republican Governor Jim Martin was elected Governor in the late 80's? The Dems nearly dominated NC Politics till 2011 on the state level.

Maybe, but not only do I prefer to keep things within the current generation in this respect (for a couple reasons), but two wrong's also do not make a right. I'd also argue to what extent they went. The NCGOP is making a lot of moves to consolidate power, to the point where it might be fare to say that they don't even really care about how the government is structured or whether they even have elections, so long as they call the shots.

I mean for gods sakes, now they even seem to be open to just impeaching the last Democratic statewide office holders to try and increase their chances of taking over those offices.

Oh I didn't say two wrongs make a right in the instances that NC Dems took power away from Republican Governor Jim Martin in the late 80's and how NC Republicans are taking power away from current Dem Governor Roy Cooper currently. Its just that I think in NC politics whatever party controls the state legislature seems to like taking power away from a governor of the opposing political party.

[hopper]

Well, I don't consider Greenwald to be a liberal, but otherwise I agree with the general sentiment of the article.

To really address wealth inequality, we need to make labor scarcer, and we can only do that by reducing immigration.

I also think that immigration probably hurts liberalism, at least in the medium-term. It's not a coincidence that the two largest expansions of government (New Deal and Great Society) happened during the period when the foreign-born population was relatively low (between the Immigration Act of 1924 and the period when the effects of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 began to be felt). It's a lot harder to add new government programs when conservatives can portray them as hand-outs to non-whites.

Yeah but how many government programs do you want to add currently? The US Government is 20 trillion dollars in the hole also.

[hopper]

The tragic thing about the Democrats on immigration is that they somehow ran a campaign in 2016 which inspired both anti-immigration swing voters and pro-immigration portions of their base to believe that the party supports open borders and believes that deportations are always immoral.

This is odd enough in itself, but it becomes downright surreal when poised against their outgoing president’s record, which involved millions of deportations and demonstrated a much stronger interest in creating refugees than in hosting them. (How is that for Obama’s inspiring moral leadership?)

This. Obama was nicknamed the "Deporter in Chief" by immigration activists. The perception on all sides that the Democrats are in favour of open borders is bizarre.

Well in his second presidential term he wasn't "deporter in chief" anymore. He created programs like DAPA and DACA and focused on deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

[Kingpoleon]

The tragic thing about the Democrats on immigration is that they somehow ran a campaign in 2016 which inspired both anti-immigration swing voters and pro-immigration portions of their base to believe that the party supports open borders and believes that deportations are always immoral.

This is odd enough in itself, but it becomes downright surreal when poised against their outgoing president’s record, which involved millions of deportations and demonstrated a much stronger interest in creating refugees than in hosting them. (How is that for Obama’s inspiring moral leadership?)

This. Obama was nicknamed the "Deporter in Chief" by immigration activists. The perception on all sides that the Democrats are in favour of open borders is bizarre.

Well in his second presidential term he wasn't "deporter in chief" anymore. He created programs like DAPA and DACA and focused on deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

Yes he was. He deported the most immigrants of any President ever.

[hopper]

Democrats could easily support less immigration using an economic argument and still win Hispanic voters. It is a misconception that Hispanics vote based on immigration policy. Especially if Democrats focus on shutting down future immigration while at the same time being lenient towards immigrants already here, that could be a winning strategy with both marginal downscale Whites and keeping their current share of the Hispanic vote. Especially if the GOP continues to denigrate immigrants in personal terms.

Its not like the GOP is gonna change our current immigration system though even with rhetoric about immigrants. The "Taft-Hartley Act of 1965" which our current immigration system is based off of is likely to stay law of the land even with Trump in office.

[hopper]

The tragic thing about the Democrats on immigration is that they somehow ran a campaign in 2016 which inspired both anti-immigration swing voters and pro-immigration portions of their base to believe that the party supports open borders and believes that deportations are always immoral.

This is odd enough in itself, but it becomes downright surreal when poised against their outgoing president’s record, which involved millions of deportations and demonstrated a much stronger interest in creating refugees than in hosting them. (How is that for Obama’s inspiring moral leadership?)

This. Obama was nicknamed the "Deporter in Chief" by immigration activists. The perception on all sides that the Democrats are in favour of open borders is bizarre.

Well in his second presidential term he wasn't "deporter in chief" anymore. He created programs like DAPA and DACA and focused on deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

Yes he was. He deported the most immigrants of any President ever.

Ahh Trump will deport more illegal immigrants than Obama did through 2 terms if Trump gets re-elected in 2020.

[PoliticalShelter]

The tragic thing about the Democrats on immigration is that they somehow ran a campaign in 2016 which inspired both anti-immigration swing voters and pro-immigration portions of their base to believe that the party supports open borders and believes that deportations are always immoral.

This is odd enough in itself, but it becomes downright surreal when poised against their outgoing president’s record, which involved millions of deportations and demonstrated a much stronger interest in creating refugees than in hosting them. (How is that for Obama’s inspiring moral leadership?)

This. Obama was nicknamed the "Deporter in Chief" by immigration activists. The perception on all sides that the Democrats are in favour of open borders is bizarre.

Well in his second presidential term he wasn't "deporter in chief" anymore. He created programs like DAPA and DACA and focused on deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

Also consider that he changed the statistics so that anyone caught trying to entering at the border became counted as "deported" Inorder to increase the number of the deported (almost unimaginable from anyone in the current Democratic Party doing that).

[Virginiá]

Oh I didn't say two wrongs make a right in the instances that NC Dems took power away from Republican Governor Jim Martin in the late 80's and how NC Republicans are taking power away from current Dem Governor Roy Cooper currently. Its just that I think in NC politics whatever party controls the state legislature seems to like taking power away from a governor of the opposing political party.

Still, I think it would be hard to match just how much power they attempted to remove from the Governor this time around, including shifting some duties to either to the legislature or other statewide offices they just won. It was so brazen. I do recall reading something that referenced what Democrats did, but I thought it may have only been related to the Governor's appointees, as in, how many or who he could place where.

And that is only related to the Governor. The NCGOP is guilty of far more tom-foolerly in their question to consolidate power in North Carolina.

[Shadows]

"The thing that limits us is hiring the world's best engineers," he says, noting that 60 percent of the students at the top U.S. computer-science departments are foreign-born."Traditionally, most of them stay in the country and jobs are created around them. Now that we've hit these quotas, they have to go somewhere else," Gates says. "These are very, very high-paying jobs," he says, noting that the average salary, including benefits, is worth more than $100,000 annually, regardless of where the employee is based.

"The only question we can deal with is do we allow them to stay here and work," he says. "Traditionally, the U.S. — because it's so attractive — has had this huge advantage that other countries bemoan. ... Now, they celebrate the fact that we're kicking them out after giving them the world's best education."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88154016

The IT Industry will leave the US if it can't retain the best educated people, people who have studied in elite institutions. The whole IT industry will die because these are some of the most intelligent, highly paid, innovative, talented people that there is who build an eco-system & an industry & create huge number of jobs.

[Shadows]

Immigration & inequality data comparison has to one of the dumbest comparison ever. This is why people need to study Economics.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Neither of you must know anything about economics or common sense then. If you increase the supply of labor you drive down wages, while at the same time allow business owners to derive greater profits due to the lower labor costs. So increased labor supply means incomes for people at the bottom and middle go down as a share of the total, while greater profits means incomes for those at the top go up as a share. To just flatly say there is no effect from immigration on inequality without actually going through the real mechanics to debunk it, you prove that your reaction was simply knee-jerk because you are in favor of mass migration for other reasons and obviously do not really care about reducing income inequality by addressing all factors that contribute to it.

I never said immigration was the sole reason for inequality, but you can't deny it is a contributing factor. So let's agree to raise taxes on the wealthy, establish universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, adjust our trade deals so we don't allow outsourcing to nations that fail to meet our standards on human rights, environmental regulations, workplace safety, child labor, etc. and reduce the amount of immigration to only highly skilled people for occupations where there is a labor shortage. Why would Democrats refuse to make that reasonable compromise?

You make ridiculous arguments & it is unsurprising as it is coming from someone who has never studied economics.

The basic principle of Economics is Supply & Demand. US faces a shortage of highly skilled people especially in the areas of science, math, engineering etc. There is a skill shortage & this gap is filled by some of the most intelligent, skilled people who come in at good wages & help an entire industry survive, thrive & innovative.  Many of these people study in US Universities & many become entrepreneurs later.  For one, are the people coming in relying of Welfare? How much taxes will they be paying? How critical is that sector? What kind of crimes will they commit? Can they easily assimilate in the society?

America has an ageing population. The number of tax-payers to welfare/SS/Medicare recipients has fallen. There is a huge need for able bodied skilled high earning people to pay taxes for this system to even survive. Otherwise in a few years SS/Medicare/Medicaid, the general budget will go bankrupt !

Immigration should always be managed - I don't think any1 should support illegal immigration but if some is not a criminal & in the country for long, you have to take a call with empathy. But on the whole most immigration should be legal & depending on the needs of the society.

Which sectors need people? That is huge immigration laws are based. If you need doctors, you get them. If you need mechanics, you get them. There is a demand & according to it immigration numbers are managed. If you need 100 doctors & you let 10,000 immigrate, then that is stupid & terrible.

[Shadows]

Allow undocumented immigrants to sue and make the penalties for underpaying severe.

There would be less people to build houses as well. Immigrant families still pay taxes, and don't get much in the way of benefits.


People immigrated to the US because there were jobs. Mexican immigration has been going down for a long time. Immigration had been shown to have long term benefits.

http://www.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

You are so out of touch on this issue. You are supposed to be the party of the working class and you are using arguments from the Wharton Business school. "Most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages." What did Keynes say about the long run again? That's right "In the long run we are all dead." So they admit that immigration does depress wages, but if you look over a long enough period of time, like say 30 or 40 years, then it all evens out so it's all good, right? Meanwhile, American families are suffering from depressed wages and lost jobs during their peak working years when they are trying to support families, but it's OK because we have the new Democratic party here to tell them that in the long run things are going to be to great.

Your party was involved in allowing a huge influx of immigrants and trade deals that took away jobs and depressed wages for American workers, and your solution is to continue the same policies, and just have those workers who lose out go on welfare. Most people don't want to live off of handouts, they want jobs, they want to feel like they are needed. What the hell happened to the party of FDR? What happened to big government works programs in times of high unemployment? Don't just blame Republicans, this is all on your party. You guys had compete control in 2009, with Congressional majorities not seen in a generation and you did crap with it. We should be subsidizing private businesses to take on long term unemployed, and creating temporary government jobs constructing and cleaning up public roads, buildings, parks, etc. We should also be paying to help retrain laid off workers. Again, don't just blame Republicans, you guys had the power and didn't do it.

Stop relying on the old talking point "America is a nation of immigrants" as a way to justify mass immigration now and forever. We've had periods where immigration was reduced and it worked out. The new arrivals became part of the melting pot, and we had the greatest expansion of the middle class in our nations history. Now the share of the US population that are immigrants is the highest it's been since the Gilded Age. It's no coincidence that the periods of high immigration overlap with the periods of high income inequality in US history. Also, we are at the point where unskilled labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation, so we should adjust our immigration policy to only bring in highly skilled immigrants in areas where there is an actual shortage. Let our own unskilled citizens have those few jobs that remain, and let them earn a decent wage doing them, instead of flooding the market with cheaper labor, all so the top 1% can extract bigger profits.

You guys also keep using talking points one would expect from a right wing business executive when you say they do the jobs Americans won't do. The reality is they do jobs at wages so low Americans won't do them, or can't afford to support a family doing them. You claim we wouldn't have enough construction workers if it weren't for illegal immigrants, when it was their presence that drove down wages and took away jobs in the industry, and forced Americans to look elsewhere for work with the hope they could find better paying jobs. If they weren't here then those jobs would pay a higher wage and more Americans would take them. So again, if your argument boils down to needing a permanent underclass of cheap exploitable labor to keep our country going, then you have no business calling yourself a party of the working class. Just admit you are either complicit in that exploitation or are useful idiots for the wealthy 1%.

Using arguments from a business school to justify not treating people like locusts because they immigrated to the US is "anti-working class" now? The actual article states that there in general isn't a significant effect on native workers, though immigrant laborers unfortunately face a decline of around five percent. Plus, you don't get to act like people have no right to human decency because they were born in a different country then you.

And to address some of your trash later in this thread, A. maybe poverty rates would be a better measure, B. People don't tend to immigrate when there are no jobs available, eg in an economic depression that hurts wages, C. The people who made immigration easier in the 80's were the same people who began a bunch of  damaging reforms that caused problems, eg killing unions, and finally D. Ice cream cone sales go up during june. Drowning deaths go up during june, does that mean that ice cream causes drowning? No, the truth is that the heat of summer makes swimming and ice cream more appealing. Correlation does not equal causation.

Using arguments from the Wharton Business school means zilch considering they will always be on the side of business owners. Wage stagnation began at the same time the immigrant share of the population increased, and outsourcing to countries with lax regulations began. It's far easier to bust a union if you can fire the workers and replace them with cheap illegal labor, or outsource the factory to a foreign country. Your party, that is supposed to be the party of the working class, actively worked with Republicans to allow it to happen.

People have the right to fight for human decency in their own countries, and we can use trade to reward countries that treat their people well, or punish countries that abuse their own people if we choose. There is no right to immigrate to the USA, and we are allowed to choose who can come here. Again, it appears you are putting the welfare of foreigners over your own citizens.

We had a falling immigrant share of the population between the 50's-60's, and saw huge gains in income for our own workers. The Depression and War was over by then, so it was a political choice to not allow massive waves of immigrants during that period, not immigrants staying away due to the economy. It was also a political choice to increase the number of immigrants after that.

Why are you guys refusing to do an all above approach to inequality? You want to just look at one side of the issue, thinking you can fix the whole problem, while you ignore half of it. We can raise taxes on the wealthy and raise the minimum wage, while we also negotiate better trade deals so they won't allow outsourcing to countries that have fewer regulations and allow their people to be exploited, and we can reduce the rate of immigration to only highly skilled people needed to fill an actual skill shortage.

Because let's say we only address half of the problem, like what you want to do, and we raise taxes on the wealthy and raise the minimum wage. Since you did nothing to address trade deals, or the presence of illegal labor, or the rate of legal immigration, the wealthy can flee to countries with lower income taxes, and relocate production to countries with cheap labor and lax regulations, and still import their goods to our markets with no trouble. Then all the jobs that couldn't be outsourced are now under competition from increased immigrant labor, so some businesses will hire illegal labor to pay less than the minimum with no benefits, or the presence of legal immigrant labor will increase competition for jobs and force people to take a pay cut down to the new minimum. Controlling the supply of labor is one power a government has through its immigration policy. Our policy has been designed to benefit the wealthy for decades with mass immigration of both legal and illegal labor at the expense of native workers.

Another Ridiculous argument. This is borderline paranoia to make incorrect statements.

The total share of Highly skilled Visas for example H1B is like 200K odd which is not even 0.1% of the entire population & the average wage is high. A huge share of these visas go to people earning 100K or above in a year. Wages have grown for the Top 5-10% of the workers. All this immigration of H1B visas has pushed wages higher for the entire IT eco-system workers. (Look at the income growth of Top 20%)

Wages have stagnated for the bottom 50-60%, many of whom don't have a college degree & manufacturing jobs have gone away. And it is pretty clear that increased automation, loss of power of unions, lower minimum wage, NAFTA & Free Trade agreements & Trickle Down Economics etc have caused the fall in wages. This is pretty basic Economics which most honest people would agree !

For example - If there was huge immigration & excess supply of labour, why is unemployment so low, why is there no large scale unemployment? How can people find jobs relatively easily after being fired? It is clear job creation vs wage increase is not in tandem because unemployment is at a historic low, corporate profits are at a huge high & salaries for top executives are very high but wages remain stagnant for the bottom half !

[Jeffster]

You make ridiculous arguments & it is unsurprising as it is coming from someone who has never studied economics.

The basic principle of Economics is Supply & Demand. US faces a shortage of highly skilled people especially in the areas of science, math, engineering etc. There is a skill shortage & this gap is filled by some of the most intelligent, skilled people who come in at good wages & help an entire industry survive, thrive & innovative.  Many of these people study in US Universities & many become entrepreneurs later.  For one, are the people coming in relying of Welfare? How much taxes will they be paying? How critical is that sector? What kind of crimes will they commit? Can they easily assimilate in the society?

America has an ageing population. The number of tax-payers to welfare/SS/Medicare recipients has fallen. There is a huge need for able bodied skilled high earning people to pay taxes for this system to even survive. Otherwise in a few years SS/Medicare/Medicaid, the general budget will go bankrupt !

Immigration should always be managed - I don't think any1 should support illegal immigration but if some is not a criminal & in the country for long, you have to take a call with empathy. But on the whole most immigration should be legal & depending on the needs of the society.

Which sectors need people? That is huge immigration laws are based. If you need doctors, you get them. If you need mechanics, you get them. There is a demand & according to it immigration numbers are managed. If you need 100 doctors & you let 10,000 immigrate, then that is stupid & terrible.

Another Ridiculous argument. This is borderline paranoia to make incorrect statements.

The total share of Highly skilled Visas for example H1B is like 200K odd which is not even 0.1% of the entire population & the average wage is high. A huge share of these visas go to people earning 100K or above in a year. Wages have grown for the Top 5-10% of the workers. All this immigration of H1B visas has pushed wages higher for the entire IT eco-system workers. (Look at the income growth of Top 20%)

Wages have stagnated for the bottom 50-60%, many of whom don't have a college degree & manufacturing jobs have gone away. And it is pretty clear that increased automation, loss of power of unions, lower minimum wage, NAFTA & Free Trade agreements & Trickle Down Economics etc have caused the fall in wages. This is pretty basic Economics which most honest people would agree !

For example - If there was huge immigration & excess supply of labour, why is unemployment so low, why is there no large scale unemployment? How can people find jobs relatively easily after being fired? It is clear job creation vs wage increase is not in tandem because unemployment is at a historic low, corporate profits are at a huge high & salaries for top executives are very high but wages remain stagnant for the bottom half !

I have already said several times in this thread that immigration should be limited to only highly skilled people needed to fill a labor shortage in that skill set. And their employers should be required to pay above the prevailing wage for that specific type of job, since wages would normally rise due to a labor shortage. But please, keep ignoring that for your strawman.

As per your claims that there is no current labor glut for low and middle income workers because the unemployment rate is so low, then we should be seeing a rise in inflation as per the Phillips curve. If the unemployment rate was a true representation of our current economy then we'd be seeing a rise in wages for all income levels as businesses bid for workers to fill labor shortages, and in turn we'd be seeing a rise in inflation, but we don't. The facts are the unemployment rate is a terrible gauge of our economy since so many people have left the workforce and are not counted as currently looking for work. And don't try to claim it's just senior citizens retiring, there are working age people that are dropping out, or have not been able to re-enter the workforce.

You seem to be arguing only for the benefits of a small number of highly skilled immigrants, but then ignoring the numbers of low skilled immigrants, both legal and illegal, and their impact on working class citizens.

[Coraxion]

Republicans can hardly claim the high ground on this. Republicans don't care about the "working class" either - they say they do, but only in the context of immigration and trade. In other words, when foreigners are involved - red meat for America's xenophobic 100% white small towns. But in other areas such as healthcare, benefits, and education, as far as they're concerned, the working class can go to hell.

[hopper]

Republicans can hardly claim the high ground on this. Republicans don't care about the "working class" either - they say they do, but only in the context of immigration and trade. In other words, when foreigners are involved - red meat for America's xenophobic 100% white small towns. But in other areas such as healthcare, benefits, and education, as far as they're concerned, the working class can go to hell.

Healthcare-I think Dems and Republicans are both ignorant on the issue.

Education-The Dems are the ones that control the Education System with the NEA. I should know I am from NJ and the teachers unions are very powerful in the state.

Benefits-Can you be more specific on the issue and break down what you mean on the issue of benefits?

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Republicans can hardly claim the high ground on this. Republicans don't care about the "working class" either - they say they do, but only in the context of immigration and trade. In other words, when foreigners are involved - red meat for America's xenophobic 100% white small towns. But in other areas such as healthcare, benefits, and education, as far as they're concerned, the working class can go to hell.

Remember that a lot of business Republicans do support immigration, of both sorts (though they don't always admit it). But unlike with liberals and progressives, it's not for altruistic reasons; it's sheer economics. Many firms are willing to turn a blind eye to letting illegal immigrants come in, so long as they stay illegal, for these firms like having a permanent underclass for the cheap labor. They look at Saudi Arabia and the UAE and see them as models to emulate.

On a separate note, with the "Democrats support increasing immigration because they want to import Democratic voters" arguments xenophobes spew, you do realize that it can be flipped to "Republicans support restricting immigration to maintain Republican vote share," right? And with the authoritarian practices that the GOP is doing right now in America, the latter reasoning seems much more prevalant than the former.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Immigration was always the one policy I felt Democrats were most out-of-step with compared to the rest of the country. What most Democrats don't seem to get is that a path to legalization isn't an issue that the country is evenly divided on. A clear majority support a path to legalization, so long as immigrant assimilate. The country at-large is just not ready for a more hands-off policy towards immigrants.