Martin (Martin Reginald) says...

Pray tell, if an employer cannot 'tell' if a document is legitimate now, how will they be able to determine if a document is legitimate AFTER so-called immigration reform? Just because new documents are added, does not mean that forgeries won't follow. A new set of standards to allow short term migrant labor into America's job market, will not stop illegal entry into this country.

February 26, 2010 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"A new set of standards to allow short term migrant labor into America's job market, will not stop illegal entry into this country."
.
Supply and demand. The supply (people entering the country) rises to meet the demand (ag and other businesses that need laborers). When the demand is met - immigration reform allows employers to legally hire all the workers they need - the supply will cease. When people return home because they can't find jobs, the word will spread and less people will enter. That has already been happening in response to the current recession:
.
"Napolitano said Friday that the department has seen a "pretty significant decrease" in illegal immigrants crossing over from Mexico because the number of available jobs in the United States has decreased.
...A study out last month from the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute concurred. It found that illegal immigrants "are motivated, in large part, by employment prospects in the United States." The study went on to say that estimates of illegal immigration have consistently increased over the past eight years, except for two periods: the recession of 2001-2002 and the start of the current economic downturn. "
.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/...)

February 26, 2010 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tubesock (tube sock) says...

Well we all know where the money goes that these workers are making, and it's not back into the community that's for sure,

February 26, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Martin (Martin Reginald) says...

.
"Supply and demand. The supply (people entering the country) rises to meet the demand (ag and other businesses that need laborers). When the demand is met - immigration reform allows employers to legally hire all the workers they need - the supply will cease."

.
That misses my point, Norm. What is to prevent that demand being met by illegals who have forgeries of the new documents? The issue is not about a new program, new regulations, or new documents, it is about people who will still by-pass the requirements, maybe due to cost, maybe because they are not able to qualify due to a criminal background, maybe to just get a jump on those who will do things legally so that the illegal can get the available good jobs first.

.
If the ag employers can't tell legitimate documents from those which are fakes now, then they will not be able to later.

February 26, 2010 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Brittanicus (Dave Francis) says...

Remember legal pregnant women have to pay for there natal care, unless they are low income. Uncompensated care is passed onto any US patient in their potential bills, the insurance companies unlike for illegal nationals who pay---NOTHING.

Say--NO-- to Liberal empowerment that has brought SANCTUARY STATES like California to near bankruptcy. Say--YES--to TRUE CONSERVATISM and the Independent Tea Baggers platform, without Republican intervention. Say--YES--to E-Verify, as a permanent deterrent across the country with rigid ICE raids. Say--YES--to expanded--1-9s Audits, with no exceptions on any business. Say--YES--to imprisonment to ruthless businesses that use foreign labor and--PAY--NOTHING towards the costs. Put the National Guard on the Canadian and Southern border.Address the issue of visa over stays, who come here as visitors, students and deport them. GET INVOLVED AND BOMBARD YOUR PITIFUL REPRESENTATIVES IN WASHINGTON AT 202-224-312. Learn more at NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIALWATCH We also the 287 (G) local police arrest and detainment enforced and mandated for every law department across the country, including in every so-called Sanctuary Haven for illegal aliens. Nor should President Obama and his Homeland Security Secretary rescind No-Match-Letters to businesses from the IRS or drain funding from ICE raids.

No Copyright! Pass around. American Jobs for American Workers. One flag, one language.

February 26, 2010 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BeenThere (John Smith) says...

Norm really doesn't understand supply and demand economica even thoudh I have explained it ti him over and over. He idea is to change the laws so the US will be just like Mexico. He has no clue what he is really trying to do. Rather than improve the conditions at the source, he wants to drag the US down to the level of a third world country. Fun thing is he is only concerned with our southern border friends rather than all people of the world. Hum!!!!

February 26, 2010 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Brittanicus (Dave Francis) says...

ITS NOT GOVERNMENT THATS BROKEN, BUT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM ITSELF, because open border lobbyists, can buy and sell Washington votes. Americans must use their vote to remove this corruption, by making an example of Reid and Pelosi. Start pumping out these Sacramento septic tanks of filth, that has turned against the American worker and giving access to approximately 8 million illegal alien workers. We need true conservatives in the capitol, in state assemblies--not radical Liberals or even wealthy Republicans. Drain the cesspool from Washington in the midterm and future election, as all they care about is building a career in office and campaign contributions. Say--NO to AMNESTY, say No to birthright citizenship, when Mother is an illegal alien. Say--NO--ANY--government handouts or entitlements, including education, only emergency health care procedures.
As a "Liberal Politically Correct" disguised issue the terminology "Uncompensated Care" carries a significant expense to taxpayers. Billions of Billions of dollars are forced from the taxpayers wallets paying for illegal immigrants, who should never crossed into American soil in the first place. We pick up the bills for education to at least k-12 for children of illegal immigrants, but where does the money come for illegal students in state colleges? Then they use the word "Uncompensated care" for health treatment of emergency care that has closed down many hospitals in California. But their are finally the unknown amount of government at state, county and city entitlement. This doesn't even account for the "uncompensated money" that is paid out for hundreds of thousands of "Anchor Babies" of pregnant Mothers slipping through the enforcement net at the airport, border to give birth and thereby getting instant citizenship; a travesty of our immigration laws opening the door wide-open for food stamps, housing and the rest of the families settlement here.

February 26, 2010 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"That misses my point, Norm."
.
You're right. I was addressing the question of total numbers rather than the fake/legitimate papers question.

February 26, 2010 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"Norm really doesn't understand supply and demand economica even thoudh I have explained it ti him over and over"
.
It's great that you think you're really knowledgeable, John. I'm happy for you.
.

February 26, 2010 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense (common sense) says...

"It's great that you think you're really knowledgeable, John. I'm happy for you."
.
Norm ever wonder why no one joined in on your "Solutions" page. Think about it.

February 26, 2010 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BeenThere (John Smith) says...

"It's great that you think you're really knowledgeable, John. I'm happy for you."
.
And too bad you are so thick in the head that you refuse to understand. But, when you focus on the pin point, you can't see the rest of the world.
.
Norm is against the American worker and wants to replace them with his illegal friends by changing the laws to allow it to be legal to take away jobs. It didn't work in the past, why he thinks it will now is anyone's guess.

February 27, 2010 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

PROUDLYbrownie (proudly brown) says...

BeenThere (John Smith) hey guess what I don't think you will want to pick fruit all day long in the hot sun in the summer and earn your living that way.No because you probably have you nice little office with coffee and and AIR CONDITIONING. So I don't believe that WE are taking your jobs. What WE do for a living is what u dont want to because you don't have the "HUEVOS RANCHEROS" to work out in the sun all day for 6-7 days a week I DON'T THINK SO!

February 27, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense (common sense) says...

Amen Dave,
.
"As a "Liberal Politically Correct" disguised issue the terminology "Uncompensated Care" carries a significant expense to taxpayers. Billions of Billions of dollars are forced from the taxpayers wallets paying for illegal immigrants, who should never crossed into American soil in the first place."
.
In case Norm starts up with his usual, "immigrants put more into the economy speech", I found a very interesting study done in 2007 by the Congressional Budget Office.

Revenues Versus Spending
.
“Recent estimates indicate that annual costs for unauthorized immigrants in Colorado were between $217 million and $225 million for education, Medicaid, and corrections. By comparison, taxes collected from unauthorized immigrants at both the state and local levels amounted to an estimated $159 million to $194 million annually”.
.
“In 2006, the Missouri Budget Project estimated that unauthorized immigrants paid between $29 million and $57 million in state income, property, and excise taxes. That organization estimated that the state spent between $17.5 million and $32.6 million to provide elementary and secondary education for between 5,800 and 10,833 unauthorized immigrants. Local districts incurred between $26.5 million and $49.3 million in additional costs for educational services.” Medical costs and law enforcement costs were not included.
.
***The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.***
.
Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law
.
enforcementhttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

February 27, 2010 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"Norm is against the American worker"
.
Utterly ridiculous. Respecting the hard work and valuable contributions to our economy made by immigrants and supporting the idea of treating them with fairness and dignity doesn't in any way mean that I am "against the American worker."
.
It's even more ridiculous coming from you, as I'm reasonably sure that you oppose at least some, if not all, of a long list of pro-labor policies that I support. Among these are strong protection for collective bargaining rights, setting the minimum wage at the level of a living wage, a progressive tax structure, strong workplace safety standards, universal national public health care, and on and on.

February 27, 2010 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"In case Norm starts up with his usual, "immigrants put more into the economy speech, I found a very interesting study done in 2007 by the Congressional Budget Office."
.
OK. Look at the title of your report:
"The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments".
What does it tell you? It tells me that its not even going to attempt to assess illegal immigrants' (ii's) overall effects on the economy. It's going to look at their effects on a subset (state and local) of a subset (government) of the economy. So instead of looking at the total net effects that ii's have on our economy, its going to look at a subset of a subset. That's less than the whole thing.
.
Now. Either you understand before you even look beyond the title of the report that it's not going to try to determine the total net economic effect of ii's or you don't.
.
If you do understand this, then by presenting it as if it does tell the whole story you are being dishonest. You're cherry-picking the portion of the data that supports the conclusion you want to reach and ignoring the rest of the data that, as a whole, contradicts the conclusion you want to reach.
.
If you don't understand that this report doesn't even attempt to assess the total economic effect of immigrants, then you are being honest and are genuinely confused. Since I've tried over and over to explain this concept to you, with no apparent success, I'll quote from a 2007 report prepared by Pres. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors:
"In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output."
.
"...when immigrants are added to the US labor force, they increase the economy’s total output, which is split between immigrants (who receive wages) and natives (who receive wages and also earn income from their ownership of physical and human capital). Natives may also gain from having a wider variety of goods and services to consume and from lower prices for the goods and services produced by industries with high concentrations of foreign-born workers.
The "immigration surplus" is a simple and frequently cited metric of natives’ total gains from immigration. The surplus accrues to native factors of production that are complemented by immigrant workers – that is, to factors whose productivity is enhanced by the presence of immigrants. In a simple model with just capital and labor (not differentiated by skill), similar in structure to that presented in the National Research Council (NRC) analysis, one can estimate this surplus (calculations omitted) the current immigration surplus is about 0.28% of GDP, or roughly $37 billion per year."
.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archive...

February 27, 2010 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

Continuing with the same report:
"A more complex approach to measuring the influence of immigration on natives’ income differentiates workers by skill, nativity, and experience and also allows for a capital accumulation response to changes in the supply of labor. In this scenario complementarities from immigrant workers are allowed to accrue to native workers. A recent paper by Ottaviano and Peri (2006) takes such an approach to measuring the wage effects of immigration and concludes that immigration since 1990 has boosted the average wage of natives by between 0.7% and 1.8% depending on the assessment’s timeframe – the effect is more positive when the capital stock has had time to adjust.4 Fully 90% of US native-born workers are estimated to have gained from immigration. Multiplying the average percentage gains by the total wages of US natives suggests that annual wage gains from immigration are between $30 billion and $80 billion.5

In both approaches described above, natives benefit from immigration because the complementarities associated with immigrants outweigh any losses from added labor market competition. Rather than focusing on average effects, special attention could be paid to the wellbeing of the least-skilled natives. The number of natives with less than a high school degree has declined over time, which is one reason less-skilled immigrants have been drawn into the US labor force to fill relatively low-paying jobs. Even so, based on Chart 1, one might expect the remaining least-skilled natives to face labor market competition from immigrants.6 Evidence on this issue is mixed. Studies often find small negative effects of immigration on the wages of low-skilled natives, and even the comparatively large estimate reported in Borjas (2003) is under 10% for immigration over a 20 year period.7 The difficulties faced by high school dropouts are a serious policy concern, but it is safe to conclude that immigration is not a central cause of those difficulties, nor is reducing immigration a well-targeted way to help these low-wage natives.

•Conclusion: Immigrants increase the economy’s total output, and natives share in part of that increase because of complementarities in production. Different approaches to estimating natives’ total income gains from immigration yield figures over $30 billion per year. Sharply reducing immigration would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans"

February 27, 2010 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense (common sense) says...

"Among these are strong protection for collective bargaining rights, setting the minimum wage at the level of a living wage, a progressive tax structure, strong workplace safety standards, universal national public health care, and on and on."
.
Unfortunately many of the ideas you support are hindered by immigration itself.
.
Take Collective Bargaining for example.
.
"The 1970s were a heady time for the UFW. Farm wages rose relative to manufacturing wages, from less than 50 percent of manufacturing wages in 1965 to almost 60 percent of manufacturing wages in the late 1970s. UFW-called boycotts of lettuce and Gallo wines that were eventually settled with contracts and higher wages convinced many growers that their farmworkers would soon be represented by unions. "
"More than a quarter century after the enactment of the most pro-worker and pro-union labor relations law in the United States, there are fewer workers under union contract in California agriculture than before the ALRA was enacted, and farm wages and working conditions have slipped further behind the U.S. norms than they were in the 1960s and 1970s. There are four major reasons advanced for the failure of the ALRA and the UFW to transform the farm labor market: poor union leadership, state-level political changes, farm labor market changes, and rising illegal immigration."
Norm when you support immigrants, and illegal immigration, unions and collective bargaining do not have a leg to stand on. The main power of the union lies in the ability to withold labor ie; strikes. When it is easier and cheaper for employers to hire immigrants than to waste their time bargaining with a group of people who have nothing of real value to offer, you have virtually taken the legs out from under organized labor negotiating.
Going forward, as more and more immigrants become educated, (paid for by the middle class), and more qualified, they are moving out of the fields and into other areas of business. This increased competition to our middle class, reducing wages, and raising unemployment for native citizens.
.
It is simple Supply and Demand Norm.
.
With 34 million immigrants in our country currently and 50 million expected by 2020, immigrants have gutted the middle class and reduced collective bargining power to the level that it cannot operate.

February 27, 2010 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense (common sense) says...

http://www.cis.org/Unionization-Calif...
.
Forget the reference. Sorry.
Gotta go, baseball practice, see you all later .

February 27, 2010 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

Okay, so there's economic effects in the private sector. Now lets go back to your source and look at fiscal effects.
.
Page 1. Introduction. First paragraph. First sentence. And I quote:
.
"Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.1, 2 Generally, such estimates include revenues and spending at the federal, state, and local levels.3 However, many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes."
.
If you fail to understand it, read it again:

"tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."
.
Tax revenues = the money they pay in
exceed = is more than
the cost of the services they use. = the money taxpayers spend on them.
.
What's in your source is a discussion of how the federal government collects more of the revenue while state governments pay more of the costs. The solution to the economic "problem" of illegal immigrants is a better revenue sharing arrangement between federal and local governments.

February 27, 2010 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...

Norm,
First you tear apart Common's reference, then you bend it to advance your arguement. ???
.
You can't have it both ways.
.
Oh, I see a future in politics for you.

February 27, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

I clearly indicated that the "tearing apart" his reference was based on no more than the title of the report: it was only proposing to address the fiscal effects on state and local governments, therefore it wasn't even attempting a complete accounting.
.
I was surprised when I turned the page and began reading that it began by admitting that while the state and local fiscal effects are negative, the total fiscal effects (including federal, not just state and local governments) were positive.
.
The CBO report was more honest than the agenda-driven reports written by anti-immigrant groups are.

February 27, 2010 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mtg0722 (micheal greening) says...

"If you fail to understand it, read it again:"
.
I have read both posts (Norms and Common's) and I checked both references. Norm, your information is federal, of course the federal government benefits from immigration, it is the state and local government that pays most of the costs for immigration.

Oh and this topic is hosted by the Washington Farm Bureau Labor Conference. (A state organization)
I am sure your (federal) information is wonderful, but immigration and the effects of immigration (Common's source)on the (state and local level) would IMO more aptly apply.
.

February 27, 2010 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"Oh and this topic is hosted by the Washington Farm Bureau Labor Conference. (A state organization)
I am sure your (federal) information is wonderful, but immigration and the effects of immigration (Common's source)on the (state and local level) would IMO more aptly apply. "
.
1. The information I pasted from my source didn't relate to fiscal (ie. government) effects. It dealt with effects on workers. No federal/state distinction, just workers in general.
2. I find it hard to believe that you truly fail to understand this very simple concept: according to both sources, the one Common linked and the one I linked:
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, pay more than the cost of the services they receive.
Here's an example:
Suppose the cost of the services they receive from the state is $1000, and the total money they pay to the state, through whatever combination of taxes amounts to $400.
The net impact on the state is -$600.
.
Now suppose the cost of services they receive from the federal government is $500 and the amount they pay to the federal government is $1500. The net impact on the federal government is +$1000.
.
So the total of the "tax revenues of all types" they have paid is $1900 ($400 state + $1500 fed) and the total cost of the services they have received is $1500 ($1000 from the state, $500 from the feds). They have paid $400 more than the cost of the services they have received.
.
This fits the scenario described by Common's source: "tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."
.
Any native born citizen of Washington state is also a citizen of the United States, and pays taxes and receives services from both. If an immigrant's fiscal effect on Washington state is (-$600) and their effect on the US is (+$1000), then a WA state taxpayer, who is also a US taxpayer, who claims that the immigrant is costing them money is wrong.
.
$400 - IM pays WA
$1000 - WA spends on IM
WA loses $600
.
$1500 - IM pays US
$500 - US spends on IM
US gains $1000
.
$600 WA loses
$1000 US gains
$400 net benefit to (WA +US) taxpayer
$400 net loss to IM
.
If you can't understand that, I don't think I can help you.

February 27, 2010 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BeenThere (John Smith) says...

Gee Norm, I wonder what the Washington Farm Bureau would have to say about your ideas of unionizing the farm labor?
.
As for Brownie, been there done that along side legal residents from Oklahoma and Arkansas (the original immigrant farm worker). Picked apples, cherries, thinned, punned, swamped, etc in the hot of the summer and cold winters. But, soon, the cheap labor came, the legal workers were forced out and I had to move on to something better. Just like what happened during the last amnesty period. Where did all the Ag workers do after they were granted amnesty?

February 27, 2010 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense (common sense) says...

I am back!
Wow looks like I missed a lot.
Norm, nice report, I like the way it's is presented, minus the snide remarks of course, however, I was under the assumption that we were talking about "illegal" immigrants. That is the topic is it not?
.
“The big thing is being able to have a (legal) work force,” said Ron Gaskill of the American Farm Bureau Federation".
"
My posts and the references used earlier dealt with (illegal or unauthorized) immigrants. Lets refresh from my initial post.
.
Recent estimates indicate that annual costs for (unauthorized) immigrants.........
.
“In 2006, the Missouri Budget Project estimated that (unauthorized) immigrants paid .....
.
.
***The tax revenues that (unauthorized )immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.***
.
.
Most of the estimates found that even though (unauthorized) immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement.
.
(Illegal or unauthorized) immigrants do take more than they put in.
.
If you combine the figures for legal and illegal immigrants like you did, then the ratios change making your scenario believable.
.
According to the CIS, "Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, (illegal) households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002.
.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fisc...
.
You are combining immigrant status ("legal" and illegal), to skew your math.
.
"If you can't understand that, I don't think I can help you." :)
.
That was a nice try though, A for effort.
:)

February 27, 2010 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"I was under the assumption that we were talking about "illegal" immigrants. That is the topic is it not?"
.
Yes, it is. There are two main differences in the economic effects of legal compared to illegal immigrants:
1) Illegal immigrants cost the federal government less money than legal immigrants do because they are not eligible to receive means-tested government assistance.
2) Illegal immigrants tend to be less educated than legal immigrants.
Regarding the different effects of legal/illegal immigrants, your CIS study says:
"With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services."
.
(now back to quoting the previous post):
"Most of the estimates found that even though (unauthorized) immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement...(Illegal or unauthorized) immigrants do take more than they put in...If you combine the figures for legal and illegal immigrants like you did, then the ratios change making your scenario believable."
.
Back to the differences I noted above, (2) offsets (1). While (1) reduces the fiscal cost of ii (ii = illegal immigrants), (2) increases the fiscal cost, since education level is the most significant factor effecting the net fiscal effects of immigrants.
.
Now, your current source (CIS), like every other study I've seen - both pro and anti ii - acknowledges the comprehensive 1997 study by the National Research Council as authoritative. Specifically, CIS says:
(A) "The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact."
(B) "Summary Methodology - Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans.", and
(C) Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans."
- continued in the next post -

February 28, 2010 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )