Come on Lowell, read Borjas, a Harvard labor economist....it's very clear that illegal immigration is causing wage depression...believe it or not we even have wage depression happening in Post Doc PhD positions.

This is a very well known, established law of labor economics...it's econ 101 with supply demand curves and your most damning evidence it causes wage depression is:

Corporations want this...it was Harris Miller himself who used illegal labor to union bust the Farm workers union in the 80's...it's a well know strategy to labor arbitrage and why they are doing it.  If it didn't pay...corporations would not be doing it, bottom line.

Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation

FRANCINE J. LIPMAN
Chapman University - School of Law
Tax Lawyer, Spring 2006
Harvard Latino Law Review, Spring 2006

Abstract:
Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy.

Undocumented immigrants, like all U.S. citizens and residents, are required to pay taxes. Despite the historic and strong American opposition to taxation without representation, undocumented immigrants (except in rare and unusual cases) have not enjoyed the right to vote on any local, state or federal tax or other matter for almost eighty years. Nevertheless, each year undocumented immigrants add billions of dollars in sales, excise, property, income and payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes, to federal, state and local coffers. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants go out of their way to file annual federal and state income tax returns.

Yet undocumented immigrants are barred from almost all government benefits, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, federal housing programs, Supplemental Security Income, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and the earned income tax credit (EITC). Generally, the only benefits federally required for undocumented immigrants are emergency medical care, subject to financial and category eligibility, and elementary and secondary public education. Many undocumented immigrants will not even access these few critical government services because of their ever-present fear of government officials and deportation.

Undocumented immigrants living in the United States are subject to the same income tax laws as documented immigrants and U.S. citizens. However, because of their status most unauthorized workers pay a higher effective tax rate than similarly situated documented or U.S. citizens. Yet, these workers and their families use fewer government services than similarly situated documented immigrants or U.S. citizens. Moreover, unauthorized workers have been denied remedies by the U.S. Supreme Court under the National Labor Relations Act and may be challenged to receive protection under wage and hour, anti-discrimination and workers' compensation laws. As a result, undocumented immigrants provide a fiscal windfall and may be the most fiscally beneficial of all immigrants.

Despite their net positive contribution to public coffers, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. each year without documents because of impracticable quota and labor certification requirements. These immigration restrictions combined with the additional tax or tariff on undocumented immigrants are inconsistent with economically efficient immigration policy. Moreover, the high effective tax rate imposed on the poorest undocumented working families relative to their less unfortunate friends and neighbors is inconsistent with fundamental tax policy. This Article describes and analyzes the separate, unequal and unrepresented federal taxation of undocumented immigrants.

It sounds obvious that this influx must be depressing wages at the bottom: Double the supply of a certain type of labor and you push its price down. But attempts to measure this effect suggest that it's either modest or nonexistent. The most credible pessimist is George Borjas of Harvard University, who has calculated that wages for native-born high school dropouts are 7.4 percent lower than they would have been without immigration. But David Card of the University of California at Berkeley has compared wage patterns across cities and concluded that high school dropouts in cities with lots of immigration are no worse off. In low-immigration cities, it seems, employers don't necessarily respond to a paucity of low-skilled workers by bidding up wages to attract more of them. Instead, they may respond by investing in machinery that allows three low-skilled workers to do what six might do in a high-immigration city. Construction workers get extra trucks and power tools; gardeners get electric trimmers instead of manual shears.

Even a small impact on low-wage workers is alarming, given the rise of inequality over the past 25 years. But the question is whether to address that inequality by trying to stop immigration or to go at it via progressive taxation, larger public investments designed to prevent poor kids from dropping out of high school, or some other policy tool. Given the expense and doubtful effectiveness of border walls and employer crackdowns, progressive tax and social policies seem preferable. After all, to the extent that immigrants drive down wages at the bottom, they are driving up the inflation-adjusted wages of other Americans who get cheaper goods and services. Taxing the "immigration windfall" that flows to better-off Americans and passing it on to the less fortunate may be the best way to go.

You have to look at major labor economists, like Borjas, Samuelson and so on.

The Card study is so flawed it's amazing it was done by a "Professor" the guy literally tries to take one small maxima in one local regional and claim that extrapolates to an entire large aggregate supply and demand curve and I'm sorry that is just statistically seriously flawed.

Look who funded that study...

You cannot spin fundamental labor economic principles in this manner.

He's seems to be arguing that yes, the economy may grow, but that growth is spread out over many more people.  Bottom line is that American wages go down.  He additionally points out the Bush study ignores some of the costs.

Which begs an obvious question : just who's capturing the benefits of growth?

I suppose if the goal is accumulate more wealth for owners of capital and discipline American workers into accepting a lower globalized wage rate, then the Senate Bill makes a lot of sense.

spinning the numbers is a damn art form and there are more and more people being paid really well for it and what is scary is the credentials of some of these spin masters...

I honestly don't buy the latest CBO report (and I also don't buy the Heritage Foundation study either frankly) because of "fuzzy math"...

all of this really frightens me for when objectivity goes...so goes the nation in my view.

I don't know which Card study you're talking about...the one I found most odious was where he focused on Cubans in Miami only ...1 instant in time, 1 local area, 1 time influx...and then wanted to imply that local labor market applied throughout history to all scenarios. 

So, yeah, ok, social science but seems to be more and more turning into spin science.  You would think the Academics in Public relations would be pissed that some in other fields are invading on their turf!  ;)

Personally I read a lot of these things and Borjas is the researcher to me being the most thorough in his assumptions and data analysis....

But, you must grab a labor economics undergrad text and know at least basic calculus and read the actual papers...

for the spin on this stuff is incredible versus any true objective information.

I've read the papers themselves but more importantly see what other credible labor economists have to say on this and you'll see they are at war...

but Borjas is the one who is most well known, his texts are used as the "bible"...

it's like saying Paul Samuelson is magically equal to Jagdish Bhagwati.

Ya know, you have to go deep into the papers and look at the math.  When you do that, you'll see that Paul Samuelson is the one who's math is correct, his data assumptions are correct and you'll find serious logic, analysis flaws in Bhagwati.

Why, because Bhagwati wants to believe that offshore outsourcing is good for America and he's just plain spinning the numbers so it comes out with the conclusion he has in his brain.  It's disgusting to see this within Academia...
but there ya have it!

If one looks at someone like Ralph Gomory for example, his work has been spun by both sides...but if you look at the math, his is extremely thorough and implies that current trade policy with the goods of production being mobile implies an impeding economic disaster for the United States
with the road it is on.

It's clear if one understand the math, yet his work has been "spun" by those saying "oh free trade is good for America".
He has literally testified multiple times before congress trying in layman's terms to show what the mathematical calculations really imply...
which is not a black and white answer but a huge "depends"
but the US is hitting the point where in these equations we are getting seriously hurt economically.

P.S.  Samuelson is considered the "Godfather" of economics and that's because his work is impeccable.

Another "obvious" that the press, not to mention both parties in Congress, seem to be largely ignoring is the false claim that securing the U.S.-Mexican border will somehow magically improve our ability to keep terrorists out. Every member of Congress and most members of the press know that there is no credible evidence that any Islamic terrorists enter the U.S. from Mexico. Whos' going to get that big contract when ti's funded ? Haliburton? Big Dig Haliburton?

Why doesn't Congress just admit that the main reason they want to waste many billions of dollars to build a 500 mile long fence is to make voters think they are doing SOMETHING and at the same time pay off their corporate campaign contributors before the next election cycle ? In this vein, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they've talked mostly about only AUTHORIZING securing the border, with a little " seed money included. They haven't appropriated new money to actually accomplish their border security. And about the only thing that has done so far to further anti-terrorist objectives is to make U.S. citizens obtain passports.

  T.C.

and it was probably the biggest campaign promise of 2006...

yet, of course when one has the US Chamber of Commerce, the ITAA and so forth writing legislation, that magically gets put by the wayside.

They need to stop the influx but you're right severely enforcing employment law, as in put into jail those major violators....big time fines, penalties would stop this influx...a fence with no enforcement of employment law isn't going to do much.

When they start getting up there in billion dollar contract awards....really check it out for last I checked on some of this, such as heat sensing movement technoogy...the error rates are way to high to be practical...
it's like image recognition, you cannot build up a workable solution when something in research has a > 1% error rate...

and ya know the whole "ID" thing?  I mean SPARE ME, look at ATMs, credit card companies and so forth....all of this technology is in place already yet we have this massive spin game claiming it can't be done easily.  Ask choicepoint or lexus nexus about that one...I think they even know how many sheets of tissue you use to wipe your bum and by hour and day too!

Remember this is a purely economic analysis and does not address the security/obey the law piece at all

1.  There is a labor shortage in America

2a.  Illegal immigrants perform services at low costs which decreases the costs of products for Americans

2b.  As a negative side-effect wages for Americans with limited or no skill set are depressed.  The economic theory however is through basic training/education low-skill workers can move up to better paying higher skill postions.  So for the legal low-wage earners it is still a net-postive long-term since individuals will be in higher paying positions and receiving the benefits from point 

Feel free to discuss further below

many people complain about the H1-B visas stealing tech jobs for example.

2A would then say basic low level computer science jobs are performed at lower cost which reduces prices for all

2B those computer scientists at low levels lose jobs and then either must

A. retrain and reeducated to move into more challenging technical positions (which results in long-term better salary)

B. enter another industry (this is unfortunate but is just like many other industries when things can be accomplished at cheaper prices and people lose jobs)  Once again due to point 1 the overall cost reducation to Americans is a net positive 

Now that technology work is being exported as industrial jobs, what are we supposed to retrain in? The reality is that any intellectual job can be sent overseas, where labor is always cheaper.

Furthermore, to those who lose jobs, this is a big negative. They lose their life, their careers, and many their families as well. Many won't be able to get any comparable jobs. Many won't be able to get lesser jobs because of age or their previous experience.

This is how I see it: if our leaders insist that we must live with globalization, so be it, but the government must provide safety nets in exchange. If we have no job security, at least we shouldn't be looking at living on  the streets if we have bad luck.

From http://www.nytimes.c...

The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation.

wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation?s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960?s

Business seems to want exapanded labor input but doesn't want to pay market rates for it.

So groceries, resturants, walmart, etc all of these will cost more which will have a negative effect on the lower and middle class

Now what is more important the 5% on the bottom or the 40% in the lower and middle class

2.  "Retraining" the lack of effectiveness of retraining programs is well know is also a net loss and only a 1400 dollar wage increase per yr in salary from the previously lost job.  So, I'd claim that's insignificant.

I won't repeat the math but from Borjas site:

Net wage loss from all Americans:  $350 billion

You have a serious of assumptions here that are not correct.

Your economic theories appear to gloss over the very real human suffering and disruption that these policies are inflicting -- and will inflict -- on our own children.

Let's face it -- some people are not cut out to be computer programmers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.  Some people need to work outdoors.  Some people learn with their hands, not with books.  Some have more common sense than book sense.  Some of those people are our children, and our neighbors' children.  Don't we owe them a shot at making a decent life for themselves?

Why would we as a society take opportunities away from our own children and give them to illegal aliens, to whom we owe nothing?

I think it is common experience that to "move up to better paying higher skill positions", one first has to start at the bottom rung, get OJT, experience, and skills.  E.g., a construction laborer, or an apprentice in some trade.  Well, how do you get onto the bottom rung if employers are giving those entry level jobs to illegal immigrants? 

The worst thing about it, for me, is that the American citizens who are going to be the most screwed over by this deal are the kids in school now who are clueless and voiceless and who are counting on us to make smart decisions for them.

If you drop out of high school I have no sympathy.  These are the jobs that most illegals are taking which I have no problem with (besides that they are illegal)

The reality is 95% of Americans benefit from what I stated.  My heart goes out to the 5% but in most cases those individuals made choices that got them into their predicaments.  I do support vouchers and school choice because in many cases the public school system is so bad that these individuals never really have a chance.

Are those same jobs available now, or are they filled by illegal aliens working for below market wages and getting paid under the table? 

Illegal immigrants take hard and poorly paying jobs. In every trade or industrial job that has union protection, there are practically no illegal aliens working there and there is a willing pool of applicants. My big example for this is miner work. Before it was unionized, many immigrants worked there. Today most of these workers are American born, as far as I know.

Construction seems to lack the legal protection to make them living wage jobs. And I am all for granting these protections to workers in this sector.

Even if we block illegal immigrants from getting these jobs, the wages may still be low because people got to make a living and business owners benefit from keeping wages down.

The social contract in our country is broken, and we must fix it.
 

Some will argue that the jobs pay low because of an excess of illegal alien. Barbara Ehrenreich, in Nickled and Dimed, describes how she went to a state with very low illegal immigrants to see if the could get a low skills jobs for more pay. She found that the wages were comparably low there as well. I read that some studies show that the wages for low skill jobs are comparable in cities with a lot of illegal immigrants and in those with low illegal population.

American workers taking one of these low wage lows risk not being able to look for a better paying job. And this is a real risk: there is only a finite amount of time and energy in a day. And since low paying jobs also have terrible benefits, many lack the leave time to be able to look for another job or  train for something else.

There are many sectors, such as agriculture, where we do need labor, so a fair program of worker exchange is a good solution.

But other sectors, such as construction, should have worker protection to protect legal workers.

*Immigration has a positive impact on the U.S. economy and boosts wages for the vast majority of native workers

From Report:

*On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives? productivity and income.

*The presence of unskilled foreign-born construction laborers allows skilled US craftsmen and contractors to build more homes at lower cost than otherwise ? therefore the US natives? productivity and income rise.

Seriously go through the math on the Borjas site and he shows you the spin equation by equation.

http://borjas.typepa...

Think about it people, just intuitively.  Has Bush Corporation ever once, ever once been on the side of US workers?  No.  How about the minimum wage?  Do you think he will not veto the Employee Free Choice Act?  Is he taking care of the troops, Katrina victims...health care...anything?

So, what makes anyone believe for one second he would be pushing an immigration bill that did anything to help workers out or even the illegals out?  Of course he wouldn't.

He would push through a bill for the US Chamber of Commerce, for Bill Gates (as he has said publicly repeatedly), for the ITAA and name any other corporate cheap labor lobby or even foreign interest such as Mexico and remittances interests.

13 trillion (13 and 12 zeros) *
30 billion (30 and 9 zeros) = 100/x . Solve for x.

40 millions immigrants add a quarter of one percent.

[ someone can check my math and see if I made a mistake ]

With the owners of Conagra, McDonald's, Pulte Homes, and Microsoft reaping huge benefits; that leaves huges loses for American labor.  Agriculture which is screaming loudest for Z-visas already gets incredible subsidies.  High tech which has the wealthiest people in America owning them (think Bill Gates and Larry Ellison) are screaming the loudest for expansion in the H-1B program.  With healthcare in ongoing crisis, the solution is probably not more H-1C visa nurses from the Philippines.

One wonders if business had invested in training American kids, retrained people losing jobs and invested in new machines whether we could have had a higher return.

I'm in favor of a moderate, sensible immigration policy; but there's got to be some fundamental re-emphasis.  Perhaps letting a smaller number of new citizens in who are free to respond to market forces and make their own choices rather than selecting certain businesses for special access to  un-capped numbers of guest workers might be a better policy.

We do have a problem with 12-20 million undocumented workers and , even if it amounts to amnesty, providing a tough path to citizenship for most of them might be a good idea.  Without first fixing the borders and imposing tough penalties on employers and ID fraud, it's not clear that the government is serious about "comprehensive immigration reform".

I don't understand AG but seemingly should get a handle on it...they are talking about removing subsidies but I think not protecting the family farm....and to me if a nation doesn't control it's own food chain that's just extremely stupid strategically as well as the family farm should be a supported institution....

but there is huge big ag Corporate, inhumane farming now going on....

but I smell yet another "bad thing" going on with AG and would love to hear from the small family farmer on their economic reality. 

they turned down 50,000 people last year trying to get a seat in nursing school...50,000, that's incredible.

Because of this, there is no remittance lobby that would ask for this bill. Most of these families probably don't even know that a lobbyist is. :)

And the constant flow of Mexicans to the U.S. is used as evidence that the supply-side economic policies adopted in Mexico in the 1980s are a failure. When I talk with people back in Mexico, they are angry that people are forced to leave their country to survive.

Some people claim that the situation is good for the Mexican power elite because it keeps the country stable. Maybe. But I doubt that it is in the best interest of the U.S. to have the country in a state of war. Then there will be mass migration to the U.S. at a biblical magnitude.

I don't blame them for being pissed sometimes I think we should invade Mexico but unfortunately our government is too similar to theirs to help. ;)

Many of those coming here are treated for healthcare, but don't pay for healthcare.  We do.

Many of those coming here don't pay for education, but their kids are educated anyways.  We pay for that.

On the positive side, their cheap labor lowers the cost of food.  On the negative side, Americans are displaced from jobs or see a major decline in wages.

Way too many negatives here.  I don't feel like playing tit for tat with studies, but there are plenty out there that say the opposite of what this study says.

The bottom line is that labor from Mexico is a labor subsidy.  That is a no-no in capitalism (if you were to talk with a Ricardo or Adam Smith). 

If they show up in the hospital, yes we pay for that. But we also pay for American homeless people at the hospital :)

Yes, when they bring their children they get educated, but they are paying real estate taxes through their rent, and they pay local sales tax, so they are paying for that service.

On other taxes that illegals pay, I've represented a number of folks who don't pay any but the sales tax.  Several of them have rented spaces in multi-person rooms in someone's house, and some of them are carrying false documents.  A number of the people I represent are working under the table for no benefits and no workers comp or other taxes paid.  Neither side is a winner in such circumstances.  Quite a few of these people have children they brought over from their home countries.  Their children use the hospitals and schools and their parents are not paying any taxes except the local sales tax. 

This is about the 6th time I have watched this video on YouTube.  It still infuriates me.

The fly in the immigration ointment are the corporations and their attorneys who exploit people.  This includes both low skill and high skilled jobs.

This video is the highest watched on YouTube that I have seen, yet they don't profile it.  Makes one wonder.