Liberal Talk Radio

This is just to say that this week Paul Krugman wrote a piece that actually made me rethink the way I see an issue. This is a big deal for me. And if you missed it, his op-ed on immigration, a guest worker program and how it affects the native-born underclass is pretty smart:

. . . I’m instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren’t for Mexican immigration.

That’s why it’s intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do “jobs that Americans will not do.” The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

. . .

Realistically, we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests –legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush’s plan for a “guest worker” program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who’d love to have a low-wage work force that couldn’t vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.

Like Krugman says in his opening, I am generally pro-immigration — and not only because of the amazing fabric immigrants help weave in places like New York City — I mean, I like the Irish bartenders, Mexican tortas and Uzbek lamb testicle kebabs you encounter in Queens. Seriously though, high-skilled immigrants bring so much to the U.S. that it sometimes seems foolish to deter them in this post-9/11 environment.

But New York City also has a horrible, horrible unemployment problem among black men. A report (.pdf) from 2004 showed that over half of black men were unemployed. Even if immigrants truly did the jobs no American wanted to do, I’d hope they at least first offered some of these unemployed men work.

Obviously that doesn’t happen, and the supposed lack of interest among Americans to do these jobs turns into a convenient excuse for employers to screw over immigrants with crappy pay. So I buy Krugman’s argument. And this happened just this past week. So this is just to say, thanks, Paul!