Harry Reid: Immigration Reform (Amnesty) on the Agenda

this country is crumbling and with the illegal immigration problem being ignored as usual it will only quicken the demise. I am so glad to have worked my whole life to give everything away to people who have no right to be in this country. It is absolutely not right. We have given away our childrens future. we cannot take care of the whole world as we cannot take care of our own country. very sad.

What is wrong with our politicians. Why do they have to make people so angry. Our government knows how people feel about Illegal Immigrants. With the economy the way it is, and our Government wants to increase the H3 program. There are homeless people who lost their jobs and homes, but that is alright because of the Immigrants. Also all these people fighting for rights for Illegals should leave our country also. ILLEGAL IMMERGRANTS DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS AT ALL IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO YOU ALL JUST GO HOME WHERE YOU BELONG.

Oh like that will be a big boost to the enconomy. Damn that must be the payback for all the votes. Can't understand why congress has such a poor percentage of approval. They should all be voted out of office when their terms expire. Commonsense needs to become a requirement for being elected.

I thought Republicans stood for FREE markets, including labor markets. I thought illegal aliens found jobs in this country because small business owners (a core element of the Republican base) are only too happy to find access to cheap, disposable labor. I must have misunderstood what they meant. Or, perhaps, as is often the case, they say one thing but mean another. ;)

Harry Reid and Pelosi have approval ratings
lower than Bush !
That is what Citizens think !

Who is surprised?

TRAITORS IN POWER.

Bend over America. Obama said he would create 2.5 million jobs but failed to mention that they are for ILLEGALS.

What part of illegal is not understood.
Yet we give free schooling, free healthcare free whatever they protest for and as americans we should be grateful that we get to pay for it and get none for ourselfs.

To amplify HCR's remarks: helping these people eventually obtain legal status will force employers to pay them more (and put upward pressure on everyone else's wages), which will give them more to spend and thus help the economy. Not to mention, the fines they will have to pay for their "crimes" under any so-called amnesty plan I've heard of will put money directly in the Treasury, which could certainly use it (;-). Maybe not a whole lot, but every little bit helps.

By contrast, trying to deport 12 million people, even if it were feasible, will help no one, and will drive many employers out of business. No, that doesn't contradict what I said before about having to pay them more if they're legal. Despite the "lean and mean" strategies that many corporations have followed since the '80s, paying your workers more is still better for business than not having any workers at all.

For once, the "free-market" solution and the "compassionate" solution are on the same side.

Jay12:42PMNov 26th 2008

To amplify HCR's remarks: helping these people eventually obtain legal status will force employers to pay them more (and put upward pressure on everyone else's wages), which will give them more to spend and thus help the economy.

**************

Sure. That'll work. If it happens in conjunction with a scorched earth policy of eliminating foreign competition.

Time to wake up and smell the ha gau, people.

Hey guys!
Remember the tribes that where living in this beautiful and blessed land when the british,french,german,irish(millions),italians(millions),jews(millions)..and many more,moved here?

THAT TRIBES are the only ones,that did'nt arrived from other lands (at least in the lasts centuries).

USA means United States Of America,,,,,see this word UNITED.....not DIVIDED.

Look for more in the history,about what all the immigrants have done here (even in the Great Depression),and look to the future knowing from where are you come.

Legalization of currently illegal migrants would enable those immigrants to compete on the same (legal) labor market as (non-migrant) U.S. nationals. This would effectively bring down the current two-tier wage structure where illegal workers are forced to accept less money (for the same amount of work supplied) than U.S. nationals. The new equilibrium wage rate would probably settle somewhere between the rate currently paid to illegal workers and the rate currently received by U.S. nationals. There are two reasons for that. First, as newly legalized, the immigrants will no longer have any reason to accept the wages they used to take. Second, unless the demand for labor by local firms increases at the same pace as the rate of legalization, the excess supply of labor resulting from legalization will tend to drive wages down on the legal market. It is this second factor that would prevent wages from remaining at the level currently enjoyed by U.S. nationals in regions along the border. One way of avoiding this unfortunate outcome while keeping America a country open to newcomers seeking opportunities would be to favor pro-growth policies in regions of high illegal immigration. Investment tax credits might work.

Alternatively, if the new equilibrium with lower wages for everybody (except the people who used to be working illegally) is politically unpalatable, job training programs, coupled with investments in education may enable everyone to move into higher paying jobs (provided local firms switch from 'low-tech' activities to 'high-tech' activities).

As you can see, this is not an easy issue ........

The Government no longer listen's to 'we the people'... they just go about doing what THEY want to do.

Most of American's didn't want the bailout to happen but they went and did it anyhow. Americans want their jobs back and the Government wants to continue to have illegals take them over. Makes no sense!

Harry 'Mr. Cleanface' gReid is a disgrace to Nevada and the US. I am ashamed to say he's one of my Sen. He has become an eastern elitist waterboy and has forgotten NV. Power is his trip along with accepting $ from the mob, keeping his ill-gotten Abramoff money, ill-gotten land deals, bashing big oil while having stock in big oil and the list goes on. We will do everything possible to unseat him in '010. He's already started investigations trying to discredit the Repub. challengers. He has achieved to lead the lowest rated Congress in our history. He's quite a loser.

bob1:57PMNov 26th 2008

Jay12:42PMNov 26th 2008

To amplify HCR's remarks: helping these people eventually obtain legal status will force employers to pay them more (and put upward pressure on everyone else's wages), which will give them more to spend and thus help the economy.

**************

Sure. That'll work. If it happens in conjunction with a scorched earth policy of eliminating foreign competition.

**************

Love your advocacy of a free market, bob. Or does that only work if people you like are winning?

dr jay9:53AMNov 27th 2008
bob1:57PMNov 26th 2008

Jay12:42PMNov 26th 2008

To amplify HCR's remarks: helping these people eventually obtain legal status will force employers to pay them more (and put upward pressure on everyone else's wages), which will give them more to spend and thus help the economy.

**************

Sure. That'll work. If it happens in conjunction with a scorched earth policy of eliminating foreign competition.

**************

Love your advocacy of a free market, bob. Or does that only work if people you like are winning?

*****************

The free market isn't contained inside a bubble surrounding the North American continent, Jay.

That was my point.

We're part of a world economy. Assuming that a wage increase here isn't going to send even more non-location-specific jobs scurrying overseas is naive at best.

Unless people much smarter than you or I can establish a prosperous economy based on people operating leaf blowers, washing dishes, babysitting and doing household chores, I'd say it's a non-starter.

OUR NEW GOVERNMENT DOES NOT LISTEN TO OUR CRIES OF OBJECTIONS ANY MORE THAN THE OLD ONE. THEY ARE WHISKEY BENT AND HELL BOUND TO DO THE AMNESTY EVEN WITH OUR ECONOMY NOT BEING ABLE TO HANDLE IT. CALIFORNIANS FOR STABLIZATION HAVE A PETITION CIRCULATING TO ABSTAIN, PLEASE SIGN IT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE 250K SIGNERS TO BE RECOGNIZED.

bob 11:02AM Nov 27th 2008 wrote:

>The free market isn't contained inside a bubble surrounding
>the North American continent, Jay.
>
>That was my point.
>
>We're part of a world economy. Assuming that a wage increase
>here isn't going to send even more non-location-specific jobs
>scurrying overseas is naive at best.

Sure, but *my* point was that if you really believe in a free market, that's a good thing. It gets the jobs that do go overseas done more efficiently, which makes the *consumers* of their output (including thee and me) more prosperous. And some of those consumers are also producers of other output, who will use some of that prosperity to hire more workers so they can increase their output. That's why, as the now-infamous ISI quiz (see Tommy C's "American Idiot" blog) put it, "free markets secure more prosperity than planned economies."

There will always be jobs, even non-location-specific ones, in which this country will have a comparative advantage even at higher wages. (Otherwise unemployment would be 100%, at least in non-location-specific sectors, in any country where wages in such sectors were "too high." Or else the wages would come down, as for instance they will when Detroit goes deservedly bankrupt and its workers accept less to move to U.S. Honda and Toyota plants.)


>Unless people much smarter than you or I can establish a
>prosperous economy based on people operating leaf blowers,
>washing dishes, babysitting and doing household chores, I'd
>say it's a non-starter.

Unless people much smarter than you or I (not that there are a whole lot of *them* actually running anything (;-)) can establish a prosperous economy *without* anyone to operate leaf blowers, wash dishes, babysit, and do household chores (or more to the point, with people doing those things who would have a comparative advantage if they were doing something else), mass deportation is a non-starter too. An economic non-starter, that is. At twelve million and counting, it's a logistical non-starter no matter what.

Like any opening of markets, globalization (including freer movement of jobs, goods, capital, *and* people) is going to be hard on some people. (Someone much smarter than you or I (at least about this stuff) called it "creative destruction," and there is real destruction involved.) But it's here to stay, and in the long run it's better for everyone (at least "on average") than the alternative. While I don't agree with a whole lot that right-wing economists and ideologues say about World Depression I (fka The Great Depression, by analogy to what The Great War's name changed to once there was a second one), it's crystal clear that various countries' (including the U.S.'s) attempts to restrict such transnational flows made it worse, not better.

dr jay12:43AMNov 28th 2008

Sure, but *my* point was that if you really believe in a free market, that's a good thing. It gets the jobs that do go overseas done more efficiently, which makes the *consumers* of their output (including thee and me) more prosperous. And some of those consumers are also producers of other output, who will use some of that prosperity to hire more workers so they can increase their output. That's why, as the now-infamous ISI quiz (see Tommy C's "American Idiot" blog) put it, "free markets secure more prosperity than planned economies."

*****************

Dr Jay,

My original point was in reference to the person who stated that by making illegals legal, their wages will go up, thus forcing other wages up, thus producing a better economy.

That's not how it works in a world-wide free market economy.

You've somehow wandered down the path of whether or not a free market economy is the best system or not. It doesn't matter if it is or not, particularly not now. It's what we operate in, unless someone wants to attempt to take drastic measures to change that. Short of obliterating foreign competition (my original reference), there's no way of changing that. I was presupposing an argument of protectionist policy, which would do nothing more than assure our own demise.

I don't disagree with any of what you've said regarding the free market, although I think you've played down a about the "creative destruction" portion of it as well. There's an assumption there that the same folks that are kicking our asses now in other areas aren't going to be better equipped than we are to outdo us in those new areas that replace what we've creatively destroyed. Many of those folks aren't hampered by restrictive government regulation or a government that, in general, moves at a snails pace by its very nature.

I'd definitely argue the point that there are many things in this country that we hold a particular advantage over others. Perhaps you could give an example of a non-location-specific type of job that you feel couldn't be transfered to foreign soil due to something peculiar to our workforce.

Lastly, I'm not arguing for mass deportation. If I'm arguing against anything, I'm arguing against non-market determined wages. Make them citizens, but do away with minimum wage requirements.

Dr Jay,

My original point was in reference to the person who stated that by making illegals legal, their wages will go up, thus forcing other wages up, thus producing a better economy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I explained, that is not exactly what would happen anyway. Holding everything else the same, people who were lucky enough to received 'high' wages before legalization would probably see their wages go down as the result of legalization.

About the benefits of free trade, while they undeniable, you have to remember that they assume that all factors of production (capital, labour, etc.) are perfectly mobile and can 'instantly' be relocated to activities where they are best employed, thus leading to a an increase in real income for all economies involved.

This is more an assumption than a reality. It comes close to be a reality in the case of capital but not in the case of labour. People cannot 'reinvent' themselves overnight and immediately find jobs in alternative industries. Re-training takes time (and capital!).

So, although the LONG-RUN benefits of free trade are well understood, in the SHORT-RUN, which is what policy makers are often concerned with, re-alignments of productive capacities along evolving patterns of comparative advantage always entail some degree of unemployment and reduction in national income. It is to ease those shocks that governments in most countries have designed so-called 'trade dislocation adjustment policies'. The objective is to ease and speed up the re-allocation of labor towards the sectors of the economy where comparative advantage lies.