Welcome to the police state

Being of a certain age, much of my early worldview was shaped by childhood indoctrination about authoritarian states, I guess you could call me part of the "Duck and Cover" generation. Taught from an early age about the evils of communism and fascism, we were often told that one of the greatest differences between free societies like our own, and evil totalitarian states, was that here in America one was safe to voice political views or dissent without fear of government retribution. We had no Siberian exile, Gulags, or internment camps. The police did not burst into your home in the middle of the night and arrest you on trumped up charges simply for voicing opinions contradictory to government policy.

Yet given today's current situation, it is no longer quite so easy to draw such simplistic comparisons.

Under the current administration, no thinking person can honestly say that they don't feel the slow grip of government overreach extending into the fabric of everyday life. An uneasiness has settled across the nation, somehow instinctively knowing that we are teetering on a precipice from which at any moment we could be sent spiraling down into the depths of a fascist nightmare straight out of the a futuristic novel.

In past expansions of totalitarianism, there have usually been early warnings signs. Certain groups within society were often preliminary targets, subjected to the loss of rights or privileges, long before these rights are taken away from the society as a whole. Gypsies, Jews, Gays, Blacks ….. the list of society's "coal mine canaries" is long. Generally any minority population that could be marginalized would be the first to feel the stranglehold of the coming authoritarian state.

In the United States of the early 21st century, our "coal mine canaries" increasingly appear to be the foreign-born population of this nation. Whether they be Muslims from the Middle East or Africa or Latinos coming to seek jobs and a better life for their families, the government appears all to willing to treat the foreign-born population of this nation as a testing grounds for dismantling basic constitutional rights.

Warrant-less arrests, indefinite detentions, and lack of judicial review have become standard practices when dealing with the foreign-born population.

Now apparently we can add the use of law enforcement to quiet political dissent and free speech to that list.

Three days after a 24-year-old college graduate spoke out on her immigration plight in USA TODAY, U.S. agents arrested her family — including her father, a Vietnamese man who once was confined to a "re-education" camp in his home country for anti-communist activities.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who chairs the House immigration subcommittee, on Tuesday accused federal officials of "witness intimidation" for staging a pre-dawn raid on the home of Tuan Ngoc Tran.

The agents arrested Tran, his wife and son, charging them with being fugitives from justice even though the family's attorneys said the Trans have been reporting to immigration officials annually to obtain work permits.

Lofgren said she believes the family was targeted because Tran's eldest child, Tam Tran, testified before Lofgren's panel earlier this spring in support of legislation that would help the children of illegal immigrants. On Oct. 8, Tam Tran was quoted in USA TODAY.
Her parents and brother were taken into custody Thursday. The family was released to house arrest after Lofgren intervened.

"Would she and her family have been arrested if she hadn't spoken out?" Lofgren said of Tran, who was not at home for the raid but has been asked to report to Immigration and Customs officials next week. "I don't think so."
link

The family has a long and complicated history. Tuan Ngoc Tran had faced persecution in his native Vietnam due to his anti-communist activates and managed to escape, becoming a "boat person" and eventually ending up in Germany after being rescued at sea. Both Tam Tran and her brother, Thien, 21 were then born in Germany. The family moved to the USA when Tran was 6 and began going through the process of applying for asylum.

When they lost their asylum case the Tran's volunteered to go back to Germany, but the German government refused to issue them travel documents. Although born in Germany, both Tan and Thien are not considered German citizens. Being technically "stateless", Tran told the Congressional subcommittee in May that she writes "the world" when asked her citizenship on official papers.

Unable to go back to either Vietnam or Germany, the Tran's were granted "withholding of removal" status by the government in 2001 that allowed them to stay until the government could figure out what to do with them. It required them to continue to report to immigration officials annually to obtain their work permits….just as they’ve done every year for the last 18 years. In the US today there are 324,000 people who have been ordered deported, yet have no country to accept them.

Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the Tran family's arrest "absolutely, unequivocally had nothing to do" with Tam Tran's advocacy. She said ICE agents began working on the case Sept. 28 and will now try to send the family to Germany, where the Trans lived for several years before coming to the United States. In the past, the German government refused the family's permission to return; Nantel said the U.S. government will now make an official request

Link

The Tran's spend a night in custody before Representative Lofgren orchestrated their release, yet they were still issued ankle bracelets and told they had a 7 p.m. curfew. After more negotiations the bracelets were removed Tuesday.

Tam Tran, who graduated from UCLA in 2006, testified before the House immigration subcommittee in May on the DREAM Act, which would allow undocumented college students who have lived in the U.S. for five years to get legal status.
Link

Tam Tran's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law about the DREAM Act painted a vivid picture of the limbo that thousands of immigrant children find themselves in.

In December, I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in American Literature and Culture with Latin, Departmental and College honors from UCLA. I thought, finally, after all these years of working multiple jobs and applying to countless scholarships all while taking more than 15 units every quarter, were going to pay off. And it did seem to be paying off. I found a job right away in my field as a full-time film editor and videographer with a documentary project at UCLA. I also applied to graduate school and was accepted to a Ph.D. program in Cultural Studies. I was awarded a department fellowship and the minority fellowship, but the challenges I faced as an undocumented college student began to surface once again.

Except the difference this time is I am 24 years old. I suppose this means I’m an adult. I also have a college degree. I guess this also means I’m an educated adult. But for a fact, I know that this means I do have responsibilities to the society I live in. I have the desire and also the ability and skills to help my community by being an academic researcher and socially conscious video documentarian, but I’ll have to wait before I can become an accountable member of society. I recently declined the offer to the Ph.D. program because even with these two fellowships, I don’t have the money to cover the $50,000 tuition and living expenses. I’ll have to wait before I can really grow up. But that’s okay, because when you’re in my situation you have to, or learn to, or are forced to make compromises.

With my adult job, I can save up for graduate school next year. Or at least that’s what I thought. Three days ago, the day before I boarded my flight to DC, I was informed that it would be my last day at work. My work permit has expired and I won’t be able to continue working until I receive a new one. Every year, I must apply for a renewal but never have I received it on time. This means every year around this month, I lose the job that I have. But that’s okay. Because I’ve been used to this—to losing things I have worked hard for. Not just this job but also the value of my college degree and the American identity I once possessed as a child.
…
But for some of my friends who could only be here today through a blurred face in a video, they have other fears too. They can’t be here because they are afraid of being deported from the country they grew up in and call home. There is also the fear of the unknown after graduation that is uniquely different from other students. Graduation for many of my friends isn’t a rite of passage to becoming a responsible adult. Rather, it is the last phase in which they can feel a sense of belonging as an American. As an American university student, my friends feel a part of an American community—that they are living out the American dream among their peers. But after graduation, they will be left behind by their American friends as my friends are without the prospect of obtaining a job that will utilize the degree they’ve earned; my friends will become just another undocumented immigrant.
Link

Somehow I think that Tam is not the only one who feels she is being stripped of "the American identity (she) once possessed as a child"….In a nation now so callous and small-minded, so willing to allow their rights and privileges to be thrown away, so willing to turn a deaf ear to the faint songs of the coal mine canaries around us as they warn of our own impeding disaster ….all of us lose a little more of our American identity each and every day.

For more on the DREAM Act and the plight thousands of immigrant children, brought here as children, who just want to be part of the American Dream:
Here
here
here
here
here

Read More...

Summary only...

New study shows undocumented immigrants good for Arizona economy

We can now add Arizona to the long list of states in which recent studies prove that the current influx of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have contributed far more in taxes than they receive in government services.

Joining studies from California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Washington DC, and Long Island, NY, a new report from Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona looks at the contributions and costs of Arizona's immigrant population and finds not only an overall net gain for the state, but that the loss of this population would likely cause long term economic problems.

At a time when states like Georgia, Oklahoma and Colorado, and municipalities large and small all over the country, are passing harsh legislation intended to drive off their immigrant populations, this Arizona study concludes that, in the long run, these restrictionist tactics will end up creating economic disaster for certain segments of the economy and an overall loss for all residents. These finding don't bode well for the state which already has some of the toughest anti-immigrant laws in the nation.

The study is also unique in that it breaks out the non-citizen population from the rest of the immigrant population and still comes to the same overall conclusions.

This is a important development, since one of the restrictionsts chief weapons in their war of misinformation has been the lack of information on the contributions of the undocumented versus the larger immigrant population.

This has allowed them to wrongly discount or discredit many of the previous studies by claiming that undocumented are somehow different than the broader immigrant population in their use of services or contributions.

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion, of which about $1.5 billion came from for non-citizens. Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion, $29 billion of that coming from non-citizens. This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

The study also looks at what impact the removal of as little as 10-15% of the immigrant workforce would have on the state's economy. Over $.5 billion in tax revenues would be lost, 125,000 jobs and $13.5 billion of lost economic output.

Clearly, lawmakers from statehouses to city councils across the country should examine this study before they begin to contemplate the adoption of restrictionist tactics and harsh legislation when addressing this issue. …..like the old saying goes:
"Be careful what you wish for … or you just might get it."

Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and Economic Impacts
by Judith Gans
Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona.

Preface
Arizona’s foreign-born population has grown dramatically since 1990 when there were about 268,700 foreign-born persons in the state. By 2004, the foreign-born population had grown to 830,900. This is more than a 200 percent increase. The vast majority of these new immigrants are in the non-citizen category, which went from 163,300 to about 619,800, an increase of almost 280 percent. Most immigrants are of working age and have come to the United States seeking employment. This fact is central to their impacts in Arizona.

The likelihood that many of Arizona’s non-citizens are undocumented immigrants has fueled anger over lawlessness and made discussion of immigration in Arizona politically contentious. But Arizona’s experience is a specific case of a national problem, one that exists because large economic incentives in today’s global economy are overwhelming the U.S. immigration system – a system that is widely understood to be in need of reform. Public discourse that equates immigration and illegal immigration is narrowly focused and risks overlooking broader dimensions of the role of immigrants in the economy.

It is not the purpose of this study to address the myriad issues surrounding illegal immigration or to imply in any way that illegal immigration is not a problem. Rather, the objective of this study is to suspend, for the moment, discussion of this narrow topic and focus instead on a broader examination of all immigrants’ impacts on Arizona’s economic and fiscal health. By so doing, we hope to create a more thorough understanding of the economic costs and benefits of immigration and of the tradeoffs involved in setting and enforcing immigration policy.

In Brief

Arizona’s proximity to Mexico, the growth of its immigrant population, and the proportion of immigrants that are in the United States illegally have made immigration a contentious issue. This study is intended to step back from debates over illegal immigration and deepen our understanding of the costs and contributions of immigrants to Arizona’s economy.

Executive Summary

This report examines the costs and benefits of immigration in Arizona. It provides estimates of the of incremental fiscal cost associated with immigrants – education, health care, and law enforcement – and measures their contributions to Arizona’s economy both as consumers and as workers. The two categories of immigrants (naturalized citizens and non-citizens) are examined separately in order to disentangle the economic costs and benefits associated with each.

The bottom line

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion ($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

Fiscal costs of immigration

Estimates of the incremental fiscal costs of immigration were derived from a variety of sources. In summary:

• Education: For this analysis, English Language Learner (ELL) enrollment was used as a proxy for the number of immigrant children in Arizona’s public schools. The 2004 cost of ELL education in Arizona was about $540 million of which about $350 million (65 percent) was incurred in Maricopa County.



• Health care: Total uncompensated care costs (reported as bad debt) for hospitals in Arizona was about $420 million, of which an estimated $150 million (32 percent) was incurred by immigrants. Of the $150 million in uncompensated care costs associated with immigrants, nearly $140 million was incurred by non-citizens.
  
  The total cost in 2004 of Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid program, was $4.3 billion, of which an estimated $640 million was incurred by immigrants. Of the $640 million in AHCCCS costs associated with immigrants, about $480 million was incurred by non-citizens.



• Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $91 million, of which $89 million was for non-citizens.

Immigrants as consumers

As consumers, immigrants bring considerable spending power to Arizona’s economy. This spending contributes to Arizona’s overall economic performance, and, in turn, generates tax revenues for the state.

• Jobs and income: Consumer spending in 2004 by naturalized citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $6.1 billion. Approximately 39,000 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending along with $5.9 billion of output in the state’s economy.
  
  This output included labor income of $1.2 billion, and other income (defined as rents, royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $900 million.
  
  Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $4.4 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending along with $4.3 billion of output in the state’s economy. This output included labor income of about $930 million, and other income (defined as rents, royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $560 million.



• Tax revenues: Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s naturalized citizens generated tax revenues of approximately $460 million, consisting of personal taxes of about $49 million, sales taxes of about $210 million, and business taxes of $190 million.
  
  Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s non-citizens generated tax revenues of approximately $320 million, consisting of personal taxes of nearly $36 million, sales taxes of $150 million, and business taxes of about $130 million.
  Immigrants as workers
  
  Immigrants in 2004 were 14 percent of Arizona’s workforce, and were a larger proportion of low-skilled labor in agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and certain service industries. High-skilled immigrants were a large percent of the workers in specific areas of medicine and science.

In low-skilled occupations in Arizona:

• Agriculture: Immigrants were 59 percent of the workforce in farming occupations and 22 percent of the workforce in food-preparation-and-serving occupations.


• Construction: Immigrants were between 35 percent and 41 percent of the workforce in certain construction trades such as brick masons, flooring installers, and cement masons. They were 27 percent of the workforce in all construction trades.


• Manufacturing: Immigrants were 35 percent of the workforce in food-related manufacturing, 46 percent of the workforce in textile-related manufacturing, and 22 percent of the workforce in metal-working manufacturing.


• Service industries: Immigrants were 34 percent of the workforce in occupations providing services to buildings, 51 percent of the workforce in landscaping-services occupations, and 38 percent of the workforce in building-and-grounds maintenance. Immigrants were 26 percent of the workforce in traveler-accommodations occupations, 23 percent of the workforce in restaurant-and-food-serving occupations, and 33 percent of the workforce in private-household help.

In high-skilled occupations in Arizona:

• Medicine: Immigrants were 38 percent of medical scientists and 19 percent of physicians and surgeons.


• Science: Immigrants were 36 percent of astronomers and physicists, 16 percent of computer-hardware engineers, 18 percent of computer-software engineers, and 17 percent of electrical and electronics engineers. Immigrants were 15 percent of economists.

Economic contributions of immigrant labor

Approximately $15 billion, or four percent, of the state’s output can be attributed to naturalized citizen workers, resulting in about 120,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. This output included $4.9 billion in labor income and $1.9 billion of other income in the state. State tax revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $860 million.

Non-citizens, for their part, contributed about $29 billion, or eight percent of Arizona’s economic output, resulting in about 280,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. Their output included $10 billion in labor income, and $3.3 billion in other property income. The state tax revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $1.5 billion.

The role of immigrants as workers can be further understood by analyzing the potential consequences of this source of labor not being available. In other words, what would be the impacts if immigrant labor were removed from the economy?

To this end, this study used a series of computer simulations to examine the impacts of reduced immigrant labor on the industries that employ relatively large numbers of immigrants. The study focused on industries employing low-skilled, non-citizen workers because this is where recent growth in Arizona’s immigrant population has occurred and because we know that significant numbers of these workers are in the country without authorization. Thus, the simulations are designed to estimate the economic consequences of eliminating this segment of the workforce.

• Agriculture: A 15-percent, immigrant-workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and losses of about $600 million in output including lost labor income of about $200 million, and lost other income of about $110 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $25 million.


• Construction: A 15-percent, immigrant-workforce reduction in the construction sector would result in direct losses of about 56,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and about $6.6 billion in output including lost labor income of about $2.6 billion and some $450 million in lost other income. The direct lost state tax revenue would be approximately $270 million.


• Manufacturing: A ten-percent reduction in immigrants in the manufacturing workforce would result in direct losses of about 12,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and about $3.8 billion in output including lost labor income of about $740 million, and lost other income of nearly $290 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $100 million.


• Service industries: In the service sectors analyzed, a 16-percent reduction in the immigrant labor force would translate to direct losses of 54,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and lost output of $2.5 billion including reduced labor income of about $900 million, and reductions in other income of about $270 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be nearly $160 million.

Net fiscal impacts of immigrants

Total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was estimated to be about $2.4 billion ($860 million for naturalized citizens plus $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated incremental fiscal costs of $1.4 billion, the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive, by approximately $940 million.

As 14 percent of the workforce, immigrants make significant contributions to Arizona’s economy. There are also specific fiscal costs associated with immigrants. But, by virtue of their contributions as workers to Arizona’s economic output, their overall contribution to the state’s fiscal health is positive. Certainly, these impacts are changing over time, but looking at data for one year provides a snapshot of the extent and magnitude of the role of immigrants in Arizona’s economy.

Note: We have estimated the incremental (marginal) costs of immigrants as individuals. If the immigrants were not present in Arizona, these costs would disappear. Immigrants’ impacts on costs of social services, such as fire and public safety protection, are not estimated because it is not possible to measure the incremental costs attributable to immigrants for these services.

Read complete report

UPDATE: 10/16/07: 7:30 EDT

Some questions have been raised at various other sites about two aspects of this study. One is the standard question about breaking down the numbers for just the undocumented population as oppossed to the non-citizen population as a whole.

The other questioning the extrapolations made about the economic costs of losing a portion of the undocumented workforce and the possible replacement of those workers with US-born workers.

the study answers both those questions:

How much of Arizona's immigrant population is here illegally?

We do not know. The U.S. Census does not ascertain legal presence in the United States when conducting its surveys and so the non-citizen category includes both legal and illegal non-citizen immigrants. However, there are reasonable, statistically derived estimates. Research by Jeffrey Passel at the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that, in 2002, there were between 250,000 and 350,000 unauthorized immigrants in Arizona, most of whom came from Mexico, and that by 2005 their numbers had increased to as many as 500,000.

Given these numbers it's statistically safe to estimate that somewhere around 80% of the non-citizen population is in fact undocumented in Arizona. This allows us to extrapolate the statistics given on the "non-citizen" population to see what's occurring with just the undocumented portion of that population.

As to the extrapolations made about the effects of the removal of the undocumented population on the economy and the likelihood that US-born workers would step up to fill the gap:

Our analysis to this point has focused on measuring the portion of Arizona's economic activity attributable to immigrants in its workforce. This raises the following question: would the jobs filled by immigrants be taken instead by native-born workers if immigrants were not part of the labor force in Arizona? The answer to this question is complex but largely depends on the availability of native-born workers with skills similar to Educational attainment data, both for Arizona and for the United States, indicate that immigrants and native-born workers tend to have different skills, with immigrants filling specific gaps in the native-born workforce by providing needed low-skilled and high-skilled workers. Immigrants in Arizona are an important source of low-skilled labor and of specific high-skilled labor that is relatively scarce in the native-born population and thus are vital to the total output of the industries that employ them. It is difficult to make the case that all or even most jobs filled by immigrants would, instead, be filled by native-born workers if immigrant workers were not available.

Read More...

Summary only...

New study: Immigrants little effect on jobs of US high school dropouts

One of the most contentious arguments in the debate over the economic effects of immigration has been whether the influx new immigrants has had an adverse effect on the wages of native-born workers with the lowest levels of education. It has been widely accepted that for those native workers at the higher levels education and job skills, immigrants generally provide economic benefits, but the debate over how they effect those who labor at low-skill jobs or jobs requiring less educational attainment has fostered debate.

A new study from Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis and Chad Sparber of Colgate University has tackled this thorny issue and found that foreign and native-born workers with similarly low educational attainment in fact compliment each other in the workforce rather than compete.

This idea of "complimentary skills" is not a new one and has been examined not only by Professor Peri before, but numerous other economists. This study differs from those in that it contains forty years of data and looked at the actual tasks performed by each class of workers to see what jobs were being done by native-born workers as opposed to foreign born workers.

The study found that foreign born workers perform more manual and physical tasks, while native-born workers do tasks that are more language-intensive and interactive, and that native-born workers benefit from this specialization.

The study also examines the work of economist George Borjas that claimed that immigrant labor decreased the overall wages of less educated native workers by 8%. Peri and Sparber found that overall, the negative effects of foreign workers was only 0.7%.

Documented and undocumented immigration has significantly affected US labor supply during the last few decades, though the economic effects of this immigration remain subject to debate. The most contentious issue is whether the particularly large inflow of immigrants with low levels of schooling has decreased the wage of native-born workers with similarly low educational attainment. If workers’ skills are differentiated only by their level of educational attainment, and workers of different skill levels are imperfectly substitutable, then a large flow of immigrants with limited schooling should reward more educated natives and hurt less educated ones.

This intuitive approach receives support in papers by George Borjas (2003, 2006) and George Borjas and Larry Katz (2005), which argue that immigration reduced real wages paid to native-born workers with no high school degree by four to five percent between 1980 and 2000. In contrast, Card (2001) and Lewis and Card (2005) employ city and state level data and find almost no effect of immigration on the relative wages of less educated workers. Moreover, their results are robust to the migration decisions of native-born workers, as they find that natives do not choose to move to areas with fewer immigrants. Thus, the relationship between immigration and wages appears to be more nuanced.

Ottaviano and Peri (2006) note that the effect of immigration depends crucially on the degree of substitution between native and foreign-born workers within each education group. That is, workers’ skills may be differentiated by more than traditional measurable characteristics such as educational attainment (and experience level). Native and foreign-born workers may have quite different skills, leading them to specialize in different productive tasks. For example, immigrants — particularly those with low levels of formal schooling — are likely to have inadequate language skills, imperfect knowledge of productive networks, and only limited awareness of social norms and intricacies of productive interactions. However, they have manual and physical skills similar to those of native-born workers. Therefore, foreign-born workers have a comparative advantage in occupations performing manual labor intensive tasks. On the other hand, native workers with little education will have a much better mastering of the language, local norms, rules, and networks. Thus, they have an advantage in performing interactive and coordination tasks. If less educated immigrants work in occupations that mostly perform manual tasks, natives move to occupations requiring more interactive tasks, and the two types of tasks are complements in production, then native workers can protect themselves against wage competition and benefit from immigration through specialization.

Though the assumptions in Ottaviano and Peri (2006) seem reasonable and are supported by anecdotal evidence, they require empirical verification. This paper employs US data for all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) from 1960 to 2000 to determine whether task-specialization among native and foreign-born workers truly occurs.

…snip…

The data strongly support three key implications of our theory, which we formalize in a simple model in the first section of the paper. In states with large inflows of less educated immigrants: i) less educated native-born workers shifted their supply towards interactive tasks; ii) the total supply of manual relative to interactive skills increased at a faster rate than in states with low immigration and iii) the wage paid to manual relative to interactive tasks decreased. Less educated natives have responded to immigration by upgrading their occupations. That is, they leave manual task-intensive occupations for interaction-intensive ones. Given the positive wage effect of specializing in interactive skills, this shift augmented real wages paid to native-born workers.

..snip…

Finally, we use the structure of our model and our empirical results to calculate the effect of immigration and the related adjustment in task supply on average wages paid to native-born workers with a high school degree or less. Task complementarities and changes in native-born task supply together imply that the wage impact of immigration is quite small. These findings agree with those of Card (2001), Card and Lewis (2006), and Ottaviano and Peri (2006). At the same time they enrich the structural framework to analyze the effect of immigration first proposed by Borjas (2003) and then used in Borjas and Katz (2005), Ottaviano and Peri (2006), and Peri (2007).

…snip…

Our empirical analysis employed a dataset developed by Autor, Levy, and Murnane (2003) that measures the task-content of occupations in the United States between 1960 and 2000. We find strong evidence supporting three implications of our theoretical model:

i) On average, less educated immigrants supplied more manual relative to interactive tasks than natives
supplied. This tendency became stronger during the 1980s and 1990s.

ii) In states with large immigration among the less educated labor force, native workers shifted to occupations
intensive in interactive tasks, thereby reducing native workers’ relative supply of manual tasks. In states with
low immigration, native-born workers maintained a higher relative supply of manual tasks.

iii) In states with large immigration among the less educated labor force, there is a larger relative supply
of manual production tasks than in states with low levels of immigration. This implies that immigrants more
than compensate for the reduced manual skill supply among natives, and it ensures that manual task-intensive
occupations earn lower wages.

Since native-born workers respond to inflows of immigrant labor by specializing in interactive tasks, wage losses associated with immigration are minimal. Immigration caused wages paid to native-born workers with less than a high school degree to drop by just 0.7% between 1990 and 2000.

Comparative Advantages and Gains from Immigration Giovanni Peri (University of California, Davis and NBER), Chad Sparber (Colgate University) April, 2007
alternative link

Read More...

Summary only...

The disingenuous benevolence of nativist rhetoric

This past Sunday, as is my usual weekend routine, I sat through the weekly carnival of double-talk and spin that make up the Sunday morning TV gab-fest.

At the top of the list of this week's topics was the compromise immigration reform measure announced last Thursday.

Demonstrating the fact that opinions really are like buttholes – and everybody's got one, I watched as one pundit or politician after the next took a whack at reducing this complex issue down to a 15 second sound bite.

But what was most revealing about these gaseous exchanges was not what they exposed about the speakers limited knowledge of the intricacies of the issue or detialed facts, but rather how willing they were to play fast and loose with them to make a point.

Perhaps nowhere was art of obfuscation brought to such a masterful level then during the rants of America's favorite crotchety old racist, Pat Buchanan, during his weekly stint of on John McLauglin's shouting match.

Buchanan has never failed to demonstrate why he's been a national embarrassment for over forty years. Yet, given a forum to discuss his views on the non-white population under the guise of the immigration reform was like listening to a barrage of off-color, racists jokes from a drunken relative at a wedding …you can't believe this stuff is coming out of his mouth and you just wish he'd pass out already.

MR. BUCHANAN: -- a complete sellout of working America. The vast majority of these 12 million folks are uneducated and unschooled. They compete directly against African-Americans, single moms, people who didn't get out of high school….

…snip…

MR. ZUCKERMAN: High school graduates do not want to take these menial jobs. We have a shortage of employees at the low end of the employment spectrum and at the high end. And this bill is going to help us in both areas. It's exactly what we need.

MR. BUCHANAN: All right, let me tell you --

MR. ZUCKERMAN: It's the first rational bill we have, instead of pandering to all the people who just want to condemn immigration, which has been the DNA of this country.

MR. BUCHANAN: You made your point. You made your point, Mort. Half the African-Americans in this country and half the Mexican- Americans don't graduate from high school. And the ones that do have got eighth-grade educations. You're taking their jobs away and you're bringing in millions of workers to compete with them. You're betraying these people.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Also, to add to what Pat's saying, teenage unemployment is at its highest level ever. Do we really need to bring in unskilled workers to take the jobs right out of the hands of those teenagers?

McLaughlin
Group

Before we look at what Pat was really saying during his little tirade, lets look at some facts:

First off, half of all Black and Hispanic kids are not high school dropouts. While dropout rates are higher for minority students…it's far from 50%.

Black and Hispanic youth are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to drop out of high school. In 2004, 7 percent of non-Hispanic whites ages 16 to 24 were not enrolled in school and had not completed high school, compared with 12 percent of blacks and 24 percent of Hispanics. The high rate for Hispanics is in part the result of the high proportion of immigrants in this age group who never attended school in the U.S. Asian youth, with a dropout rate of 4 percent, had the lowest dropout rate among all racial and ethnic groups in 2004.
link

Secondly, the most recent study on the effects of immigrant labor on the wages of native workers with lower educational levels shows it to be negligible.

Using individual data on the task intensity of occupations across US states from 1960-2000, however, we find that foreign and native-born workers with low levels of education supply very different occupational skills. Immigrants specialize in manual tasks such as cleaning, cooking, and building. Native-born workers — who have a better understanding of local networks, rules, customs, and language — respond to immigration by specializing in interactive tasks such as coordinating, organizing, and communicating. This increased specialization in tasks complementary to those performed by immigrants implied that wages paid to native workers — even those with little formal education — experienced little decline both in the aggregate and in states with large immigration.
…snip…

Since native-born workers respond to inflows of immigrant labor by specializing in interactive tasks, wage losses associated with immigration are minimal. Immigration caused wages paid to native-born workers with less than a high school degree to drop by just 0.7% between 1990 and 2000.

Comparative Advantages and Gains from Immigration Giovanni Peri (University of California, Davis and NBER), Chad Sparber (Colgate University)
April, 2007

So basically, Pat was only doing what he's been doing for the past forty years …talking out of an orifice not located on his head.


But that's really neither here nor there, because he wasn't really talking about immigration, job loss or his ideas on protecting US workers.

What he was talking about was his belief that people of color are inherently inferior and unable to perform educationally, so they need his protection in order to keep the social status quo.

If in fact the majority of minority children weren't graduating from high school, and those that did only mastered the skills of an eight grader, as Pat believes, why wouldn’t he be outraged by that? Instead he's trying to make sure they have menial, dead end jobs awaiting them.

If 50% of white children failed to graduate from high school rather than the current 7%, Pat would be calling it a national crisis and demand the heads of the educators and government leaders who had failed to do their job.

Yet, in Pat's world, due to their obvious inferiority, people of color cannot be expected to excel academically and it's best off if they just stick to jobs more suited their limited intellects. The jobs he believes that "12 million uneducated and unschooled" immigrants are threatening to steal.

It’s amazing to see the confluence of all of Pat's warped visions about race come together in one neat little package.

And let's not forget McLaughlin's final remark on teenage unemployment. Because if the uneducable Blacks and Latinos don't want those menial jobs meant for them, surely some white children would be capable of doing them... at least after school or during the summer.

Jeez

Read More...

Summary only...

New study looks at Hispanic immigration impact on Long Island

When talk turns to immigration and immigration reform more often than not the discussion will revolve around the border states or California with its large Latino population, or even the southeast where the recent influx of new immigrants has sparked backlash and controversy. But rarely do people think of traditional immigrant gateways like New York. Yet, every year New York is in the top three states for the number of foreign born residents both legal and illegal, and as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the state can figure out, the bulk of those immigrants live in and around the NYC area.

Over the past 25 years, one region that has seen the greatest increase in immigrant population, and particularly in Latino immigrant population, has been Long Island. Originally a prototype for the mostly white, middle and working-class, suburban communities that sprung up in post-war America, Long Island has matured over time into a much more diverse, multi-ethnic, immigrant gateway. Today it is home to one of the fastest growing Latino populations in the nation made up of both new immigrants and native born.

A new study from the Horace Hagedorn Foundation and Adelphi University takes an in-depth look at over twenty five years of Latino immigration to Long Island and it's effects on the economic growth of the region.

In 1980, fewer than one out of every twenty Long Islanders was Hispanic. Today, the proportion is nearly one in eight. This rapid demographic change has resulted in increased ethnic tension and anti-immigrant sentiment. Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy recently made national headlines by sponsoring legislation that would make it illegal for businesses with contracts with the county to employ undocumented immigrants. Congressional Representative Peter King, one of the nation's most vocal opponents to immigration reform, co-sponsored last years House immigration bill, H.R. 4437, that sparked protests throughout the country.

While King and Levy pander to the lowest impulses of human nature, the new study, "The Economic Impact Of The Hispanic Population On Long Island, New York" from Mariano Torras, Ph.D.,of Adelphi University and economist Curtis Skinner, Ph.D. shows that rather than lowering the quality of life for Long Islanders, over 25 years of Latino immigration has brought great benefits.

The study takes a comprehensive look at how continuing immigration effects a mature “immigrant gateway”, focusing on the demographics and economic effects of Latino immigration in the area.

Executive Summary

Long Island’s Hispanic population has grown dramatically in recent years, led by new immigration from Latin America. Indeed, Hispanics have emerged as the major source of demographic growth for the region—excluding new Hispanic residents, Long Island would have lost, rather than gained, people since 1980. The new Hispanic presence is visible both in cities and villages with established Hispanic populations and in smaller and more remote communities, especially in Suffolk County.

As workers, consumers, entrepreneurs and taxpayers, Hispanics make important contributions to the Long Island economy. Hispanic residents add nearly $5.7 billion to total Long Island output as a result of their consumer spending. Hispanic employment continues to grow very rapidly—increasing by almost one third from 2000 to 2004 alone—and Hispanic workers are an important presence in diverse regional industries, including Manufacturing, Accommodation and Food Services, Landscaping Services and Construction. Hispanic-owned business is also booming in the region, posting almost $2 billion in sales in 2002. In addition, Long Island Hispanic residents contribute positively to local government budgets. This study finds that Hispanics contribute $614 more per resident to local revenues than they receive in local expenditures on education, health care and corrections.

The importance of Hispanic Long Islanders to the regional economy will only deepen as this population continues to grow in the years ahead. This study documents the extraordinary recent changes in the region’s Hispanic residents and describes the key demographic characteristics of this population. It then quantifies the Hispanic population’s contributions to production, employment and new business creation on Long Island. The report concludes by analyzing the Hispanic contribution to local government revenues and costs.

Among the study’s major findings:

Demographics: The Long Island Hispanic population tripled to nearly 330,000 residents since 1980, and it now represents approximately 12 percent of the general population.

• The rate of increase was far greater than that for the Long Island population as a whole and significantly more rapid than the Hispanic population growth rate nationwide.



• Immigrants from Central America, the Caribbean, and South America accounted for almost half of the growth in Long Island’s Hispanic population since 1980.



• Sixty-five percent of Nassau County’s Hispanics lived in Hempstead town in the year 2000, while 68 percent of Hispanics in Suffolk lived in either Brookhaven or Islip.



• Almost half of all Long Island Hispanics are in the “prime working age” category of 18 to 44, compared to only a little more than one third of all Long Islanders.

Entrepreneurship: From 1997 to 2002, the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in Long Island rose by almost 35%, and total sales and receipts by 21%.

• Growth was especially strong in Suffolk County, where the number of firms increased by 51% and sales by 39%.



• Long Island Hispanic-owned businesses earned almost $2 billion in sales and receipts, and employed an estimated 25,000 people.

Economic Impact: Long Island’s Hispanic population contributed an average of $614 more per resident than it received in local expenditures on education, health care and corrections.

• The buying power of Long Island Hispanics in 2004 amounted to $4.4 billion. Hispanic spending produced an economic impact of nearly $5.7 billion—of which more than $3.2 billion was in Suffolk County—and created more than 52,000 jobs.



• In 2004 Hispanics contributed about $925 million in taxes and other government revenues (directly and indirectly), while costing Nassau and Suffolk local governments (counties, towns/cities, villages and school districts) about $723 million for K-12 education ($520 million), health care ($158 million), and corrections ($45 million). The net benefit to Long Island was about $202 million.

The Economic Impact Of The Hispanic Population On Long Island, New York, Horace Hagedorn Foundation

Read More...

Summary only...