The basic anti-immigrant liberal position is that immigration is a key source for the drop in wages of people without a college education. A study last year by George J. Borjas and Lawrence F. Katz estimated that immigration resulted in an 8.2 percent drop in wages between 1980 and 2000 for high school dropouts. There have been serious criticisms of the methodology of the study generally but the New York Times today points out this basic problem with the argument about the importance of immigration as a factor in the lag in wages for the less skilled:
The wages of high school dropouts in California fell 17 percent from 1980 to 2004...[But] Ohio remains mostly free of illegal immigrants. And what happened to the wages of Ohio's high school dropouts from 1980 to 2004? They fell 31 percent.
section break
So maybe the more salient comparison of those states is not that California's immigration, but the fact that California has raised its state minimum wage in that period, while Ohio has not-- allowing low-wage workers wages to drop to $5.15 per hour for those covered by the federal law and even lower for those outside it.
It's worth emphasizing that there are strong economic analysis that argue that immigration has not led to any drop in wages.
In a study published last year that compared cities that have lots of less educated immigrants with cities that have very few, [UC-Berkeley economist David] Card found no wage differences that could be attributed to the presence of immigrants.
Even Borjas and Katz have been retreating from their estimate of an 8% decline in wages.
And the reality is that for the heavy costs of proposed border control measures -- the billions to build a wall, more cops and border control agents, the costs imposed on businesses for more inspections and delays at the border -- the same money invested in enforcing the minimum wage, expanding the EITC tax credit, or any other of a list of measures directly helping low-wage workers would be more effective.
Cracking down on immigrants is not cost-free. Any liberal who cares about low-wage workers is not asking why conservatives can find money for border cops, but are cutting programs in the Department of Labor to help low wage workers with the Bush proposing $10.9 billion in discretionary budget authority in 2007, down from $11.3 billion in 2006, a cut of $400 million.
Why aren't the cuts in DOL the story in the headlines?
Here's the reality-- immigration is a distraction, cooked up by conservatives to take the focus off of their opposition to the minimum wage, their cuts in jobs programs and training programs, and from their ruthless tax policies that have driven inequality. There is almost zero serious evidence that immigration is a major cause of the inequality opening up in American society, yet some liberals are being suckered into a debate where it is treated as an important issue compared to far more vital issues like raising the minimum wage, trade policy and tax policy.
Update: Some folks in comments challenge the statement that Ohio has relatively little undocumented immigration. This is from the anti-immigrant FAIR site (just so folks don't think the numbers are somehow favoring immigrants) which claims only 40,000 undocumented immigrants out of a state population of 11.5 million people-- or 0.3% of the population which compares to California where 6% of the population is estimated to be undocumented by FAIR.
But the fact that commenters rushed to inflate the importance of the undocumented population in Ohio reflects the hysteria and misguided focus on the impact of immigrants even where it's a marginal force.
Go to the Senate external link and House of Representatives external link Web sites to look up your representatives and find out how to get in touch with them by mail, e-mail or phone.
The 62 senators who voted FOR Senate amnesty bill (S.2611):
* Akaka (D-HI)
* Baucus (D-MT)
* Bayh (D-IN)
* Bennett (R-UT)
* Biden (D-DE)
* Bingaman (D-NM)
* Boxer (D-CA)
* Brownback (R-KS)
* Cantwell (D-WA)
* Carper (D-DE)
* Chafee (R-RI)
* Clinton (D-NY)
* Coleman (R-MN)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Conrad (D-ND)
* Craig (R-ID)
* Dayton (D-MN)
* DeWine (R-OH)
* Dodd (D-CT)
* Domenici (R-NM)
* Durbin (D-IL)
* Feingold (D-WI)
* Feinstein (D-CA)
* Frist (R-TN)
* Graham (R-SC)
* Gregg (R-NH)
* Hagel (R-NE)
* Harkin (D-IA)
* Inouye (D-HI)
* Jeffords (I-VT)
* Johnson (D-SD)
* Kennedy (D-MA)
* Kerry (D-MA)
* Kohl (D-WI)
* Landrieu (D-LA)
* Lautenberg (D-NJ)
* Leahy (D-VT)
* Levin (D-MI)
* Lieberman (D-CT)
* Lincoln (D-AR)
* Lugar (R-IN)
* Martinez (R-FL)
* McCain (R-AZ)
* McConnell (R-KY)
* Menendez (D-NJ)
* Mikulski (D-MD)
* Murkowski (R-AK)
* Murray (D-WA)
* Nelson (D-FL)
* Obama (D-IL)
* Pryor (D-AR)
* Reed (D-RI)
* Reid (D-NV)
* Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Schumer (D-NY)
* Smith (R-OR)
* Snowe (R-ME)
* Specter (R-PA)
* Stevens (R-AK)
* Voinovich (R-OH)
* Warner (R-VA)
* Wyden (D-OR)
An e-mail has been circulating about how 38 senators voted against making English the official language of America. That e-mail is not wholly accurate, but it is true that 35 senators voted against an amendment in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 that would declare English as the national language of the United States.
Here are the 35 senators that voted against English as the national language:
* Akaka (D-HI)
* Bayh (D-IN)
* Biden (D-DE)
* Bingaman (D-NM)
* Boxer (D-CA)
* Cantwell (D-WA)
* Clinton (D-NY)
* Dayton (D-MN)
* Dodd (D-CT)
* Domenici (R-NM)
* Durbin (D-IL)
* Feingold (D-WI)
* Feinstein (D-CA)
* Harkin (D-IA)
* Inouye (D-HI)
* Jeffords (I-VT)
* Kennedy (D-MA)
* Kerry (D-MA)
* Kohl (D-WI)
* Landrieu (D-LA)
* Lautenberg (D-NJ)
* Leahy (D-VT)
* Levin (D-MI)
* Lieberman (D-CT)
* Menendez (D-NJ)
* Mikulski (D-MD)
* Murray (D-WA)
* Obama (D-IL)
* Reed (D-RI)
* Reid (D-NV)
* Salazar (D-CO)
* Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Schumer (D-NY)
* Stabenow (D-MI)
* Wyden (D-OR)
* Sessions (R-AL)
* Smith (R-OR)
* Stevens (R-AK)
* Sununu (R-NH)
* Talent (R-MO)
* Thomas (R-WY)
* Thune (R-SD)
* Vitter (R-LA)
* Voinovich (R-OH)
