The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

[Jeffster]

For many Democrats, it's only about importing voters. For the wealthy 1%, it's about importing cheap labor to drive down wages for American workers.

We are entering a time where automation will do away with all sorts of low-skilled labor, so there is no need to keep bringing in more people when we will have fewer jobs for them, and it will make funding a UBI even more expensive. Immigration should be limited to highly skilled people needed to fill positions where we have a shortage of available talent, and the business should be required to pay above the prevailing wage for that type of job. If the supply of that specialized labor is less than the demand, wages would rise. Businesses shouldn't be able to just import a foreign worker at a lower wage, who is then tied to that company over fear of being sent home, in order to drive down wages for other qualified Americans.

Also, people who are worried about climate change need to explain how they can support a system that requires constant population growth to function? We live on a planet with finite resources, so how do expect to ever reach sustainability if you want to grow the population in your country forever through immigration? If that isn't your goal, then tell us at what population level we stop immigration.

[Jeffster]

The GOP strategy

1. Suppress the middle class with plutocratic economic policies
2. Blame some 'Other' be it Blacks, Immigrants, etc.
3. Win Power by Blaming the 'Other'
4. Return to Step 1

Then all Democrats have to do is take a tougher stance against immigration, both illegal and legal, and they'd win. Instead they have sold out to the wealthy 1% to increase the supply of labor for big business all so they can replace their older voter base with new arrivals. So they are also playing along with that whole "Suppress the middle class with plutocratic economic policies."

Why do you guys have to play this stupid game of being all-in for every Democratic position, or all-in for every Republican position? Why can't you realize that the Democrats are wrong on this issue and work to change them from within?

This is not the late 19th/early 20th century anymore. We don't need a constant stream of immigrants to settle the sparsely populated west, or work the newly built factories. Increasing the supply of labor through immigration at this point only leads to depressing wages, and increased strains on housing, healthcare, and education.

[Jeffster]

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

[Jeffster]

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

An in turn spare me that nativist crap our immigrant forefathers got coming off the boats. The facts are the facts and illegals don't rank high in violent offenses, they take jobs no else will do, and don't drain welfare system compare to natural citizens

The time periods aren't the same at all. Stop comparing them because it makes you look foolish. There is no need for more unskilled labor when we already have so many people out of the workforce, and automation is doing away with more an more jobs every year. They do not take jobs Americans won't do, that is some scumbag wealthy elitist talking point. You are supposed to be the party of the working class, yet you talk like someone from the rentier class. Americans will do those jobs if the pay is high enough, which it won't be so long as you allow immigrants to undercut those wages. If your argument is that we need a permanent underclass of exploitable cheap labor otherwise goods will be too expensive, then you sound like someone from the 19th century trying to justify slavery.

[Jeffster]

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

[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%.

[Jeffster]

... 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.

Ah, the ol' "you controlled the federal govt for 2 years, so why didn't you fix everything?!" line. I swear, over the past 3 years, I've seen this brought up so many times in a complaint of why Democrats didn't fix [insert issue]. Collectively, it's like people are upset Democrats didn't fix every single issue there is with their 2 year trifecta, and far shorter Senate supermajority.

Republicans have controlled Congress for a majority of the time since 1994, and instead this is all on Democrats?

Most of the big programs and historic pieces of legislation we associate with the 60's occurred in 1965-66 when Democrats had huge majorities after the landslide in 1964. You have to use that brief period of big majorities in both houses to push through your policy wishlist, because it will be a long time before you get another opportunity. Reid should have nuked the filibuster on day 1, so they could have passed everything. The filibuster helps Republicans more than it helps Democrats, based on their government philosophy. Democrats didn't do that, and didn't push progressive legislation because they are just a neoliberal party disguising themselves as the party of the working class.

[Jeffster]

And of course it's typical that you two would only pick one part of my comment and ignore the rest of my argument. What do you say about the fact that the share of our population that are immigrants is the highest it's been since the Gilded Age, and how both periods were marked by high income inequality? Your party claims to care about income inequality and wants to reduce it, well reducing immigration would help in that effort.

[Jeffster]

Because I've already commented on what I've wanted to comment on earlier in this thread, Jeffster. I do not wish to engage everything, and your post was rather big. Nothing in it made me want to respond except that one little thing I picked out.

As for what you said - nuke the filibuster on day 1? The filibuster back then wasn't yet the problem it is viewed as today. Republicans massively amped their use of it in the following years so they could obstruct Democrats and turn Obama into a do-nothing president. Personally, I'd rather have a filibuster so long as it isn't abused. At that time, there wasn't really a good enough reason to kill it, imo. Of course it's obvious now, but hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

Also I think it's a little bit disingenuous to compare LBJ's big majorities to 2009-2011. First, LBJ actually got Republicans to support parts of his agenda. The parties were not so ideologically homogeneous back then, and things were far less polarized. Obama had to deal with an almost completely unified GOP front hellbent on denying him any wins, even if it hurt the country. Second, those LBJ 1965-1967 majorities were huge - much bigger than Obama's first Congress. He had wiggle room on various issues, especially when combined with a more cooperative GOP caucus.

Lastly, I do not think Democrats/Obama anticipated losing all that power so quickly. Losing 63 -/+ House seats in a single election is a pretty rare occurrence. I'd be willing to bet their actions would be much different if they could have seen what would happen in late 2010.

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.



We have known since the 90's that the parties are now clearly divided over ideology compared to the 60's when there were still many northern liberal Republicans and southern conservative Democrats. So the Democrats should have expected not to get Republican support for their agenda once Obama took office.

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.

[Jeffster]

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.

The current form of the filibuster goes back to Robert Byrd changing the rules in the 1975. Before that it took 2/3 to end debate and vote for a bill, but it also meant that no other legislation could move forward during a filibuster. Then they changed it 3/5 to end debate on a specific bill, but they would allow other pieces of legislation to be on the floor as well so it wouldn't shut down the whole Senate. By the time of the clear abuse of filibusters used in 2007-2008, Only 32 years had passed since the rules change, so it's not like it was a long held tradition. The filibuster from Mr. Smith goes to Washington was not how it was done anymore.

Democrats knew very well Republicans would use it on every piece of legislation, and since Franken wouldn't be seated for a while due to the lawsuit, and Specter didn't flip sides yet, they weren't going to have 60 votes from the start. And why would you hamstring yourself to a system that requires all 60 Democrats to agree and vote for the bill in the first place? You'd expect there to always be a few holdouts. Nuking the filibuster would have given them the room to pass all the stuff they promised their voters while still having a handful of Democrats in red states voting 'no'.

[Jeffster]

After looking up income inequality data and immigration data I simply could not find a chart with both sets of data put together to really see how they changed in relation to each other over time. So I had to use the raw data and put together my own chart.



http://imgur.com/a/YZdWq

While I do agree with Democrats over issues like tax rates and the decline in labor unions on their impact on income inequality, they simply refuse to bring up the issue of immigration on income inequality.

Edit: Is there a reason that imgur pictures don't show up?

[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?

[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.

[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.