This shows just how easy it could be to partially reduce US unemployment. 
Unsurprisingly, this argument lacks any intellectual rigor.
First, although the October-December change in rate was statistically significant, the October-December change in number of employed people was not. (Cite.) So what exactly is your causal theory?
Second, lots of states experienced similar drops in unemployment rate over the same period. Michigan dropped by 1.3%. South Carolina and Utah dropped a full point. Puerto Rico dropped 1.4%. Did Michigan also pass harsh anti-immigrant laws?
If you want to present a cogent argument, I suggest the following: tell us in what sector(s) illegal immigrants were principally employed, and then tell us whether those sectors change in employment rates different with statistical significance from sectors which had fewer illegal immigrants, and with statistical significance from the same sectors in other states. At least then you’d have an argument and not this post hoc parlor game.
New Mexico’s unemployment rate is 6.6 and immigrants (also the illegal ones) live relatively openly, with little interference, so I will let others decide who is more effective regarding this.
Your evidence is a set of unemployment-rate statistics for a period ending in December with no mention of the rate being seasonally adjusted??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :p:p:rolleyes::p:D:p
Next Trick: Use the average temperatures for this period to prove that Global Warming is just a bunch of pointy-headed liberal hooey…
It is seasonally adjusted. But it is also preliminary.
Moved to Great Debates from Elections.
Are the new jobs those that would have been taken by illegal aliens? I skimmed through the link rather quickly, so maybe I missed this.
Without knowing the nature of the jobs, it is hard to say what’s happening. Maybe the unemployment rate would be dipping even faster if the law hadn’t been enacted.
I love it when a post hoc, ergo propter hoc comes together.
Maybe the drop in Alabama’s unemployment rate is… Obama’s fault! (cue ominous organ music)
I can’t say whether or not state wide this is the case, but I can tell you that in Leeds Alabama, where I live there were ONLY hispanics employeed at the local McDonalds…NOW there are maybe a couple…AND they have a sign on the door that states that they use E-verify. Like I said, I can’t tell you state wide what jobs illegal immigramts were principally employeed, I can’t tell you whether or not several months ago every employee at McDonalds was illegal. I CAN tell you that when I go there now, there is a sign on the door stating McDonalds uses E-verify and it wasn’t there before. I can also tell you that I no longer hear any hispanic accents when taking my order.
I seriously doubt it. I say this only because of the fast food places I’ve seen before the law was passed and after the law was passed. Most of the local food places had mostly or only hispanic employees…now they are black and white with a few hispanics (even the Mexican restaurants). Also my friends maid left after the law was passed (even though it isn’t illegal to hire an undocumented worker for domestic help)
There’s a sign? Why didn’t you say so in the first place? That clears up everything.
They’re everywhere…blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind…
…do this…don’t do that…
But both Alabama and Michigan have large auto-industry sectors. I suspect thats the reason for better then average drops in unemployment for both states, as the autoindustry has been rebounding.
If you remove people from a place, there will a higher job:worker ratio. This holds whether you’re arresting them, deporting them, or shooting them in the head. So I don’t really see why this hypothesis seems so implausible.
How many jobs will there be if you remove everyone? Right. That’s why we don’t apply third grade logic to immigration policy.
Not necessarily true. Fewer people means fewer consumers, which means fewer jobs. Also most immigrant workers were hired because they were cheap. So to some extent when they leave, the job they held disappears rather then being given to a presumably more expensive US citizen.
Which doesn’t mean its impossible that tougher anti-immigrant laws have caused the unemployment rate to drop, but its not obviously so. And trying to point at a dropping unemployment rate as evidence at a time when unemployment rate is dropping across the country is silly.
Maybe the hypothesis is plausible. But the evidence is weak. Very weak.
-
Because the people are still there. They haven’t been removed. Employers may be checking immigration status more closely, though.
-
Because a lot of states saw similar drops in unemployment without similar laws.
-
The analysis was performed from September to December, i.e. the Holiday Shopping Season.
I would want to see an October to October comparison (to get rid of seasonal variations), the number of total jobs available versus positions filled (rather than just the unemployment rate), and a comparison of these types of numbers between Alabama and other states.
That’s the sort of evidence I would want BEFORE coming to the conclusion that this law is primarily responsible for any jobs gains.
As posted above and without such evidence, the OP clearly demonstrates post hoc reasoning.
I credit the Regis factor. The economy began to turn around about the same time Regis left his show. I can only conclude that the people who used to sit around watching Regis had to find something else to do, so they found work.