Yes, but did he get that job legally? 
Heh. Good point. I didn’t follow the link, I saw Borjas’ name and assumed the link was to a articles he’d published, since I’m familiar with some of his work I didn’t actually follow the link. Mea culpa.
Nitpick:
People who rent are not paying property taxes. Yes, the landlord includes property taxes as one of his costs when determining the rent, but so does Apple when it sets its prices. No one would say you are “paying property taxes” when you buy an ipod, though.
It’s actually a link to numerous .pdf files that summarize his positions in several of his publications. Labour economics are a fairly dry area even for the dismal science so it’s hard to link to a 200 page report when it’s easier to link to a site that contains all of his relevant studies. Moreover, to suddenly paint him as the Republican version of George Soros is out and out ignorance when, unlike Soros, he is presenting an objective study of the economic impact of immigration.
I asked for a cite, not a bunch of links. You said he made a specific claim, lay out either the quote, the page it’s on, etc.
As for the rest, he’s blatantly anti-immigration, and other economists even make jokes about it. Feel free to point out the “facts” from his study, and we can start having fun with this. Until then, I’m just seeing a profile page.
Some of Borjas’ articles:
Regarding his book Heaven’s Door
Another article discussing immigration’s impact on the labour market
An article from the New York Times by Borjas effectively stating the defaltionary affect immigration is having on wages.
Citations provided. So because other economists “make fun” of him (Citation please) he must be wrong?
So just because he is anti-immigration (based on his research mind you) he is wrong? I’m just not following your logic or perhaps there is none and you’re just ranting.
Well if a Mexican army gives you small pox, and shoves you onto a reservation, then you might have a point.
You didn’t answer my question. Why should a hypothetical Mexican national populated Montana be held to a different standard?
You do realise immigrants are going to need things clothes and such, and making items for them will increase demand which will increase jobs. There will be an adjustment period but job demand will catch up to people available for labor.
In short more people = more demand = more jobs.
I’m not following your point. Mexico had, at best, a very questionable claim to much of the American territories. Indeed, I would argue that the Spanish have a strong a claim as the current nation of Mexico.
So China has no economic problems? Or India? Or Nigeria? It doesn’t work that way.
More (low to no skilled people) = wage deflation = income disparity = more poverty = more social and political instability.
Using your logic, Mexico should be an economic powerhouse.
Once again, you state that he notes: “illiegal immigrants actually consume more in benefits, health care costs etc. than they actually contribute to the economy.”
That’s what I want a cite for, nothing else. I’m quite familiar with Borjas’ work, so I don’t need a primer. I want to know exactly what he stated, in what context, etc., that you originally referenced. If that statement happens to be in one of the links you provided, tell me which link, which page, what text he uses, anything that will point me to where he makes such claims.
Barry Chiswick, for instance, started the joke that made the rounds in economic circles: “Borjas thinks the last good boat of immigrants is the one he came in on”.
Citation please? For example, who is Barry Chiswick? Has Chiswick actually refuted Borjas’ findings with data and research of his own?
That is, in essence, his overall conclusion. Given your self-stated knowledge and expertise with his work I am astonished that you can’t find it.
Perhaps Barry Chiswick could help you?
I looking for where Chiswick directly contradicts Borjas’ research.
Well, I was trying to stave off the inevitable “they pay property taxes because the landlord includes it as part of rent” argument that I was sure someone would pull out when I say they don’t pay much into the system. Landlords frequently cite the increased property taxes as a need to raise the rent*. Others frequently use the lack of home-ownership as a means to denigrate folks as non-taxpayers, especially in the case of school funding. If an illegal alien rents a dwelling that is subject to property tax**, they are likely contributing in some fashion to the services provided by those taxes.
*So far I haven’t heard Apple use increased property taxes as a reason it raises the price of its product, though I am aware that corporations include pretty much everything under the ever-adaptable umbrella of overhead. Novel way to figure out total tax burden though–an individual pays x% of his/her total tax burden via the proprerty tax the corporation includes in overhead, depending on where the product is sold? manufactured? hmmm…my head will explode.
**Only 23% of the land in the county I live in–Washington largest county by size–is taxable due to a large military training center and the Yakama Indian Nation. If you rent on the rez, you ain’t paying property taxes and several of the cities in my county are on the rez.
I don’t disagree with you, the inevitable “they pay property taxes because the landlord includes it as part of rent” argument is just b.s., and I 'm glad you pointed it out.
Apple probably doesn’t use increased property taxes as a reason to raise prices, but property taxes remain a part of Apple’s costs, which in turn affects their pricing.
Okay, i’ve waded through 1.5 pages of this bullshit so I apologize if I’ve slighted anyone, but if you agree with me, please consider tha my response is positive.
iTs fine for many of you to expound on the human rights that we all feel deserving of each and every representave of the declination “homo sapiens”, but in some cases we do experience a price. Depends on who you are.
For example good gardeners that you can trust to keep you garden up with the Jones is a priority for Americans who long ago decided that they were above performing menial labour to avoid being a burden on the national purse. To accept cheap Mexican labour is to abandon the real American working class that clings to the hope that they can have the Amerrican dream. That dream has probably dried up, because their labour, their value to American society has been undermined by the inclusion of foreign, intellectually backward sophisticated ideas by people with a laudable agenda of equality for all peoples. If you people on this message board, people who have mostly been given an edge, can’t see that illegal immigration is an assault on your working class, then I need not continue. Can’t you see that to be a janitor, fruit picker, burger flipper etc is as American as an IT professional?
Sure, some of you “professionals” are all upset by Indian call centres.
America needs to know that their citizens have it pretty good. Americans would do well to consider that they need to look after all their citizens
Good post Dutchman. I would be very interested to see the affect that immigration has had on the Black working class since 1970 or so.
Of course, any sane immigration policy would have as one of its main goals investment in Mexico so that country can improve and thus, assist in lessening immigration.
Don’t point that finger at me. Americans are happy to whine and bitch about their jobs going overseas. But few have the guts to do what their own ancestors did- pack up, say their goodbyes, and head out to greener pastures. I’m not saying they should do that or that that would be advantageous to our country, but the fact that doing so is pretty much unthinkable is telling. Just like the fact that almost all the small businesses (around here) are owned by first generation immigrants.
The most booming part of Oakland is Chinatown. Why? Because people there have formed a community, they invest in each other’s small businesses, and they are willing to enlist the whole family in waiting tables for a few years until they can start getting things profitable. And if it fails they move to a smaller apartment for a while and try again. Meanwhile the rest of town is wandering around the ghost town of downtown after work wondering why nobody opens up a Starbucks so that they don’t have to wait until they commute back home to their McMansion in Walnut Creek to get a latte.
We’ve lost willingness to take risks. And our willingness to invest in our communities. And the way I see it if someone else wants to take up that banner, we are better off. We can’t just ignore the wider world. Globalization is here and if we ignore it we are just going to end up alone and irrelevant as the rest of the world works and competes together to raise their living standards. Immigration spurs us to get off our ass and start making that wealth, or if we don’t at least it keeps someone in this nation doing it.
Let’s take a look for a moment at the states with the highest GDP (probably the best indication of thriving industry) and the states with the highest immigration. Some of these numbers are on the old side, but they were the best I could find:
States with highest immigration rates (http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/back199.html)
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Illinois
New Jersey
Arizona
Massachusetts
Michigan
Pennsylvania
State with highest GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S.states_by_GDP%28nominal%29)
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
New Jersey
Michigan
Georgia
The bottom states of both are mirrored at about the same rates. Of course, this doesn’t prove anything- the larger states are going to get the most of both. But it’s still a pretty uncanny little list.
If this quote had been identified as coming from Tom DeLay or Orrin Hatch, no one would have questioned it. And that’s positively the weirdest and most depressing thing about attitudes towards “globalization” and illegal immigration. Increasingly, both the right and left wing have in common a welcoming attitude towards both illegal workers and sending American jobs overseas. For key elements on the Right, it’s mostly about lower wages and higher profits for business. Much of the Left sees it as an opportunity to equalize global living standards (by lowering America’s).
Both share a great contempt for American workers and the middle class. It’s why you hear the same rhetoric coming from both Right and Left, including the slur about how Americans aren’t willing to take certain jobs for low pay. And it’s absolutely disgusting how both the Republican and Democratic parties are willing to sell Labor down the river, as long as their core goals are satisfied and they can mine the immigrants for votes.
even sven, meet Karl Rove. I believe he’s your soul brother.
Oh yeah? How so? What was questionable about it?