Mythbusting on immigration

There are 401 comments on the The Washington Post story from Aug 10, 2013, titled Mythbusting on immigration. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

Doug Massey , anyway. Massey is one of the nation's preeminent immigration scholars.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Reality bites

AOL

#424 Oct 30, 2013
Electins have consequences. Obama re-election PROVED America is toast. Open the Borders now Our kids didnt' mean enough to us to elect Gov Romney.
Jesus Malverde

United States

#425 Oct 30, 2013
"A bill passed by the House in December of 2005 (H.R. 4437) starkly illustrates the wrong approach to immigration reform. This bill would require all employers of all sizes from all parts of the country to verify that every one of their current employees is eligible to work here even though they have already been approved to work under the procedures required under current law (this would apply to 140 million employees across the United States!). Penalties for paperwork violations would rise to as much as $25,000 per person. But the House bill ignores other important immigration issues—such as what will happen to the millions of undocumented migrants already here, or how our growing need for low-skilled workers will be met."

La Raza? Democratic Platform? No. Quoted from the website of the US Chamber of Commerce, and it sure sounds anti-E-verify to me. The Chamber represents nearly all big businesses in the US and is the single biggest benefactors of the Republican party.
Jesus Malverde

United States

#426 Oct 30, 2013
Just the Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a WASP. I am also an HR manager of a Dow 30 company and have fired people over complicated issues such as SSN discrepancies. Most of them were white guys who were too stupid to contest the termination and I used e-verify all the time. Most of the time I prefer an employee who is Mexican over a white guy because Mexicans are harder workers and don't cry over paper cuts.
¡Olé!
Dan Salazar

AOL

#428 Oct 30, 2013
Jesus Malverde wrote:
"A bill passed by the House in December of 2005 (H.R. 4437) starkly illustrates the wrong approach to immigration reform. This bill would require all employers of all sizes from all parts of the country to verify that every one of their current employees is eligible to work here even though they have already been approved to work under the procedures required under current law (this would apply to 140 million employees across the United States!). Penalties for paperwork violations would rise to as much as $25,000 per person. But the House bill ignores other important immigration issues—such as what will happen to the millions of undocumented migrants already here, or how our growing need for low-skilled workers will be met."
La Raza? Democratic Platform? No. Quoted from the website of the US Chamber of Commerce, and it sure sounds anti-E-verify to me. The Chamber represents nearly all big businesses in the US and is the single biggest benefactors of the Republican party.
It is true. La Raza is a racist group of anarhists who are out to destroy America. In Calif, they call themselves "Chicanos".
spud

Reading, PA

#429 Oct 30, 2013
Memo From Turner wrote:
<quoted text>
It was cold hard numbers. Who do you think you are bullshitting?
There are no cold hard numbers behind this idiots assumptions, only unsubstantiated, flimsy liberal opinions, much like the ones you possess.
Oldglory

Banning, CA

#430 Oct 30, 2013
Just the Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a WASP. I am also an HR manager of a Dow 30 company and have fired people over complicated issues such as SSN discrepancies. Most of them were white guys who were too stupid to contest the termination and I used e-verify all the time. Most of the time I prefer an employee who is Mexican over a white guy because Mexicans are harder workers and don't cry over paper cuts.
What utter nonsense! No ethnic group holds the corner of the market on work ethics. How do you think this country got built if not for a large white participation? Every ethnic/racial group has their lazy workers. Who do you think you are kidding with your stupid stereotyping? Hire a Mexican guy? Legal or illegal? It does make a difference you know if you are hiring within our immigration and labor laws. Some how I don't think you give a damn though.
Oldglory

Banning, CA

#431 Oct 30, 2013
spud wrote:
<quoted text>There are no cold hard numbers behind this idiots assumptions, only unsubstantiated, flimsy liberal opinions, much like the ones you possess.
Exactly! He thinks a writer for the leftist Huffington Post is a credible source? LOL! I linked directly to the e-verify website but my source isn't credible? E-verify has over a 98% accuracy rate. Note he didn't propose an alternate solution to weed out illegal aliens from our workforce, did he? It's because he is an illegal alien sympathizer and doesn't want them to be caught.
Oldglory

Banning, CA

#432 Oct 30, 2013
Jesus Malverde wrote:
"A bill passed by the House in December of 2005 (H.R. 4437) starkly illustrates the wrong approach to immigration reform. This bill would require all employers of all sizes from all parts of the country to verify that every one of their current employees is eligible to work here even though they have already been approved to work under the procedures required under current law (this would apply to 140 million employees across the United States!). Penalties for paperwork violations would rise to as much as $25,000 per person. But the House bill ignores other important immigration issues—such as what will happen to the millions of undocumented migrants already here, or how our growing need for low-skilled workers will be met."
La Raza? Democratic Platform? No. Quoted from the website of the US Chamber of Commerce, and it sure sounds anti-E-verify to me. The Chamber represents nearly all big businesses in the US and is the single biggest benefactors of the Republican party.
The Chamber of Commerce has their own agenda. Again, you act like Democrats are never elite businessmen that own corporations themselves. I have never known of any bill whereby e-verify would be used to screen employees already on the payroll. It is quite the opposite it is only for new hires.

Growing need for low-skilled workers? Now there is a giant big whopper of a lie right there. The only growing need is for the greedy employers to hire cheap labor to fatten their wallets not that there aren't able bodied Americans out there that won't work for a fair wage. Since you are bitching about the rich elite then why do you want them to retain their cheap slaves via an amnesty?
spud

Reading, PA

#433 Oct 30, 2013
There's one absolute rule of thumb when deciding whether an argument is fact or myth. If the argument tries to tell how excessive legal immigration or illegal immigration are good for our country, that argument is without exception a myth. And that, my friends, is mythbusting.
Jesus Malverde

United States

#434 Oct 30, 2013
Oldglory wrote:
<quoted text>The Chamber of Commerce has their own agenda.
This is what I'm trying to get through your thick skull. Their agenda is self-centered and they make sure their lapdogs, the Republicans push it in Washington.
Oldglory wrote:
<quoted text>Again, you act like Democrats are never elite businessmen that own corporations themselves.
I'm sure they're Demos in the Chamber that employ illegals but the Chamber contributes, on behalf of big Corporations, millions to Republicans, and little to Democrats.
Oldglory wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never known of any bill whereby e-verify would be used to screen employees already on the payroll. It is quite the opposite it is only for new hires.
There are lots of, probably millions, of illegal immigrants on US payrolls right now. Are you suggesting they be given a pass?
Oldglory wrote:
<quoted text>
Growing need for low-skilled workers? Now there is a giant big whopper of a lie right there. The only growing need is for the greedy employers to hire cheap labor to fatten their wallets not that there aren't able bodied Americans out there that won't work for a fair wage.
As I said, this is a word-for-word quote from the Chamber's website, and does not necessarily reflect my opinion.

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/immigration/u...
Oldglory wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you are bitching about the rich elite then why do you want them to retain their cheap slaves via an amnesty?
You got me wrong, chief. I couldn't care less, coz, as my homie said to you earlier, I'm a well established professional and there won't be an illegal alien taking my job. Only the low-skilled and low-brow are threatened.
spud

Reading, PA

#435 Oct 30, 2013
Jesus Malverde wrote:
<quoted text>
You got me wrong, chief. I couldn't care less, coz, as my homie said to you earlier, I'm a well established professional and there won't be an illegal alien taking my job. Only the low-skilled and low-brow are threatened.
So do you think it's a good thing for our government to be replacing our most vulnerable legal citizens with illegal aliens? Every society has people who will only qualify for the lesser jobs. These people are disadvantaged to start with. I don't see why our government is just throwing them out like some kind of garbage. It's disgraceful what our government is doing with these citizens.
Jesus Malverde

United States

#437 Oct 30, 2013
spud wrote:
<quoted text>So do you think it's a good thing for our government to be replacing our most vulnerable legal citizens with illegal aliens? Every society has people who will only qualify for the lesser jobs. These people are disadvantaged to start with. I don't see why our government is just throwing them out like some kind of garbage. It's disgraceful what our government is doing with these citizens.
Okay,you do have a point. I'll urinate on your point and respond later.
Anonymous

Oakland, CA

#438 Oct 30, 2013
Oldglory wrote:
<quoted text>
The Huffington Post? LOL! No bias there, right? Where did I say I was a member of the teaparty?(and I don't know what a bagger is).
I don't have any personal experience with e-verify. I didn't notice your question. Run my mouth? My how civil. The fact remains that the majority by far of people who go through e-verify that have a legitimate right to work in this country pass it and even if they don't at first they are given ample time to clear up any discrepancies. I don't have to have used it myself to know the truth about it.
Flawed website? I am still waiting for you to provide a "viable" link proving that it is a big issue for most legitimate workers. I won't hold my breath. The fact is that pro-illegals like yourself don't like e-verify because it can detect illegal aliens. I wonder why that is? Bleeding heart liberal or you have ethnic ties to most illegals. Which is it?
Why aren't you registered? Troll!
Anonymous

Oakland, CA

#439 Oct 30, 2013
spud wrote:
<quoted text>So do you think it's a good thing for our government to be replacing our most vulnerable legal citizens with illegal aliens? Every society has people who will only qualify for the lesser jobs. These people are disadvantaged to start with. I don't see why our government is just throwing them out like some kind of garbage. It's disgraceful what our government is doing with these citizens.
Another troll that isn't registered!
Level 5

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#440 Oct 30, 2013
Just the Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a WASP. I am also an HR manager of a Dow 30 company and have fired people over complicated issues such as SSN discrepancies. Most of them were white guys who were too stupid to contest the termination and I used e-verify all the time. Most of the time I prefer an employee who is Mexican over a white guy because Mexicans are harder workers and don't cry over paper cuts.
What a liar, I work in HR, for a Fortune 500 company, and what you've just written on here is pure BS. And, as an aside, Mexicans can be 'white guys' too. I've worked in both exec comp and recruitment, what's your specialization?
Civician

Dixon, CA

#442 Oct 30, 2013
spud wrote:
There's one absolute rule of thumb when deciding whether an argument is fact or myth. If the argument tries to tell how excessive legal immigration or illegal immigration are good for our country, that argument is without exception a myth. And that, my friends, is mythbusting.
Depends on the definition of 'excessive.'
Civician

Dixon, CA

#443 Oct 30, 2013
spud wrote:
<quoted text>So do you think it's a good thing for our government to be replacing our most vulnerable legal citizens with illegal aliens? Every society has people who will only qualify for the lesser jobs. These people are disadvantaged to start with. I don't see why our government is just throwing them out like some kind of garbage. It's disgraceful what our government is doing with these citizens.
What are you talking about? Where is the government substituting vulnerable citizens for illegals?
Civician

Dixon, CA

#444 Oct 30, 2013
Illegal workers have a positive impact on the economy, the workforce, and native workers.

From factcheck.org :

But whether they’re legal, as in the CFAW ad, or illegal, as in our two other examples, really doesn’t matter for the purpose of answering our question: The truth is that immigrants don’t "take American jobs," according to most economists and others who have studied the issue.

Immigrant workers "create almost as many" jobs as they occupy, "and maybe more," said Madeleine Sumption, policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, which is funded by a range of foundations, corporations and international organizations. "They often create the jobs they work in." In addition, "they buy things, and they make the economy bigger," she told us. As she and a co-author wrote in a report last year for a group created by the British government:

Somerville and Sumption:[T]he impact of immigration [on a nation's economy] remains small, for several reasons. Immigrants are not competitive in many types of jobs, and hence are not direct substitutes for natives. Local employers increase demand for low-skilled labor in areas that receive low-skilled immigrant inflows. Immigrants contribute to demand for goods and services that they consume, in turn increasing the demand for labor. And immigrants contribute to labor market efficiency and long-term economic growth.

David Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote in an article for Commentary magazine in December:

Griswold: The addition of low-skilled immigrants expands the size of the overall economy, creating higher-wage openings for managers, craftsmen, accountants, and the like. The net result is a greater financial reward and relatively more opportunities for those Americans who finish high school.

And a new study by economist Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute — a liberal think tank that has been funded in part by U.S. labor unions – says that:

Shierholz: In the ongoing debate on immigration, there is broad agreement among academic economists that it has a small but positive impact on the wages of native-born workers overall: although new immigrant workers add to the labor supply, they also consume goods and services, which creates more jobs …
Civician

Dixon, CA

#445 Oct 30, 2013
factcheck.org cont'd

Both Griswold and Shierholz acknowledge that some workers may be harmed by an influx of immigrant labor. Griswold writes that "low-skilled immigrants do exert mild downward pressure on the wages of the lowest-paid American workers," though the overall impact on jobs and the economy is positive. Another economist, George Borjas, an advocate of clamping down on immigration, found that between 1980 and 2000 native-born Americans without a high school education saw their wages decline 7.4 percent because of immigrant labor.

Shierholz found that it’s often other foreign-born workers — especially those who came to the U.S. several years earlier — who get the short end of the stick. But American workers benefit, she writes:

Shierholz: A key result from this work is that the estimated effect of immigration from 1994 to 2007 was to raise the wages of U.S.-born workers, relative to foreign-born workers, by 0.4%(or $3.68 per week), and to lower the wages of foreign-born workers, relative to U.S.-born workers, by 4.6%(or $33.11 per week).

The consensus that immigrant workers expand the U.S. economy is broad, and crosses party lines. In 2005, the White House of Republican President George W. Bush remarked on the fact in one of its annual economic reports to Congress:

Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2005: The foreign-born are associated with much of the employment growth in recent years. Between 1996 and 2003, when total employment grew by 11 million, 58 percent of the net increase was among foreign-born workers….[E]mployment of natives as operators, fabricators, and laborers fell by 1.4 million between 1996 and 2002, while employment in such occupations grew by 930,000 among the foreign-born. This should not be taken as evidence that the foreign-born displace native workers; rather, it reflects the fact that immigrants have made up all of the growth in the low-skilled workforce.

The people pictured in the elevator in CFAW’s ad aren’t likely to be competing with immigrant labor for positions. There may be other reasons for an overhaul of current immigration policy. But the idea that foreign-born workers are stealing American jobs should be turned back at the border.
Cevician

Oakland, CA

#446 Oct 30, 2013
@Cevician, that's too much mumble jumble. Condense you mumble jumble and people may actually read it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News On H1B Visas: Scott Walker Will Fight For Ameri... 10 min wild child 1
News Christie: I've changed immigration position 16 min Who guessed it 11
News Republican 2016 candidates almost uniformly giv... 19 min Who guessed it 1
News Hispanic Evangelicals Threaten To Abandon Repub... 19 min Synque 29
News Paul LePage Blames Undocumented Immigrants For ... 1 hr wild child 14
News House Blocks Chance at Military Service for 'Dr... 1 hr wild child 9
News Don't Look Now, but the Amnesty-First Crowd Has... 1 hr wild child 9
More from around the web