Can you be "anti immigration" and call yourself a liberal?

[inthebrain]

This is an interesting question as it stands with liberalism today. Much being spoken about "class warfare" and not enough about what "class consciousness" is.

For me the answer is a resounding "no". I can't really say that one is liberal without grasping the concept of "class" and "class consciousness". Or even to understand that "illegal immigration" as it stands with our immigration policy is a class issue.

I think the difference between conservatives is their ability to wage class warfare by proclaiming the issue as a subject of law and religion. In this manner they are very good at masking their racism, mysoginy and racial isolationism.

Liberals tends to look at these issues as a matter of "what is just" and how to work the law so that everyone benefits equally. Looking at out own immigration laws and how they are skewed for wealthy people is important to consider when looking at our immigration policy. When looking at any manner involves "criminality" it's important to look at class and observe solutions that are just far all.

The truth of the matter is that the left is rediscovering itself in this country. Which is refreshing. Many people who are coming to grips with how the right is duping people would do well to consider how they are doing it with immigration. It is an issue that is steeped in class warfare.

[Rosemary2205]

1. I'm confused

As far as I know only a select few on the way far right are actually anti immigration. As in no legal immigration at all. Just about everyone I know is discussing what to do about ILLEGAL immigration and even the most diehard - the ones who want to round up all the illegals and send them home - are far from against immigration alltogether. IMHO painting them as hating the poor, lacking compassion, bigots, or whatever else is grossly unfair. IMHO.

[inthebrain]

11. Illegal Immigration plays into this as well

That is an issue of class.

We only allow wealthy or middle class immigrants to come here now a days. Immigration and illegal immigration are at an all time low in this country. Yet our immigration system makes it easier for well off people to immigrate here because it's so damn costly.

That is an issue of class.

What also makes this an issue of class is that we all live under the boots of the same corporate asshole buying our political systems. It doesnt help matters when the immigration system is so skewered.

It's not so much an issue of racism as it is an issue of class. Those two are very intertwined though. Although, lets not forget that those that want an all "white" America have their hooks in the Republican party as well as major media outlets. So that goes a long way into cshaping public opinion as well as the Oreilly/ Hannity blowhards when they push talking points.

[trayfoot]

34. Your premise is wrong.................

The argument is not over "immigration", per se. The argument is over "Illegal Immigration". As a Dem and a liberal, I am against illegal immigration!

[inthebrain]

45. illegal immigration is a subject

that centers on class inequality.

If your looking at this problem and not considering class, you're not much of a liberal. Illegal immigration is a subject that needs to be addressed from a class perspecitve. I'm not talking about "American Working class" either. That, my friend, is just plain nationalism.

This is a subject that needs to addressed from a class perspective. It's really that simple. American workers are not going to win a damn thing by sealing up borders and enforcing a mass exodus of immigrants. Not one working class person lives in that scenerio. As a matter of fact, that would lead to the suffering of many children.

THose same employers that hired them are not going to roll over and start offering living wages to their replacements. If you really believe that you have a lot to learn on how this capitalist game works in this country.

Those pushing that should really think about the human suffering that leads to.

There are better solutions.

[blue cat]

2. dems I know

against illegal immigration

[inthebrain]

14. The Democrstic party

is not really a liberal party. They are a center right party especially when it comes to economic issues.

[plcdude]

3. illegal immigration

is the issue for progressives as well as rational policies for immigration.

[mrcheerful]

4. It has nothing to do with anti anything, its about letting businesses

under mining american workers by using cheap under paid, over worked illegals in place of hard working americans. Its not just Mexicans or south americans either. The police busted 3 message parlors recently for prostitution. Of the 22 women working these places, 19 were asians here illegaly and 3 were illegal Mexicans.

[mitchum]

43. Thank you for the truth

you are absolutely correct

[catnhatnh]

5. It depends on what you mean by "anti-immigration"....

...I am for strong border control AND regularizing the immigrants already here AND sane immigration policies.What I do oppose is allowing business to continue an influx of oppressed people for the sole purpose of economic exploitation-those imported are offered just slightly more than they have at home and citizens are offered slightly less than they would have otherwise gotten.....So I want the border enforced,a program to regularize those who have already contributed much to our country and to make sure that those who immigrate legally come here to become full citizens, not tools for business to wield against labor.While were at it let's end or at least greatly curtail "worker visas" which are just another corporate sham to avoid hiring labor in the "free market" whose workings they extol when it allows them to pry an extra few percentage points from hapless consumers.You know, the free market they love keeping government out of and scream for at any hint of regulation until labor markets tighten up and they are forced to run crying to congress for more visas.....The congress that hasn't increased the minimum wage in nearly a decade yet debates a "guest worker" program within days of the Presidents request.....In short, our present policy is decided by corporatists FOR corporatists and to the detriment of the working class-that I would like to see change...

[MADem]

7. Good points, all

The definition of "anti-immigration" in the popular mind seems to be CLOSE THE BORDERS, and TOSS OUT THE MEXICANS (and the Central/South Americans). But a real liberal doesn't want to see workers exploited, having to hide in the shadows, and not have any rights.

It's a human rights issue; I for one am pro-RESPONSIBLE immigration, where people aren't crapped on and cheated.

[Lowell]

6. I love immigrants, but

this is a question of "illegal" immigrants. What is it about "Illegal" that you don't understand? This has nothing to do with "class" and everything to do with an invasion of our country by people who cost us more than they contribute. The repugs love illegals because they can pay them less, this helps keep wages down for all of us hard working legals. If someone steals your car are you going to say, "oh well, what the hell? They needed it more than me." I don't think so. You're going to want it back.

[inthebrain]

22. Excuse me

these same "illegals" are the same ones getting exploited on the other side of the border by guess who?

AMERICANS!!!!!

If your going to argue from a nationalist standpoint, at least be consistent.

This has everything to do with class and you're arguing "rule of law" and not "justice". Car theft has nothing to do with this and that serves as a poor analogy. You own your car, you do not own your job. What you do own is your labor. We are all getting exploited by the same monsters.

These people are not invading the country. They are trying to do the best they can in order to survive. Yet, it's always been poor people trying to survive that get labeled as the criminals. Wealthy people, whom our immigration laws benefit, bend those same laws to appease those of their class.

[BillZBubb]

8. Yes, you can be both.

But it is nuanced. The right wing doesn't do nuance. For instance, I have nothing but respect for those Mexicans who come here to help their families economically. I'd do the same thing if I was in their position.

That said, I have nothing but contempt for the politicians and businesses that use this supply of quasi-slave labor to drive down the wages and opportunities for our citizens. The laws ought to attack those who hire illegal immigrants, not the immigrants themselves. The immigrants deserve to be treated with respect and not rounded up like criminals. Take away the lure of jobs, and the illegal immigration ceases.

I also totally disapprove of H-1B visas which allow legal status to those educated foreigners who will work here. They hold down the wages and opportunities for American workers. That is a scam that is destroying our country from within by making rigorous training in science and engineering not financially attractive to our students.

You are totally correct about the class warfare. The right wing has been enriching the wealthy class at the expense of everyone else since Reagan. Maybe the sheeple will wake up before we become a plutocracy.

[Disturbed]

9. US Corporations do not give a damn about workers.

The Bush Regime does not either. It's about profit margins. The RW is split on the Illegal Workers issue. The border states are in dire straits due to an overwhelming influx of Illegal Workers who now have infiltrated industries that American citizens will work in, such as the Construction Industry and are also sapping Social Service and Medical costs. That is why the alarm bell rang regarding this issue. When Illegal Workers were mainly in the farming, resteraunt and low wage factory sectors not many people cared. Now it is an important issue.

[inthebrain]

15. Do you think things are rosy in the NE?

Or anywhere else in the country?

The hiring of illegal workers is not driving down wages nation wide. Removing them is not going to raise wages either.

There are many reasons why the economy sucks and illegal immigration is the least of them. YOu should really try living in the non border states and you'll find the situtation aint so rosy there either.

[unlawflcombatnt]

25. Illegal Immigration & Wage Suppression

"The hiring of illegal workers is not driving down wages nation wide. Removing them is not going to raise wages either."

You continue to post this false statement, without any evidence to back it up. Worse still, the statement defies all logic and common sense. Apparently you believe if you continue stating this untruth, that some will accept it as truth. Repeating a falsehood is never going to make it true.

Illegal immigration reduces wages in 3 ways.

1. Illegal immigrants, as a whole, are willing to work for less. As a result, employers pay them less than they would pay American workers for the same jobs. In order for Americans to work at the same job, they must accept lower wages than they would have otherwise, in order to remain "competitive" with the illegal immigrants who've replaced them.

2. Illegal immigrants increase the labor force size, thus increasing the "supply" of labor. Increasing the supply of labor has the same effect as increasing the supply of any consumer good. It reduces the "price" of labor, which means it reduces wages. Illegal immigrants are currently employed in 7 million of America's 143 million jobs. There are a total of 150 million workers considered to be "participating" in our labor force. The subtraction of the 7 million illegal workers would reduce this number to 143 million participating workers. The effect of such a "supply" reduction would be to increase the "price" of labor by basic supply & demand effect. Again, the increase in "price" of labor equates to an increase in wages.

3. As a result of the above 2 wage-suppressing effects, illegal immigration suppresses total aggregate labor income. Labor economist George Borjas puts the annual wage suppression at 4%, or $1700/worker. Multiplying that $1700/worker loss times 143 million workers gives a total loss of $243 billion dollars annually. That reduces potential consumer spending by $243 billion/year. The reduction in consumer spending reduces demand for production, and the demand for workers to provide that production. The result of this reduced demand for labor is a further reduction in wages.

Just 1 of the above 3 would reduce wages by itself. All 3 together suppress wages even further. Again, the Borjas estimate of wage suppression from the immigration that occurred between 1980 and 2000 is $1700/worker/year, or 4% per year.

The Borjas study can be found at Immigraion & Wages



unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[inthebrain]

26. This statement is false

<<<<1. Illegal immigrants, as a whole, are willing to work for less.>>>

Not to mention highly misleading. On it's face it defys common sense. Who the hell is "willing" to work for less. Your statement gives the illusion that people work because they want to and have a choice not to. People work because it provides them food and a paycheck.

<<<Labor economist George Borjas puts the annual wage suppression at 4%, or $1700/worker.>>>

So he gives us the average. I wonder how he worked that one out. Perhaps he used farm labors minimum wage exemption and assume what would happen if they paid workers a wage that they are not legally obligated to pay.

George Borjas is a right wing hack. I notice that his stances on immigration dont apply to himself.

I have spent a great majority of my life working as a low wage laborer. I worked as a Security Guard at the BSE and made 8.50 an hour. No illegals in working in that area.

Ive worked as a waiter and recived less than minimum wage. No illegals there.

I've worked as a CNA for 7.50 an hour. No illegals driving down wages there either.

I've worked tons of low wage jobs and these employers are not hiring illegals to drive down wages. What they are doing is manipulating the political system and our labor laws to escape responsibility. You argue this as if by kicking out immigrants employers are going to throw you some extra crumbs off of the table.

I didnt see them doing that during the NY transit workers strike. Remember that one? Where Bllomberg and Pataki both forced these people back to work? No immigrants causing that problem either.

Master is not compelled to abide by your laws of supply and demand. As a matter of fact, when you raise your voice and demand a better wage, Master will always find a way to force you to work.

George Borjas is not going to tell you that fact. Mainly because he works on the side of the corporations. Last I checked, Borjas and the Heritage foundation dont hold a vested interest in increasing my wages. Nor do the folks who fund the CIS which you just quoted from.

[silvertip]

35. Not so rosey!

   Take a long hard look around you with your eyes open and
you will see why things aren't so rosey.If you owned a
corporation and you could hire an illegal for $3.00 per hr.
and someone in this country legally could not afford to work
for less than $6.00 per hr. Just which one of them would you
hire? If you remove the one that is willing to work for $3.00
Per hr.who is left to hire. If you can't understand that you
should go back and start at grade one again. 

[unlawflcombatnt]

18. Employer Prosecution: the ONLY solution

"I have nothing but contempt for the politicians and businesses that use this supply of quasi-slave labor to drive down the wages and opportunities for our citizens. The laws ought to attack those who hire illegal immigrants, not the immigrants themselves."

I couldn't agree with you more. The source of the illegal immigration problem is the employers who illegally hire them. Any plan to reduce illegal immigration needs to start with employer prosecution. Most agree that this is the "fairest" approach. But there's another important reason as well.

Prosecuting employers is much more practical and do-able. Prosecuting employers will serve as a real deterrent to illegal hiring. Employers definitely can be located and prosecuted. They have a lot more to lose from prosecution than the illegal immigrants themselves. A real threat of employer prosecution will definitely change employer behavior. As such, it would definitely reduce illegal immigration. As you clearly stated, "Take away the lure of jobs, and the illegal immigration ceases."

The threat of prosecution of illegal immigrants has little deterrent effect. They have little to lose from prosecution, but much to gain by coming here. They're harder to catch and even harder to penalize. What penalty would really deter someone with almost nothing to lose? Does the "threat" of deportation really deter illegal immigration? It certainly doesn't seem like it. In contrast, would the prospects of a huge fine, and possible jail time, deter an employer from illegal hiring? Absolutely.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[silvertip]

33. Both!

   I agree with you for what it's worth, the hand writing was
placed on the wall when Reagan broke the Air Controllers
Union.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. The heyday of liberalism was what, 1970?

There were 9.6 million foreign-born people living in the US in 1970 or 4.7% of the population. Today, there are 36 million, or about one-in-eight. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2117826&page=2

I was alive in 1970 and I don't recall a big issue being made of the insufficient number of foreign-born individuals in the US. On the contrary, I recall a big issue being made about improving living standards for Americans.

I find it difficult to imagine why someone who feels that eroding the standard of living of working-class americans is a acceptable price to pay for improving the living standards of not-americans would self-identify as liberal.

It is an issue which is steeped in class-warfare, but those who abandon working americans have chosen the wrong side. If this is what is meant by "reinventing liberalism", count me out.

[inthebrain]

24. Go furhter back than that....

Try the late 19th and early twentieth century.

Emma Goldmann and EV Debs were no joke. Woodrow Wilson had to pass the espionage act to get rid of Emma. Those folks were protesting WWI before the hippies made war protests cool.

[The Magistrate]

12. It Can Be Done Quite Easily, Sir

Importation of labor acts to reduce wages and so increase the boss' profit and reduce the living standard of the workers here. If you make your appeal to class conciosness, then the proper left position is quite clear.

It is true that there are some opponents of immigration who oppose it on racist grounds, and that is certainly not a ground any leftist should take a stand on. It is also insufficient to press a claim that opposition to immigration is by its very nature racist, and therefore improper for any leftist to express.

[inthebrain]

13. It doesn't matter how many or how little you have

Poor workers are not beholden to a supply and demand chart because of their numbers. That's why we have Unemployment Payments, Minimum Wage and Welfare. Work is a life sustaining exercise.

Getting away from "race" and also understanding this as an issue of "class" is also important. Look at how much it costs to legally immigrate here? Also, take a look at the minimum wage laws on the books regarding farm labor (24% of illegals work in farm labor)?

This is a big issue and has many facets to it. Looking at it from a class perpective and trying to come to a solution that has real "economic justice" is where we need to go with it. No matter what nationality you are we all live under the same corporate boot.

[The Magistrate]

16. Your Analysis Is Not Correct, Sir

An increase in supply of any item tends to drive down the price that can be obtained for any individual item of it, just as a scarcity of it tends to drive up the price that can be obtained: this is as true for an hour's unskilled labor as it is for a pound of pork.

There are certainly a number of practical political reasons not to take a hard anti-immigrant line, but the answer to the question you posed in commencing this discussion is that there are certainly sound left grounds for taking a position against immigration.

[inthebrain]

17. Have you ever looked at the Demand curve for medical goods?

Supply doesnt effect it's demand.

Low wage work, where people are held over a barrel by the employer, is the same thing. Jobs are not optional in this society or many others.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. You're making his point, you know.

Increasing the supply of labor doesn't affect the supply of jobs - employers still need the same finite amount of work done.

Jobs are not optional for the workers, but they sure as heck are optional for the employers. Representing labor means limiting the availability of it.

[Doremus]

19. Can you trivialize a good portion of the Democratic base and still be Dem?

I've often wondered how some Dems can thumb their noses at the goodly sum of unskilled, blue-collar folks who are part of our 'big tent.' These loyal Democrats are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder; many are themselves minorities. Many are unemployed or living paycheck-to-paycheck, barely eeking out an existence for themselves and families.

These are the Democrats the party trivializes with their generous 'come one, come all' mantra.

I'm sure they'd like to be as gracious as you in welcoming tens of millions of additional unskilled workers into the labor pool, but they need a job first. Maybe you'd like to give them yours?

[inthebrain]

21. Understand what you are arguing for

and you'll realize that at its heart it's nothing more than "Social Darwinism". The mere existance of more poor people does not increase the effects of poverty or drive down wages. If it really did and you were still advocating to rid the country of these people I would strongly advocate that we look at the laws of capitalism. In that scenerio we should work to change them.

What does scare the crap out of people is that more poor people means the more likelyhood that they will seize what is rightfully theirs. The fruit of their labor.

When people are bent over a barrel for money and job that sustains them, reduicing the ammount of labor is not going to change things. That is why we have social safety nets; minimum wage, welfare etc.

If you want to work this problem through by applying the laws of capitalism, be my guest. You are not going to reduce the suffering. You stand a ninety-nine point nine percent chance of increasing it.

Illegal immigration is a "class issue". The biggest fear these pricks in power have is that poor people see common cause with those across the border. We outnumber the wealthy bastards by a good marjin. Wanna know the best way to defeat an opponent of that size?

Get them to fight eachother. Its a tryed and true proven tactic that's worked in the past and they are doing it now.

Would be so difficult that we demand better of out economic system so that some dont starve so the rest may survive?

[Doremus]

29. You can concoct all the theories you like. It doesn't change reality.

If the size of the labor pool doesn't affect wages, why is it that pharmacists routinely get $25K signing bonuses and referrals are worth $5K+? Why are they importing RNs? These are labor shortages.

A glut of workers has the opposite effect. There is no reason to increase wages if there are a gazillion applicants willing to work for less. Don't like the pay? Tough. There's about 11 million other people who want the job, bub. You're not suggesting that employers would actually volunteer to pay more than they have to, are you? It is to laugh.

I notice you completely ignored the point of my first post. Why are you so eager to discount the basic needs of a whole segment of American-born citizens -- many of whom are Democrats? They don't ask for a lot {and it's a good thing too seeing as how the holes in the safety nets get bigger with each round of budget cuts) -- just an opportunity to work and a paycheck.

Be charitable with your own money. Dollars to donuts we're not talking about your checkbook on this one.

[El Fuego]

20. It depends whether you're being a "global" liberal or a "national" liberal

A "global" liberal is looking beyond national boundaries, and doesn't think the interests of sovereign nations should rise above the needs of their fellow human beings.

A "national" liberal wants to take care of American citizens first, a concept seen as selfish and potentially right-wing by the global liberal. The "national liberal" sees a mass migration of the world's poorest people to the U.S. as a threat to traditionally liberal government assistance programs.

The "national" liberal is the champion of America's working poor who are only one paycheck away from living in the street. The "global" liberal says America's working poor just have to bite the bullet for the greater good of mankind.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Not at all.

"A "national" liberal wants to take care of American citizens first, a concept seen as selfish and potentially right-wing by the global liberal. The "national liberal" sees a mass migration of the world's poorest people to the U.S. as a threat to traditionally liberal government assistance programs."

The "national liberals" in Nicaragua, Cuba, Canada, Mexico, India and Russia have my wholehearted support, I don't regard them as selfish at all. I reserve my dislike for people in third world countries who cultivate such a toxic economic environment that their problems spill onto us. National liberals everywhere have my highest regard. The opportunists who take advantage of other societies because fixing their own is too difficult, get little.

No one can look out for others if they are unwilling or incapable of looking out for themselves.

[El Fuego]

39. I agree totally

I meant "national" and "global" points of view in the context of U.S. public opinion, and more particularly the apparent rift in the Democratic party on this issue.

The Democratic party platform can't be held hostage to opinions on what the "true liberal agenda" should be on this issue. I wanted to illustrate that both national and global POVs are valid arguments, but IMO, the Democratic party has to stick to the "national" point of view. The Democratic party should be an advocate of the American worker, and support the interests of American citizens.

Some people seem to think 21st "globalization" means the natural dissolution of national borders. But I think globalization just means that the mega corporations are able to exist virtually above national boundaries because they are networked internationally. Globalization doesn't have that much of an effect on the average individual. The economy in any given area will still be functioning on a local level.

[LWolf]

23. You can be anything and call yourself anything you like.

For example, GWB is a "compassionate conservative." War is peace, deficit spending is fiscal responsibility, etc..

You can be a political party and call yourself "moderate" or "liberal" or whatever direction the wind is blowing. These days, people "walk their talk" by redefining the terms in their talk to match what they do, rather than the other way around.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. I've decided that one SHOULD be anti-immigration to be liberal

It is impractical, politically imprudent and immoral to attempt to increase the standard of living of non-americans by volunteering the livelihoods of low-wage americans. Immigration should be indexed to the economy's ability to support additional labor.

I won't buy into the idea that reinventing american liberalism involves wholesale abandonment of american labor. There is no moral difference between support for outsourcing of jobs to India and insourcing of our labor from third-world immigrants. The only justification is so that capital can maximize its return - and even that is a poor long-term economic strategy.

[Doremus]

30. "Wholesale abandonment of American labor"

Another one who gets it.

Thank you.

[mitchum]

44. An excellent post

[Jed Dilligan]

31. I really don't know the answer.

I don't like the status quo. I think that American "culture" dies without immigration. We need newcomers all the time to prevent us from becoming conventional to the point of fascism. I agree with your point that the current laws are skewed toward people who will assimilate easily, meaning people who are already middle-class or upper-class capitalists. But on the other hand we allow in the least assimilable of peoples in the form of refugees from war zones (those we created and those global capitalism created--because there are no others.) Somewhere in the encounter there's hope for something better, something better than either peasant traditionalism or soulless consumerism that comes out of the space in between them.

I celebrate humanity's drive to break laws, not the fundamental laws that we can find in our innate conscience--thous shalt not kill, steal, etc.--but the laws designed to protect the interests of established owners, managers, and rulers. I love holes in fences. I love the black market and the grey market and every sneaky way that people get around the system. These kind of dodges prove to me that humanity can survive, despite our weird drive to become brainlessly systematic over time.

[BigYawn]

32. Yes...Yes....Yes

[Mountainman]

37. I feel that the arguments on the anti immigration side are bogus.

So far, no one apposed to the illegals in this forum has shown us any facts. It is all the same types of racist claims made against Blacks in the South.

So I think it is contradictory to be racist and a liberal.

Now if you want to attack me, go ahead and prove me wrong. Not with innuendo or anecdotal information but real documented facts that we can read and study.

[El Fuego]

40. If you're pro-illegal immigration, are you advocating open borders?

As far as blacks in the South go, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) gave blacks almost equal rights, on paper anyway. The 15th Amendment in 1870 gave blacks the right to vote. The basis for civil rights for blacks was in federal law. The problem was with local and state governments passing Jim Crowe laws. But the federal laws trumped the local laws, eventually.

Undocumented immigrants aren't considered American citizens under federal law. There are no laws in place which can be asserted in court on behalf of illegal immigrants. In contrast, black American's rights were already codified in federal law, and it was a matter of trying to enforce the laws through the courts.

The respective problems of black Americans and that of illegal immigrants are not analogous to one another. It's a bogus comparison.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. The proof has been posted multiple times

Google "Borjas wage suppression"

It's up to you to prove your claim that liberals opposed to unregulated immigration are doing so for racist reasons.

Put up or shut up.

[Bridget Burke]

47. Hey, I "Googled" for George Borjas....

He is listed as one of "five leading thinkers" on immigration by the Houston Chronicle.

Borjas' research of census data shows that recent immigrants are more likely than immigrants of several decades ago to go on welfare and stay there. Underlying this shift, he says, is a 1965 law that encouraged the migration of the non-European poor and unskilled.

At first, Borjas attributed his welfare findings to a decline in immigrant "quality," a phrase that to many outside academia hinted of racism. He now attributes the data to a decline in immigrant "skills."

These skill differentials, as Borjas calls them, are passed on to the next generation, making the children of immigrants less competitive. He sees the next generation assimilating into the welfare system rather than working mainstream America. Another Borjas study shows that immigrants hurt the native-born economically.

In the contentious world of immigration politics, this is explosive stuff, especially the welfare data. Even in academic circles, where Borjas is generally well-respected, his work draws its share of criticism. (Much of the debate centers on Borjas' methodology.)

Barry Chiswick, an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a longtime foe of Borjas, takes credit for this remark: "Borjas thinks the last good boat of immigrants is the one he came in on."

www.chron.com/content/interactive/special/amnesty/profile.html

Borjas is a Cuban immigrant--& received the deluxe treatment our government guarantees this particular group.

Then, read about Roy Beck: a "self-described liberal"--he's editor of "The Social Contract." Here's a report on his attendance at a lobbying session for Senator Tom Tancredo (R) back in 2002:

Patrick McHugh of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which purports to be a squeaky clean think tank that rejects racism, was there pressing the flesh along with Barbara Coe, head of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, who repeatedly referred to Mexicans -- as she has for years -- as "savages." The Citizens Informer, a white supremacist tabloid put out by the Council of Conservative Citizens hate group, was available.

NumbersUSA executive director Roy Beck, a long-time friend of Coe's, adopted a more moderate tone when he addressed his guests and told them what they should be doing to end the current immigration regime. It would be better, Beck counseled, if their attempts to lobby legislators that week did not appear to be orchestrated by NumbersUSA. For their campaign to be effective, he said, it "needs to look like a grassroots effort."

www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=554

The anti-immigration movement is rooted in racism & xenophobia. Some of the more presentable representatives want to hide the connection--even though they do not repudiate it.

The Chronicle also profiled Peter Brimelow. He's definitely been accused of racism. (Another immigrant, he's especially concerned about non-white, non-English speaking immigrants; he came from England!) His main site is VDARE. The links page includes Dr Borjas.
www.vdare.com/links.htm

But it also includes....
www.shucks.net/
www.eagleforum.org/column/index.html
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=185

Plus the Social Contract Press--associated with the "self described liberal" Beck. http://thesocialcontract.com/

What a cozy group we've got here...

Julian Simon & Michael Fix are also profiled. They are academics whose articles do NOT agree with Borjas. But they don't have the same backers--such as the Scaife Foundations.

www.onepeoplesproject.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=738&Itemid=27

[seabeyond]

38. i can BE whatever i want and call myself whatever i want. yes n/t

[UndertheOcean]

41. Ofcousre not ...

!!!

[RedTail Wolf]

46. YES, YES, AND YES! NT

[LittleClarkie]

48. What disturbs me is...

that means that Bush is a liberal.