So mexicans are taking jobs from americans

[HERO]

it's a dog eat dog society where as the china man's status has no relevance.

I totally agree with you , and feel the same about illegal aliens .

 

[JagPaw99]

I totally agree with you , and feel the same about illegal aliens .

so why would you even bring it up,you despicable piece of shit?

 

[HERO]

so why would you even bring it up,you despicable piece of shit?

Because illegal aliens are a piece of shit .

 

[JagPaw99]

Because illegal aliens are a piece of shit .

that was smart.

 

[Thumper Pomona]

shit they taken the crystal meth from the white boyz n they taken the cultavation away too but not only that arabs turkie n asians n rusians r deep in crime so whitey u should unite the country instead of devide it then for ever wil you be in turm oil n have you noticed life is so short that im to worried about injoying it n not even give a fuck about this drama true shit it might change but it might not what ever........

 

[grape ape]

I totally agree with you , and feel the same about illegal aliens .

do you drink before you post or something?

thanks

 

[HERO]

do you drink before you post or something?

thanks

As a chinaman said to another "" you funny hahaha ""

 

[steve doocy]

I totally agree with you , and feel the same about illegal aliens .

I don't understand what you are talking about? But hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[DoeMemba]

nobody understand what wierdo is talking about. he makes no sense.

 

[HERO]

I don't understand what you are talking about? But hey, that's just my opinion.

nobody understand what wierdo is talking about. he makes no sense.

Its all in plain text .

 

[Right Wing]

Its all in plain text .

That doesn't cut it for doe. He needs the remedial version and even then it's a stretch.....

 

[grape ape]

the issue isn't doe. now let's get back to the subject:

myth
IMMIGRANTS TAKE AMERICAN JOBS

“Immigrants take American jobs” is one of the most common arguments brandished to justify the need for a restrictive immigration policy. There are two main fallacies in the argument. They are fallacies that serve a purpose. In the pages that follow I will explain the two fallacies, and explain why, although they are so problematic, so many of us nonetheless believe them.

The first fallacy lies in the very concept of “American” jobs. In fact, today’s economy is so globally integrated that the idea of jobs having a national identity is practically useless. In many industries, employers seek to reduce costs by employing the poorest, most vulnerable people. They do this by moving to parts of the world where poverty and inequality create a vulnerable labor force, and by supporting policies that create poverty and inequality at home—including immigration policies that keep immigrants coming, and keep them vulnerable. So we’ll look at what the concept of “American jobs” really means.

The second fallacy is closely tied to the first: the notion that immigration and immigrants reduce the number of jobs available to people already in the United States. In fact, immigration plays a much more complex role in the employment picture, and many diƒerent factors aƒect employment and unemployment rates. Most analyses point to two major structural developments in the U.S. economy as the main causes of the shifting employment pattern in the late twentieth century: deregulation and deindustrialization. Deregulation of major sectors of the economy and cutbacks in federal social spending under the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and his successors went hand in hand with a rise in plant closures and outsourcing.

Not only did jobs disappear in this period, but the nature of jobs in this country underwent a shift. High-paying manufacturing and government jobs evaporated, and many of the new jobs that were created were low-paying jobs in the service sector, at places like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart. Again, this is part of a larger structural change in the U.S. economy and the way it is integrated into the global economy. Immigration makes up just a very small part of this bigger picture. Generally, businesses seek to keep their expenses as low as possible, to achieve the greatest profit margin possible. One way of doing this is by moving workers, and moving production, around the globe. In the early days of the industrial revolution, factories brought workers to the point of production. Some came from local rural areas to the new industrial cities, while in the United States some came from halfway across the globe.

In today’s economy—sometimes called the “postindustrial” economy—it’s been industries as well as workers that have relocated. The global economic restructuring since World War II has created what some have called a “new international division of labor.”1 Low-paid workers in the Global South used to produce and export raw materials, which fueled the industrial revolution in the north. The cheap raw materials produced by these workers—with great profits for investors—contributed to the prosperity of the United States and Europe, which was based partly on the artificially low prices made possible by their labor. In the postwar restructuring, the industries started to move to the south to take advantage of the low wages there.

People in the south still produced items for export to the north—but now they exported manufactured goods as well as raw materials. The New England textile industry was one of the first to experiment with plant relocation, shifting its production to the U.S. southeast starting at the very beginning of the twentieth century in search of lower costs. By the end of the century, the trend had spread to almost all industries. Just as the U.S. working class began to share fully in the benefits of industrialization in the mid-twentieth century, U.S. businesses increased their search for cheaper workers abroad. As early as the 1940s, the U.S. government was collaborating with businesses on ways to re-create the lowwage, high-profit system that was being undermined inside the United States by the rights achieved by factory workers.

Their first experiment was in Puerto Rico. Dubbed “Operation Bootstrap,” it oƒered incentives to U.S. businesses to immigrants and the economy transfer the most labor-intensive portions of their operations to the island. The island government oƒered land, loans, buildings, and infrastructure to companies willing to take the risk. The Puerto Rican program was so successful—for businesses— that it was soon extended to Mexico. The U.S. and Mexican governments turned once more to A.D. Little, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that had helped set up Puerto Rico’s Operation Bootstrap, to design a similar program for Mexico. The Border Industrialization Program went into operation in 1965.

It was an ingenious move. Since it was getting harder and harder to deprive workers of rights inside the United States because of popular mobilizations, unions, and laws protecting workers and their right to organize, companies found it more and more attractive to move the jobs across the border, to where U.S. laws did not apply. It worked so well that by the 1970s the U.S. government was extending this strategy to the Caribbean, and later on to Central and South America and Asia. The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which went into eƒect in 1994, pushed it even further. U.S. manufacturing industries began a wholesale move abroad in search of the country that would oƒer them the lowest wages, the most docile (or nonexistent) unions, and the least regulation of their activities.

Workers in countries like Mexico, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic have seen a flood of foreign investment in oƒshore production—often called maquiladora production, referring to the system whereby companies outsource the most labor-intensive part of the production process. Workers in these countries gain in some ways when Nike, Liz Claiborne, or Dell opens a factory there. They gain because jobs are created; but they also lose because the new jobs are dependent on employers’ keeping wages, benefits, and government regulation low.

If workers, or governments, start to demand a greater share of the profits, the company can simply close down and move to a cheaper location. This phenomenon creates what some analysts have termed the “race to the bottom.” Workers and governments compete with each other to oƒer businesses lower taxes, lower wages, and a more “business-friendly environment” in order to attract or preserve scarce jobs. The competition may be more devastating in already poor Third World countries, but it’s going on in the United States as well, as communities pour resources into schemes to attract businesses. By maintaining and exploiting global inequalities, the U.S. economic system has managed to create a high-profit/ cheap-product model.

But it is unsustainable, both morally and practically. In practical terms, we saw the results in the 1930s: if workers aren’t paid enough to be consumers, there will be no market and production will crash. The New Deal tried to remedy this by restructuring the division of resources and putting more money into the hands of the working class. Industry responded by accelerating its move abroad. But the high-profit, low-wage system is no more sustainable globally than it was domestically. As for the second fallacy—that the number of people deimmigrants and the economy termines the number of jobs—at first glance, it might seem logical: there is a finite number of jobs, so the more people there are, the more competition there will be for those jobs.

By this theory, periods of population growth would also see rising unemployment rates, while periods of population decline would see falling unemployment. How can it be, then, that a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Foundation of employment patterns throughout the United States over the past decade found that “no consistent pattern emerges to show that native-born workers suƒered or benefited from increased numbers of foreign-born workers”? Clearly, the relationship between population size and the number of jobs available is not quite as simple as it might seem. In fact the number of jobs is not finite, it is elastic, and aƒected by many factors. Population growth creates jobs at the same time that it provides more people to fill jobs, and population decline decreases the number of jobs at the same time as it provides fewer people to work at them.

Population growth creates jobs because people consume as well as produce: they buy things, they go to movies, they send their children to school, they build houses, they fill their cars with gasoline, they go to the dentist, they buy food at stores and restaurants. When the population declines, stores, schools, and hospitals close, and jobs are lost. This pattern has been seen over and over again in the United States: growing communities\ mean more jobs. The number of people in a given community is not the only thing that aƒects the number of jobs, though. Some people work in jobs that directly service the local community, and those jobs are directly aƒected by population growth or decline. But many jobs produce goods and services that are consumed elsewhere.

Automobile plants in Detroit, or fruit farms in California, or garment factories in El Salvador, or call centers in Bangalore, depend on global, not local, markets. As has become painfully obvious in recent decades, businesses that service a global market don’t generally have a strong commitment to the local community. A factory may provide jobs in Detroit for a decade, or a century, and then close and move elsewhere for reasons that have nothing to do with the size of the population in Detroit. In fact population loss often follows job loss—when a factory closes, people, especially younger workers, leave a community because they lose their jobs—and then local businesses also start to close, because the population can’t support them anymore.

Pretty much all of us live, work, and consume in both a local and a global economy. The local economy may be more visible, but we eat grapes grown in Chile, drive cars assembled in Mexico, and pump them with gas from Kuwait or Colombia. And people in the United States produce goods and services that are sold abroad. The United States imports and exports over $100 billion worth of goods and services every month.4 So jobs in the United States have a lot to do with the global economy, not just what’s happening locally.

Between 1920 and the 1970s, the unemployment rate in the United States generally hovered between 4 percent and 6 percent. The exception was the Depression in the 1930s (a period of very low immigration), when unemployment sky immigrants and the economy rocketed to over 20 percent. The rate dropped again by the 1940s with the Second World War. Starting in the late 1970s it rose, peaking at almost 10 percent in the early 1980s, and remained between 5 percent and 8 percent for the rest of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.5 Many factors have influenced the fluctuations in the unemployment rate over the years. Immigration rates, though, do not appear to have any direct relationship at all with unemployment rates.

During the period from the 1870s to the 1910s there was a very high rate of immigration into the United States. World War I, and restrictive immigration legislation in 1917, 1921, and 1924, cut way back on the number of arrivals. The Depression of the 1930s, with its devastating rates of unemployment, occurred when hardly any immigrants were coming into the country. The deportation of thousands of people of Mexican origin from the Southwest during the decade did little to aƒect employment rates in that region (unless you count those employed to carry out the deportations). Unemployment during the Depression, like unemployment today, simply had very little to do with immigration. “they take our jobs!”

http://www.beacon.org/client/PDFs/4156_excerpt.pdf

 

[HERO]

the issue isn't doe. now let's get back to the subject:

myth
IMMIGRANTS TAKE AMERICAN JOBS

?Immigrants take American jobs? is one of the most common arguments brandished to justify the need for a restrictive immigration policy. There are two main fallacies in the argument. They are fallacies that serve a purpose. In the pages that follow I will explain the two fallacies, and explain why, although they are so problematic, so many of us nonetheless believe them.

The first fallacy lies in the very concept of ?American? jobs. In fact, today?s economy is so globally integrated that the idea of jobs having a national identity is practically useless. In many industries, employers seek to reduce costs by employing the poorest, most vulnerable people. They do this by moving to parts of the world where poverty and inequality create a vulnerable labor force, and by supporting policies that create poverty and inequality at home?including immigration policies that keep immigrants coming, and keep them vulnerable. So we?ll look at what the concept of ?American jobs? really means.

The second fallacy is closely tied to the first: the notion that immigration and immigrants reduce the number of jobs available to people already in the United States. In fact, immigration plays a much more complex role in the employment picture, and many di?erent factors a?ect employment and unemployment rates. Most analyses point to two major structural developments in the U.S. economy as the main causes of the shifting employment pattern in the late twentieth century: deregulation and deindustrialization. Deregulation of major sectors of the economy and cutbacks in federal social spending under the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and his successors went hand in hand with a rise in plant closures and outsourcing.

Not only did jobs disappear in this period, but the nature of jobs in this country underwent a shift. High-paying manufacturing and government jobs evaporated, and many of the new jobs that were created were low-paying jobs in the service sector, at places like McDonald?s and Wal-Mart. Again, this is part of a larger structural change in the U.S. economy and the way it is integrated into the global economy. Immigration makes up just a very small part of this bigger picture. Generally, businesses seek to keep their expenses as low as possible, to achieve the greatest profit margin possible. One way of doing this is by moving workers, and moving production, around the globe. In the early days of the industrial revolution, factories brought workers to the point of production. Some came from local rural areas to the new industrial cities, while in the United States some came from halfway across the globe.

In today?s economy?sometimes called the ?postindustrial? economy?it?s been industries as well as workers that have relocated. The global economic restructuring since World War II has created what some have called a ?new international division of labor.?1 Low-paid workers in the Global South used to produce and export raw materials, which fueled the industrial revolution in the north. The cheap raw materials produced by these workers?with great profits for investors?contributed to the prosperity of the United States and Europe, which was based partly on the artificially low prices made possible by their labor. In the postwar restructuring, the industries started to move to the south to take advantage of the low wages there.

People in the south still produced items for export to the north?but now they exported manufactured goods as well as raw materials. The New England textile industry was one of the first to experiment with plant relocation, shifting its production to the U.S. southeast starting at the very beginning of the twentieth century in search of lower costs. By the end of the century, the trend had spread to almost all industries. Just as the U.S. working class began to share fully in the benefits of industrialization in the mid-twentieth century, U.S. businesses increased their search for cheaper workers abroad. As early as the 1940s, the U.S. government was collaborating with businesses on ways to re-create the lowwage, high-profit system that was being undermined inside the United States by the rights achieved by factory workers.

Their first experiment was in Puerto Rico. Dubbed ?Operation Bootstrap,? it o?ered incentives to U.S. businesses to immigrants and the economy transfer the most labor-intensive portions of their operations to the island. The island government o?ered land, loans, buildings, and infrastructure to companies willing to take the risk. The Puerto Rican program was so successful?for businesses? that it was soon extended to Mexico. The U.S. and Mexican governments turned once more to A.D. Little, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that had helped set up Puerto Rico?s Operation Bootstrap, to design a similar program for Mexico. The Border Industrialization Program went into operation in 1965.

It was an ingenious move. Since it was getting harder and harder to deprive workers of rights inside the United States because of popular mobilizations, unions, and laws protecting workers and their right to organize, companies found it more and more attractive to move the jobs across the border, to where U.S. laws did not apply. It worked so well that by the 1970s the U.S. government was extending this strategy to the Caribbean, and later on to Central and South America and Asia. The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which went into e?ect in 1994, pushed it even further. U.S. manufacturing industries began a wholesale move abroad in search of the country that would o?er them the lowest wages, the most docile (or nonexistent) unions, and the least regulation of their activities.

Workers in countries like Mexico, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic have seen a flood of foreign investment in o?shore production?often called maquiladora production, referring to the system whereby companies outsource the most labor-intensive part of the production process. Workers in these countries gain in some ways when Nike, Liz Claiborne, or Dell opens a factory there. They gain because jobs are created; but they also lose because the new jobs are dependent on employers? keeping wages, benefits, and government regulation low.

If workers, or governments, start to demand a greater share of the profits, the company can simply close down and move to a cheaper location. This phenomenon creates what some analysts have termed the ?race to the bottom.? Workers and governments compete with each other to o?er businesses lower taxes, lower wages, and a more ?business-friendly environment? in order to attract or preserve scarce jobs. The competition may be more devastating in already poor Third World countries, but it?s going on in the United States as well, as communities pour resources into schemes to attract businesses. By maintaining and exploiting global inequalities, the U.S. economic system has managed to create a high-profit/ cheap-product model.

But it is unsustainable, both morally and practically. In practical terms, we saw the results in the 1930s: if workers aren?t paid enough to be consumers, there will be no market and production will crash. The New Deal tried to remedy this by restructuring the division of resources and putting more money into the hands of the working class. Industry responded by accelerating its move abroad. But the high-profit, low-wage system is no more sustainable globally than it was domestically. As for the second fallacy?that the number of people deimmigrants and the economy termines the number of jobs?at first glance, it might seem logical: there is a finite number of jobs, so the more people there are, the more competition there will be for those jobs.

By this theory, periods of population growth would also see rising unemployment rates, while periods of population decline would see falling unemployment. How can it be, then, that a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Foundation of employment patterns throughout the United States over the past decade found that ?no consistent pattern emerges to show that native-born workers su?ered or benefited from increased numbers of foreign-born workers?? Clearly, the relationship between population size and the number of jobs available is not quite as simple as it might seem. In fact the number of jobs is not finite, it is elastic, and a?ected by many factors. Population growth creates jobs at the same time that it provides more people to fill jobs, and population decline decreases the number of jobs at the same time as it provides fewer people to work at them.

Population growth creates jobs because people consume as well as produce: they buy things, they go to movies, they send their children to school, they build houses, they fill their cars with gasoline, they go to the dentist, they buy food at stores and restaurants. When the population declines, stores, schools, and hospitals close, and jobs are lost. This pattern has been seen over and over again in the United States: growing communities\ mean more jobs. The number of people in a given community is not the only thing that a?ects the number of jobs, though. Some people work in jobs that directly service the local community, and those jobs are directly a?ected by population growth or decline. But many jobs produce goods and services that are consumed elsewhere.

Automobile plants in Detroit, or fruit farms in California, or garment factories in El Salvador, or call centers in Bangalore, depend on global, not local, markets. As has become painfully obvious in recent decades, businesses that service a global market don?t generally have a strong commitment to the local community. A factory may provide jobs in Detroit for a decade, or a century, and then close and move elsewhere for reasons that have nothing to do with the size of the population in Detroit. In fact population loss often follows job loss?when a factory closes, people, especially younger workers, leave a community because they lose their jobs?and then local businesses also start to close, because the population can?t support them anymore.

Pretty much all of us live, work, and consume in both a local and a global economy. The local economy may be more visible, but we eat grapes grown in Chile, drive cars assembled in Mexico, and pump them with gas from Kuwait or Colombia. And people in the United States produce goods and services that are sold abroad. The United States imports and exports over $100 billion worth of goods and services every month.4 So jobs in the United States have a lot to do with the global economy, not just what?s happening locally.

Between 1920 and the 1970s, the unemployment rate in the United States generally hovered between 4 percent and 6 percent. The exception was the Depression in the 1930s (a period of very low immigration), when unemployment sky immigrants and the economy rocketed to over 20 percent. The rate dropped again by the 1940s with the Second World War. Starting in the late 1970s it rose, peaking at almost 10 percent in the early 1980s, and remained between 5 percent and 8 percent for the rest of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.5 Many factors have influenced the fluctuations in the unemployment rate over the years. Immigration rates, though, do not appear to have any direct relationship at all with unemployment rates.

During the period from the 1870s to the 1910s there was a very high rate of immigration into the United States. World War I, and restrictive immigration legislation in 1917, 1921, and 1924, cut way back on the number of arrivals. The Depression of the 1930s, with its devastating rates of unemployment, occurred when hardly any immigrants were coming into the country. The deportation of thousands of people of Mexican origin from the Southwest during the decade did little to a?ect employment rates in that region (unless you count those employed to carry out the deportations). Unemployment during the Depression, like unemployment today, simply had very little to do with immigration. ?they take our jobs!?

http://www.beacon.org/client/PDFs/4156_excerpt.pdf

Hey there Mr Grape Ape . I think that your source is irrelevant . How many times has the following been said , and I'm sure you have even said it to .

The biggest incentive for illegal aliens to come to the United States is to find work.

Now who are these people who have lost there jobs ? The last I looked it sure wasn't thr Jihad .

 

[DoeMemba]

^^i wonder if this muhfucker ever reads a full article?

The first fallacy lies in the very concept of “American” jobs. In fact, today’s economy is so globally integrated that the idea of jobs having a national identity is practically useless. In many industries, employers seek to reduce costs by employing the poorest, most vulnerable people. They do this by moving to parts of the world where poverty and inequality create a vulnerable labor force, and by supporting policies that create poverty and inequality at home—including immigration policies that keep immigrants coming, and keep them vulnerable. So we’ll look at what the concept of “American jobs” really means.

 

[truthBtold]

^^i wonder if this muhfucker ever reads a full article?

The first fallacy lies in the very concept of ?American? jobs. In fact, today?s economy is so globally integrated that the idea of jobs having a national identity is practically useless. In many industries, employers seek to reduce costs by employing the poorest, most vulnerable people. They do this by moving to parts of the world where poverty and inequality create a vulnerable labor force, and by supporting policies that create poverty and inequality at home?including immigration policies that keep immigrants coming, and keep them vulnerable. So we?ll look at what the concept of ?American jobs? really means.

temper temper Doe!

 

[Thumper Pomona]

i like the signature man i gona tell my girl the same shit except im gona tap my head in her tamale the head on my shoulders mmmmmmm sweet tamale not the one with the meat in it the sweet ones

 

[HERO]

^^i wonder if this muhfucker ever reads a full article?

The first fallacy lies in the very concept of ?American? jobs. In fact, today?s economy is so globally integrated that the idea of jobs having a national identity is practically useless. In many industries, employers seek to reduce costs by employing the poorest, most vulnerable people. They do this by moving to parts of the world where poverty and inequality create a vulnerable labor force, and by supporting policies that create poverty and inequality at home?including immigration policies that keep immigrants coming, and keep them vulnerable. So we?ll look at what the concept of ?American jobs? really means.

We can play ring around the roses all day . The original thread titled "" So Mexicans are taking jobs from American "" . Your copy and paste of the above is based on ""GLOBAL "" . Your original post has America in it "" 1 "" time,not ""GLOBAL "". The thread that Grape Ape posted is nothing more than smoke and mirrors . An explanation for pro immigration reform .

So please MR. Doe try and keep up .

 

[DoeMemba]

my goodness, i even hightlighted in red for you and you still don't see it. WOW.

 

[DoeMemba]

to what extend are they taking american jobs?
Study Finds Immigrants Don't Hurt U.S. Jobs
Pew Detects No Link To Unemployment

Who's Blogging? Links to this article
By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 11, 2006

High levels of immigration in the past 15 years do not appear to have hurt employment opportunities for American workers, according to a new report.

The Pew Hispanic Center analyzed immigration state by state using U.S. Census data, evaluating it against unemployment levels. No clear correlation between the two could be found.

Other factors, such as economic growth, have likely played a larger role in influencing the American job market, said Rakesh Kochhar, principal author of the report and an economist at the Pew Hispanic Center in the District.

"We are simply looking for a pattern across 50 states, and we did not find one," Kochhar said. "We cannot say with certainty that growth in the foreign population has hurt or helped American jobs."

Immigration policy is a central issue in this fall's congressional elections. The report's findings appear to refute the idea -- often voiced by supporters of stricter immigration laws -- that foreign workers depress wages and take jobs from American workers, especially those with less education and fewer skills.

In the 10 states with the top employment rates from 2000 to 2004, for example, five states showed a high influx of immigrants while the other five showed little growth in the foreign-born population. "Even in relatively slow economic times, a relationship fails to reveal itself," Kochhar said.

The Pew Hispanic Center is one of several research groups funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to develop and distribute unbiased information on controversial topics, such as climate change and genetic engineering. The Pew Hispanic Center has published respected polls and reports on the role of Hispanics in the United States.

The study used Census Bureau data to compare the influx of immigrants and unemployment rates in each state between 1990 and 2000, a period of robust economic growth, and between 2000 and 2004, a period of slower growth.


Some economists expressed reservations about the technique yesterday, arguing that such broad statewide data do not give an accurate picture of immigration's effects on the labor market.

"There's an age, gender and educational component to this story that this report does not address," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University.

Between 1990 and 2000, he said, immigrant workers did not take jobs away from American workers "because the strong economy was creating enough jobs to employ everyone who was looking for work." But in the past five years, a subset of the workforce -- native-born men age 16 to 24 with high-school diplomas -- have in fact been displaced by immigrants, he said.

"We argue that immigrant labor has changed the nature of work in a very negative way," Sum said.

The Pew report found that nearly 25 percent of native-born workers live in states where rapid growth of the immigrant population occurred at the same time as above-average employment prospects. Only 15 percent of American workers live in high-immigration states with below-average employment prospects, the report found.

And the 60 percent of American workers living in states with slower immigrant growth did not consistently enjoy higher employment levels, the report showed.

Locally, the lack of any consistent relationship between the inflow of immigrants and native-born employment was apparent.

In the District, both the growth in the foreign-born workforce and the employment rate for native-born workers were below average in 2000 and 2004.

In 2000, Maryland and Virginia had below-average growth in the foreign-born population and above-average employment rates for native-born workers. In 2004, both states experienced above-average growth of both the foreign-born workforce and native-born employment rates.

On the local level, too, some experts disputed the findings of the Pew report. While educated workers with specialized skills are not likely to be displaced by foreign-born workers, young unskilled laborers have felt the pinch in recent years, said Steven A. Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies in the District.

A recent study done by the center shows that the immigrant share of the young workforce in Maryland and Virginia nearly doubled in the past five years, peaking at 22 percent and 15 percent, respectively, in 2005.

"Native workers who have little education in Maryland and Virginia are dropping out of the labor markets in droves" as the number of immigrants grows, he said. "Unskilled workers only account for a fraction of the total economic output, but if immigration plays a role in even a part of [the trend], that's something we should be concerned about."


Census data and estimates show the United States had 28 million immigrants -- legal and illegal -- age 16 and older in 2000, an increase of 61 percent from 1990. By 2004, there were 32 million. The majority are Latinos, followed by Asians. The Pew study did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

The report pointed out that immigrants typically move to booming areas of the country with low unemployment rates.

"It's unclear as to whether immigrant workers help to cause that boom, but they certainly haven't detracted from it," said Randy Capps, a senior

 

[HERO]

to what extend are they taking american jobs?

Study Finds Immigrants Don't Hurt U.S. Jobs
Pew Detects No Link To Unemployment

Who's Blogging? Links to this article
By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 11, 2006

High levels of immigration in the past 15 years do not appear to have hurt employment opportunities for American workers, according to a new report.

The Pew Hispanic Center analyzed immigration state by state using U.S. Census data, evaluating it against unemployment levels. No clear correlation between the two could be found.

Other factors, such as economic growth, have likely played a larger role in influencing the American job market, said Rakesh Kochhar, principal author of the report and an economist at the Pew Hispanic Center in the District.

"We are simply looking for a pattern across 50 states, and we did not find one," Kochhar said. "We cannot say with certainty that growth in the foreign population has hurt or helped American jobs."

Immigration policy is a central issue in this fall's congressional elections. The report's findings appear to refute the idea -- often voiced by supporters of stricter immigration laws -- that foreign workers depress wages and take jobs from American workers, especially those with less education and fewer skills.

In the 10 states with the top employment rates from 2000 to 2004, for example, five states showed a high influx of immigrants while the other five showed little growth in the foreign-born population. "Even in relatively slow economic times, a relationship fails to reveal itself," Kochhar said.

The Pew Hispanic Center is one of several research groups funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to develop and distribute unbiased information on controversial topics, such as climate change and genetic engineering. The Pew Hispanic Center has published respected polls and reports on the role of Hispanics in the United States.

The study used Census Bureau data to compare the influx of immigrants and unemployment rates in each state between 1990 and 2000, a period of robust economic growth, and between 2000 and 2004, a period of slower growth.


Some economists expressed reservations about the technique yesterday, arguing that such broad statewide data do not give an accurate picture of immigration's effects on the labor market.

"There's an age, gender and educational component to this story that this report does not address," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University.

Between 1990 and 2000, he said, immigrant workers did not take jobs away from American workers "because the strong economy was creating enough jobs to employ everyone who was looking for work." But in the past five years, a subset of the workforce -- native-born men age 16 to 24 with high-school diplomas -- have in fact been displaced by immigrants, he said.

"We argue that immigrant labor has changed the nature of work in a very negative way," Sum said.

The Pew report found that nearly 25 percent of native-born workers live in states where rapid growth of the immigrant population occurred at the same time as above-average employment prospects. Only 15 percent of American workers live in high-immigration states with below-average employment prospects, the report found.

And the 60 percent of American workers living in states with slower immigrant growth did not consistently enjoy higher employment levels, the report showed.

Locally, the lack of any consistent relationship between the inflow of immigrants and native-born employment was apparent.

In the District, both the growth in the foreign-born workforce and the employment rate for native-born workers were below average in 2000 and 2004.

In 2000, Maryland and Virginia had below-average growth in the foreign-born population and above-average employment rates for native-born workers. In 2004, both states experienced above-average growth of both the foreign-born workforce and native-born employment rates.

On the local level, too, some experts disputed the findings of the Pew report. While educated workers with specialized skills are not likely to be displaced by foreign-born workers, young unskilled laborers have felt the pinch in recent years, said Steven A. Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies in the District.

A recent study done by the center shows that the immigrant share of the young workforce in Maryland and Virginia nearly doubled in the past five years, peaking at 22 percent and 15 percent, respectively, in 2005.

"Native workers who have little education in Maryland and Virginia are dropping out of the labor markets in droves" as the number of immigrants grows, he said. "Unskilled workers only account for a fraction of the total economic output, but if immigration plays a role in even a part of [the trend], that's something we should be concerned about."


Census data and estimates show the United States had 28 million immigrants -- legal and illegal -- age 16 and older in 2000, an increase of 61 percent from 1990. By 2004, there were 32 million. The majority are Latinos, followed by Asians. The Pew study did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

The report pointed out that immigrants typically move to booming areas of the country with low unemployment rates.

"It's unclear as to whether immigrant workers help to cause that boom, but they certainly haven't detracted from it," said Randy Capps, a senior

Can you give me a link, I know how your copy and pastes go's . And please make it recent . Or in plain language not a 3 ,4 or 5 year old story .