Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Hank Paulson on Inequality Gap: "We Were Making It Wider."
If illegal immigration is such a great idea, why have any laws restricting it?
Because if we didn't have laws restricting it, it wouldn't be illegal? Trick question?
Trick answer ... and not a very good one.
You didn't answer this one from my post:
"If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs - COO, CFO, VPs, Human Resources, school teachers, college professor, investment adviser, home inspectors, doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, news reporters etc. (and of course the illegal immigrant is qualified for the position). "
Lewis, great, I never said immigrants were more or less represented than we "nativists". Cease misrepresenting my comments -- its very underhanded -- and I am calling you on it.
You are entitled to your opinion and your facts. As am I. The internet means there are "facts" all over the place for all sides. We are not going to convince each other.. Think-tanks, and govt-entities are readily able to produce reports by the dozens which support the current Establishment orthodoxy. Its one big Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" -- where "facts" are produced to support the current party line. --- Recall all the economic studies saying NAFTA would produce all those jobs. First you provide them the desired conclusion, then some economist will provide a study to support it..
To the extent they utilize entitlements, incur social costs (education, prison) they represent a drain on tax revenues. Regarding the 17% statistics -- I am sure the victims of those 17% will be gratified that their perpetrator is not "representative" of their new neighbors.... Ask the family of that lady murdered in San Francisco by the illegal about her murder not being representative, I am sure it is of great comfort...
A key point missing in all your statistics, (and poorly studied, IMO) is the derivative effect on we "nativists" -- especially those with little education -- that are economically displaced by the tsunami of immigrants. --- Again wage IN-equality was the subject of this thread. Intuitively and anecdotally, it is apparent to me this is happening.
Stunted wage-growth of the bottom 40% of households is the result of 2 tsunamis - imported labor and offshored jobs. These "nativists" are the collateral damage of these policies -- in terms of lost American dreams, increased govt dependency and in many cases, resorting to crime as a means to replace income lost to those 2 policies.
If illegal immigration is such a great idea, why have any laws restricting it?
Because if we didn't have laws restricting it, it wouldn't be illegal? Trick question?
Trick answer ... and not a very good one.
You didn't answer this one from my post:
"If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs - COO, CFO, VPs, Human Resources, school teachers, college professor, investment adviser, home inspectors, doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, news reporters etc. (and of course the illegal immigrant is qualified for the position). "
You didn't explain what your objection was - illegality or immigration in general. I surmised from your question that you were proposing a way out of the illegality, and asking whether this was a good way to deal with the legality issue.
Is that correct? I'm happy to discuss serious suggestions; I've no time for weak rhetoric.
Lewis, great, I never said immigrants were more or less represented than we "nativists".
You are going to find that there are people here that can not handle more than one variable at a time.
A poster will find a link saying that illegal aliens do not take jobs from citizens.
But they can not (or do not) want to consider the economic concept that a surplus of workers keeps wages down - supply/demand concept. Nor do they want to consider that if workers get paid more it would reduce poverty levels and maybe the cost of government programs.
As for immigration and "growth" --- Growth is not always good for a typical American family. "Growth" is usually shorthand for "more GDP". However GDP is a very POOR measure of economic welfare. Its statistical predecessor (GNP) was developed during WWII to measure production of goods for the war effort. GDP is essentially "spending" - but spending can be good or bad. Spending on the funeral of a loved one, or paying for a divorce attorney, or being treated for a cancer, will count toward GDP, however, generally deaths, disease, and family breakups would not be deemed improvement in economic welfare..
"If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs - COO, CFO, VPs, Human Resources, school teachers, college professor, investment adviser, home inspectors, doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, news reporters etc. (and of course the illegal immigrant is qualified for the position). "
You didn't explain what your objection was - illegality or immigration in general. I surmised from your question that you were proposing a way out of the illegality, and asking whether this was a good way to deal with the legality issue.
Is that correct? I'm happy to discuss serious suggestions; I've no time for weak rhetoric.
===============================
I used the word illegal repetitively. This isn't a play on words. Here's an example, a qualified illegal alien gets off the plane and applies for the job as a VP, Sr VP, COO, CFO of a corporation. Should that person be allowed to get one of those jobs just as as an illegal immigrant day laborer can get a job today? Let's not get into W-4, I-9s or other legal impediments that the day laborer does not deal with.
The question is as simple as stated. People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from illegal immigration and they haven't mentioned any negatives so it is OK.
"If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs ..."
Mona, that is another interesting facet of the immigration issue (which again, is not the topic of this thread, but still fascinating, and where the thread has evolved to..)..
Money earned by immigrants and transferred overseas is money NOT spent here. Its "leakage" -- and no doubt is one (of many) contributors to the continued weakness in monetary velocity (and economic activity generally) here. ---- The following is not based on a think-tank study, or some PhD economist. Its based on actual experience (mine), I submit it, because I expect its not out-of-the ordinary, but probably typical:
This whole issue of immigrants and job losses .. let me provide an anecdote. I live in Dallas,Texas (if you can call this 'living'). Most folks here like big yards, which they like to keep well-manicured. Because its so f4188in HOT, homeowners here prefer to hire other folks to cut their yards. Armies of contracted yardskeepers fan out and cut homeowners' yards. Prices vary, but $25-$35 is common. Virtually all of this is done by hardworking (and I mean that sincerely) immigrants.
When I was a boy, I and my friends would have done that work. We would have saved the money (OK, maybe spent most of it) -- but it would all be pored back into THIS community. I did cut yards for a couple of summers, and saved it -- eventually putting it towards my college tuition. Other kids my age worked at fast-food joints, or other low-paying jobs. We developed work habits, a work history, and saved some money. I worked at similar jobs (low-paying, manual, sweaty) during my college years.
Many of the "beginner jobs" today have mostly been taken over by immigrants. If there were an infinite number of jobs, I guess that would be fine. But at any point in time, there is a finite number of jobs. I don't have kids, so let me ask those that do: where do YOUR kids go to earn a living in high-school (and college). (Or do they just spend their down-time at college googling porn and graduate with a pile of college debt? -- Obviously YOUR kids wouldn't do that, but maybe some of their unwashed contemporaries...)
A lot of our inner-city "nativist" kids, with no dad at home, so-so grades, and no inclination to go to college should have these jobs. That they DON't have these jobs, means they have lots of idle time, coming up with "grievances", a chip on their shoulder, and (they think) nothing to lose by making bad choices (dealing drugs, street crime, violence, gangs). Idle hands ARE the devil's playground. Leaving too many of our "nativist" kids with nothing productive to do, because we can pay immigrants less is a betrayal of those kids -- but then it wouldn't be the first time, would it....?
Its not a matter of "jobs Americans not willing to do".. that is an INcomplete statement... its jobs Americans are not willing to do at a DE-valued wage (kind of a "sucker's wage) -- depressed by a tsunami of immigrants, and a dearth of upward mobility, due to offshored jobs.
Yeah, Paulsen and his buddies have been "working hard" on this project for 2 generations now... working HARD so Americans don't have to (or can't)....
@Edmond, Let's extend your logic to its natural conclusions regarding crime. If you believe we shouldn't allow any new people into the country because some of those people are going to commit violent crimes, then all American citizens should cease having children. Because children are new people in this country too and statistically speaking American-born children are more likely to commit violent crimes than immigrants are. So while I feel for that one lady in San Francisco getting murdered by an "illegal" as you say, that one example shouldn't apply to the entire population of immigrants unless you're willing to apply the same logic to American born citizens who are more likely to commit such crimes.
"People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from illegal immigration ..."
People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from any immigration - no illegal qualifier. Could you point out someone supporting strictly illegal immigration for economic reasons; that would help me address that.
Your question as stated is: do I feel that an illegal action should be allowed? That's an oxymoron that I cannot address. How does one "allow" an illegal activity? In my mind, "allow" is to be legal.
No overthinking. Just asking for a clear question - what does allowing illegal immigration mean? You've said that illegal immigration would be "allowed" for all jobs. How is that different from the current situation?
Is illegal immigration somehow "more illegal" now for some jobs than for others? How does that work, how is illegal immigration "allowed" for just some jobs - I thought that it was the act of someone being in this country that was illegal, not the job. (And to the extent that taking the job is illegal, it is the employer who is violating the law.)
"People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from illegal immigration ..."
People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from any immigration - no illegal qualifier. Could you point out someone supporting strictly illegal immigration for economic reasons; that would help me address that.
Your question as stated is: do I feel that an illegal action should be allowed? That's an oxymoron that I cannot address. How does one "allow" an illegal activity? In my mind, "allow" is to be legal.
No overthinking. Just asking for a clear question - what does allowing illegal immigration mean? You've said that illegal immigration would be "allowed" for all jobs. How is that different from the current situation?
Is illegal immigration somehow "more illegal" now for some jobs than for others? How does that work, how is illegal immigration "allowed" for just some jobs - I thought that it was the act of someone being in this country that was illegal, not the job. (And to the extent that taking the job is illegal, it is the employer who is violating the law.)
I have a feeling that you don't want to answer the question, so you parse words. People here have referred to illegal immigrants.
Allowed for illegals (seriously?) laws not enforced - e.g. requirements for proof of citizenship to be employed in the USA - look up the requirements if you don't know them.
David's link is one ... you can re-read all the other posts if you wish.
Lewis, you are constructing a reductio ad absurdum. You can debate yourself on that matter; I'm not taking the bait.
The topic thread is about income inequality. I believe immigration is definitely a contributing factor. You apparently (?) think immigration has no impact on income inequality (or possibly a beneficial one?). In any case, we are talking past each other.
"People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from illegal immigration ..."
People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from any immigration - no illegal qualifier. Could you point out someone supporting strictly illegal immigration for economic reasons; that would help me address that.
I have a feeling that you don't want to answer the question, so you parse words. People here have referred to illegal immigrants.
Absolutely. But they haven't restricted economic benefits (or drawbacks) to illegal immigrants.
Edmond wrote: "Offshoring jobs and importing mass quantities of immigrants (legal or illegal) has as a natural --and IMO, an intended-- consequence of tamping down wage income". That's something I can talk to.
Lewis wrote: "There is a different economic impact between immigration to the U.S.--both legal and illegal--and outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries."
You're the only poster I can find who consistently draws a line on economic grounds between legal and illegal immigration.
Permanently doubling nationwide the end cost vegetables/fruits and TVs, to name just two items, sure does nothing for working families.
So, my previous posts question to you remains.
Did I miss "illegal" in David's post?
His Forbes article discusses the practicalities of dealing with 12 million illegal immigrants. But when it gets to economic impacts in "Why We Need Them" (a subheading in the article), Forbes discusses the impact of all immigrants, legal and illegal.
(You might also have noticed that this section takes issue with Paul Krugman who, it says, feels free immigration is incompatible with a welfare state.)
@Edmond, I agree that this was a discussion about income inequality. But you were the one to bring crime stats for immigrants into it and the one to apply a solitary case in San Francisco as an example why other crime stats contradicting your broad assertions suddenly didn't matter. If you didn't want to discuss crime, why did you bring it up?
"America should open its borders. Anyone who wants to immigrate to the U.S. should be allowed to,..The case for free migration follows logically from that for free trade." --- The (un-credited? embarrassed) Forbes article is very telling. Open borders and free trade -- they do go hand in hand -- Both accrue to the benefit of the 1% of this country, and to the widening of income IN-equality.
Of course Steve Forbes believes this -- HE is part of the 1%. Can you guess what his position on NAFTA was? I can just see the Bamboozler Forbes in his office: "Keep them workers in line! Keep wages low! -- Import some more coolies? Is that Paulsen on line #2? -- See if he can have the child labor laws repealed. Pay off some think-tank to publish some phony study to fool the gullible. Americans are chumps. Americans are sheep. And I've got me a big shear."
"Allowed for illegals (seriously?) laws not enforced - e.g. requirements for proof of citizenship to be employed in the USA ".
Laws prohibiting employment of all sorts of people are not enforced for all types of jobs.
40% of the 11 million undocumented workers in the country aren't low-wage workers who sneaked over the southern border illegally, but rather foreigners who arrived legally and simply never left.
"Whenever I use that statistic, people seem completely surprised," said Sen. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), part of the Senate group working on immigration. "They assume that, yeah, some people overstay—but 40% of the illegal population here?"
Your question seems to be like "have you stopped beating your wife?", in that it assumes something incorrect - here, that illegal immigrants aren't allowed to work at certain jobs. Questions with wrong assumptions are unanswerable.
I wouldn't have used the word "allowed"; the laws may not be universally enforced, but they are from time to time. (Is cheating on your tax return allowed, simply because the IRS only goes after people selectively?)
Regardless, employment of people in the US illegally is already happening at all levels of jobs, so your question is moot.
As someone who spent 12 days in native Ohio a couple months ago, zigzagging across it, and as someone with lots of friends from Kansas who also go back regularly, I can tell you this is not the case at all, not even close. I wonder why anyone would claim such a thing.
>> I’ve heard/read the pro-trade economists for 35 years. Their opinions are usually based on an idealized/intellectual ideal of how the world should work,
Edmond, you done been reading the wrong papers for sure. All of the PIIE and EPI and Krugman work is entirely evidence-based, no idealization to it. Take a gander. Likewise the CEA work.
Dex, it is not worth discussing things with you when you're in high dudgeon, I have found, but I did start at the top by pointing out that doubling the price of vegetables/fruits and TVs does the poor no good at all, to the contrary. I am all for drastically closing inequality and helping the poor, also my own children and grandchildren's opportunities, and have my own progressive and constructive redistribution ideas about that, taxation and revenues and funding structures. But the unfree trade and closed borders proposals will not accomplish that, not do what you appear to think they will.
Which leads me to ask, so what do you advise, what do you think we should do, what would be policies that were more efficacious? Edmond, same question.
>> Dex, it is not worth discussing things with you when you're in high dudgeon, I have found, but I did start at the top by pointing out that doubling the price of vegetables/fruits and TVs does the poor no good at all, to the contrary. I am all for drastically closing inequality and helping the poor, also my own children and grandchildren's opportunities, and have my own progressive and constructive redistribution ideas about that, taxation and revenues and funding structures. But the unfree trade and closed borders proposals will not accomplish that, not do what you appear to think they will.
Which leads me to ask, so what do you advise, what do you think we should do, what would be policies that were more efficacious? Edmond, same question.
Do you even read the posts? It isn't about what should be done. Are you really that obtuse?
>> All the articles you post are not relevant and are attempting to justify trade deals.
It appears Dex has not actually read the arguments, to keep repeating how harmful it is. Not that it is not, in some ways and to some extent. No one questions that. The point is the alternatives are much worse.
I think you see it as free trade or no free trade: illegal immigration is good, stopping it is bad - DavidrMoran wins the opposition loses. It isn't that.
No one is proposing an alternative. We are pointing out the results and what has happened and what will happen.
So if you are for 'free trade' and illegal immigration - you won. If you have money enjoy your victory, your living costs will be kept down and you will make money from your investments. At the same time, the middle class will continue to shrink. The poor will become poorer. Young people will not have the opportunities of their parents. ENJOY!
If a person comes here legally and overstays their visa, they are now here illegally.
You can't answer the question so you attempt to parse words ... doesn't work. But keep at it. It is funny watching you work up a sweat.
Bingo. No sweat at all. Glad you're finally getting it. There are people here illegally who are already "allowed" in all sorts of jobs you asked about: "If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs"?
The answer is: we already do.
A better, or at least clearer question might have been: why do we allow people who are here illegally to work at all jobs, or what (if anything) should be done about that; rather than your question: why not "allow" it, as if we didn't already.
FWIW, I don't think anyone here has said that "illegal immigration is such a great idea". Some people have written that immigration is a great idea. Others have said that immigration is harmful to the workforce. But no one else has written that illegal immigration (as opposed to legal immigration) is good or bad regarding the economy (and by inference, income inequality).
So now it is your turn: What difference does it make with respect to income inequality whether the immigrants working here are doing so legally or illegally?
If you don't like the response, perhaps that's because your question started with a false premise. I gave the most logical response to an illogical question.
If you don't like the response, perhaps that's because your question started with a false premise. I gave the most logical response to an illogical question.
In your mind that probably sounds reasonable, in the real world not so much.
You posed a question laden with false assumptions, faulty logic, ambiguous wording, and bemoaned a response that wasn't your preferred answer to the leading question. That is, to the extent it was even formulated as a coherent, let alone cogent, question.
I long ago (Usenet) learned when to stop dealing with trolls. For me, it's when the comments defy any possible response. We're done.
You posed a question laden with false assumptions, faulty logic, ambiguous wording, and bemoaned a response that wasn't your preferred answer to the leading question. That is, to the extent it was even formulated as a coherent, let alone cogent, question.
I long ago (Usenet) learned when to stop dealing with trolls. For me, it's when the comments defy any possible response. We're done.
Now you are indignant ... that doesn't play.
Where in any of that answers the question I asked?
In matters controversial, my perception's rather fine; I always see both points of view, the one that's wrong and mine. or something like that = Source lost to me
I have carefully considered every argument and can only conclude that free migration is a subset of the set of activities that collectively are known as free trade.
Comments
You didn't answer this one from my post:
"If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs - COO, CFO, VPs, Human Resources, school teachers, college professor, investment adviser, home inspectors, doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, news reporters etc. (and of course the illegal immigrant is qualified for the position). "
Cease misrepresenting my comments -- its very underhanded -- and I am calling you on it.
You are entitled to your opinion and your facts. As am I. The internet means there are "facts" all over the place for all sides. We are not going to convince each other.. Think-tanks, and govt-entities are readily able to produce reports by the dozens which support the current Establishment orthodoxy. Its one big Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" -- where "facts" are produced to support the current party line. --- Recall all the economic studies saying NAFTA would produce all those jobs. First you provide them the desired conclusion, then some economist will provide a study to support it..
To the extent they utilize entitlements, incur social costs (education, prison) they represent a drain on tax revenues. Regarding the 17% statistics -- I am sure the victims of those 17% will be gratified that their perpetrator is not "representative" of their new neighbors.... Ask the family of that lady murdered in San Francisco by the illegal about her murder not being representative, I am sure it is of great comfort...
A key point missing in all your statistics, (and poorly studied, IMO) is the derivative effect on we "nativists" -- especially those with little education -- that are economically displaced by the tsunami of immigrants. --- Again wage IN-equality was the subject of this thread. Intuitively and anecdotally, it is apparent to me this is happening.
Stunted wage-growth of the bottom 40% of households is the result of 2 tsunamis - imported labor and offshored jobs. These "nativists" are the collateral damage of these policies -- in terms of lost American dreams, increased govt dependency and in many cases, resorting to crime as a means to replace income lost to those 2 policies.
Is that correct? I'm happy to discuss serious suggestions; I've no time for weak rhetoric.
A poster will find a link saying that illegal aliens do not take jobs from citizens.
But they can not (or do not) want to consider the economic concept that a surplus of workers keeps wages down - supply/demand concept. Nor do they want to consider that if workers get paid more it would reduce poverty levels and maybe the cost of government programs.
Here's a link supporting me.
http://www.imright.com/
Migrant Dollars More Valuable than Black Gold
http://fnsnews.nmsu.edu/migrant-dollars-more-valuable-than-black-gold/
Is that correct? I'm happy to discuss serious suggestions; I've no time for weak rhetoric.
===============================
I used the word illegal repetitively. This isn't a play on words. Here's an example, a qualified illegal alien gets off the plane and applies for the job as a VP, Sr VP, COO, CFO of a corporation. Should that person be allowed to get one of those jobs just as as an illegal immigrant day laborer can get a job today? Let's not get into W-4, I-9s or other legal impediments that the day laborer does not deal with.
The question is as simple as stated. People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from illegal immigration and they haven't mentioned any negatives so it is OK.
"If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs ..."
IF not, why not?
Money earned by immigrants and transferred overseas is money NOT spent here. Its "leakage" -- and no doubt is one (of many) contributors to the continued weakness in monetary velocity (and economic activity generally) here.
----
The following is not based on a think-tank study, or some PhD economist. Its based on actual experience (mine), I submit it, because I expect its not out-of-the ordinary, but probably typical:
This whole issue of immigrants and job losses .. let me provide an anecdote. I live in Dallas,Texas (if you can call this 'living'). Most folks here like big yards, which they like to keep well-manicured. Because its so f4188in HOT, homeowners here prefer to hire other folks to cut their yards. Armies of contracted yardskeepers fan out and cut homeowners' yards. Prices vary, but $25-$35 is common. Virtually all of this is done by hardworking (and I mean that sincerely) immigrants.
When I was a boy, I and my friends would have done that work. We would have saved the money (OK, maybe spent most of it) -- but it would all be pored back into THIS community. I did cut yards for a couple of summers, and saved it -- eventually putting it towards my college tuition. Other kids my age worked at fast-food joints, or other low-paying jobs. We developed work habits, a work history, and saved some money. I worked at similar jobs (low-paying, manual, sweaty) during my college years.
Many of the "beginner jobs" today have mostly been taken over by immigrants. If there were an infinite number of jobs, I guess that would be fine. But at any point in time, there is a finite number of jobs. I don't have kids, so let me ask those that do: where do YOUR kids go to earn a living in high-school (and college). (Or do they just spend their down-time at college googling porn and graduate with a pile of college debt? -- Obviously YOUR kids wouldn't do that, but maybe some of their unwashed contemporaries...)
A lot of our inner-city "nativist" kids, with no dad at home, so-so grades, and no inclination to go to college should have these jobs. That they DON't have these jobs, means they have lots of idle time, coming up with "grievances", a chip on their shoulder, and (they think) nothing to lose by making bad choices (dealing drugs, street crime, violence, gangs). Idle hands ARE the devil's playground. Leaving too many of our "nativist" kids with nothing productive to do, because we can pay immigrants less is a betrayal of those kids -- but then it wouldn't be the first time, would it....?
Its not a matter of "jobs Americans not willing to do".. that is an INcomplete statement... its jobs Americans are not willing to do at a DE-valued wage (kind of a "sucker's wage) -- depressed by a tsunami of immigrants, and a dearth of upward mobility, due to offshored jobs.
Yeah, Paulsen and his buddies have been "working hard" on this project for 2 generations now... working HARD so Americans don't have to (or can't)....
People have stated that there are benefits to the US economy from any immigration - no illegal qualifier. Could you point out someone supporting strictly illegal immigration for economic reasons; that would help me address that.
Your question as stated is: do I feel that an illegal action should be allowed? That's an oxymoron that I cannot address. How does one "allow" an illegal activity? In my mind, "allow" is to be legal.
No overthinking. Just asking for a clear question - what does allowing illegal immigration mean? You've said that illegal immigration would be "allowed" for all jobs. How is that different from the current situation?
Is illegal immigration somehow "more illegal" now for some jobs than for others? How does that work, how is illegal immigration "allowed" for just some jobs - I thought that it was the act of someone being in this country that was illegal, not the job. (And to the extent that taking the job is illegal, it is the employer who is violating the law.)
People here have referred to illegal immigrants.
Allowed for illegals (seriously?) laws not enforced - e.g. requirements for proof of citizenship to be employed in the USA - look up the requirements if you don't know them.
David's link is one ... you can re-read all the other posts if you wish. So, my previous posts question to you remains.
The topic thread is about income inequality. I believe immigration is definitely a contributing factor. You apparently (?) think immigration has no impact on income inequality (or possibly a beneficial one?). In any case, we are talking past each other.
Edmond wrote: "Offshoring jobs and importing mass quantities of immigrants (legal or illegal) has as a natural --and IMO, an intended-- consequence of tamping down wage income".
That's something I can talk to.
Lewis wrote: "There is a different economic impact between immigration to the U.S.--both legal and illegal--and outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries."
You're the only poster I can find who consistently draws a line on economic grounds between legal and illegal immigration. Did I miss "illegal" in David's post?
His Forbes article discusses the practicalities of dealing with 12 million illegal immigrants. But when it gets to economic impacts in "Why We Need Them" (a subheading in the article), Forbes discusses the impact of all immigrants, legal and illegal.
(You might also have noticed that this section takes issue with Paul Krugman who, it says, feels free immigration is incompatible with a welfare state.)
Where is the answer to my question is all of that?
(extract..)
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in.html
"America should open its borders. Anyone who wants to immigrate to the U.S. should be allowed to,..The case for free migration follows logically from that for free trade."
---
The (un-credited? embarrassed) Forbes article is very telling. Open borders and free trade -- they do go hand in hand -- Both accrue to the benefit of the 1% of this country, and to the widening of income IN-equality.
Of course Steve Forbes believes this -- HE is part of the 1%. Can you guess what his position on NAFTA was? I can just see the Bamboozler Forbes in his office: "Keep them workers in line! Keep wages low! -- Import some more coolies? Is that Paulsen on line #2? -- See if he can have the child labor laws repealed. Pay off some think-tank to publish some phony study to fool the gullible. Americans are chumps. Americans are sheep. And I've got me a big shear."
Laws prohibiting employment of all sorts of people are not enforced for all types of jobs. WSJ, April 2013 (Google search, use first link)
Your question seems to be like "have you stopped beating your wife?", in that it assumes something incorrect - here, that illegal immigrants aren't allowed to work at certain jobs. Questions with wrong assumptions are unanswerable.
I wouldn't have used the word "allowed"; the laws may not be universally enforced, but they are from time to time. (Is cheating on your tax return allowed, simply because the IRS only goes after people selectively?)
Regardless, employment of people in the US illegally is already happening at all levels of jobs, so your question is moot.
If a person comes here legally and overstays their visa, they are now here illegally.
You can't answer the question so you attempt to parse words ... doesn't work. But keep at it. It is funny watching you work up a sweat.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/07/exclusive-displaced-cast-member-how-disney-replaced-me-other-americans-with-cheap-foreigners-on-h1b-visas/
As someone who spent 12 days in native Ohio a couple months ago, zigzagging across it, and as someone with lots of friends from Kansas who also go back regularly, I can tell you this is not the case at all, not even close. I wonder why anyone would claim such a thing.
>> I’ve heard/read the pro-trade economists for 35 years. Their opinions are usually based on an idealized/intellectual ideal of how the world should work,
Edmond, you done been reading the wrong papers for sure. All of the PIIE and EPI and Krugman work is entirely evidence-based, no idealization to it. Take a gander. Likewise the CEA work.
Dex, it is not worth discussing things with you when you're in high dudgeon, I have found, but I did start at the top by pointing out that doubling the price of vegetables/fruits and TVs does the poor no good at all, to the contrary.
I am all for drastically closing inequality and helping the poor, also my own children and grandchildren's opportunities, and have my own progressive and constructive redistribution ideas about that, taxation and revenues and funding structures. But the unfree trade and closed borders proposals will not accomplish that, not do what you appear to think they will.
Which leads me to ask, so what do you advise, what do you think we should do, what would be policies that were more efficacious? Edmond, same question.
"If illegal immigration is such a great idea - why not allow it for all jobs"?
The answer is: we already do.
A better, or at least clearer question might have been: why do we allow people who are here illegally to work at all jobs, or what (if anything) should be done about that; rather than your question: why not "allow" it, as if we didn't already.
FWIW, I don't think anyone here has said that "illegal immigration is such a great idea". Some people have written that immigration is a great idea. Others have said that immigration is harmful to the workforce. But no one else has written that illegal immigration (as opposed to legal immigration) is good or bad regarding the economy (and by inference, income inequality).
So now it is your turn: What difference does it make with respect to income inequality whether the immigrants working here are doing so legally or illegally?
If you don't like the response, perhaps that's because your question started with a false premise. I gave the most logical response to an illogical question.
I long ago (Usenet) learned when to stop dealing with trolls. For me, it's when the comments defy any possible response. We're done.
Where in any of that answers the question I asked?
I have carefully considered every argument and can only conclude that free migration is a subset of the set of activities that collectively are known as free trade.