"Just in time for the holiday weekend, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a research summary entitled, “The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity.” Its conclusion was not what most people (or at least most people who attend Glenn Beck rallies) expect.

The author, Giovanni Peri, writes:

Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy’s productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

The paper compares states in the United States with high immigration to those with lower rates of immigration. It then controls for other factors such as spending on research and technology adoption. In the end, the paper concludes, “there is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run.”

What’s more, the effect of immigration on wages has been markedly positive—equivalent to a $5,100 annual raise for workers on average between 1990 and 2007 (as measured in constant 2005 dollars)."

to read Mark Engler's article published on: www.dissentmagazine.org Sept 3, 2010, click on

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=255

“there is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run.”

in the long run? what the hell does that mean when the ravages of NAFTA etc. have already scuttled most of the high wage manufacturing jobs leaving the rest of the victims of these banksters to fight over the crumbs.
more psycho babble in this piece.

An immigrant without documents is not "undocumented" s/he is an "illegal alien".


Definition of "illegal alien"

URLs:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C054124.PDF

Case: Martinez v. Regents of U.C. 10/7/08 CA3

File: C054124.PDF
(Super. Ct. No. CV052064)


Appeals Court Justices: Sims, Raye and Hull

Page 3

Footnote 2
Defendants prefer the term “undocumented immigrants.” However, defendants do not cite any authoritative definition of the term and do not support their assertion that the terms “undocumented immigrant” and “illegal alien” are interchangeable. We consider the term “illegal alien” less ambiguous. Thus, under federal law, an “alien” is “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).) A “national of the United States” means a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).) Under federal law, “immigrant” means every alien except those classified by federal law as nonimmigrant aliens.
(8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15).) “Nonimmigrant aliens” are, in general, temporary visitors to the United States, such as diplomats and students who have no intention of abandoning their residence in a foreign country. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F), (G); Elkins v. Moreno (1978) 435 U.S. 647, 664-665 [55 L.Ed.2d 614, 627-628] [under pre-1996 law, held the question whether nonimmigrant aliens could become domiciliaries of Maryland for purposes of in-state college tuition was a matter of state law].) The federal statutes at issue in this appeal refer to “alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present in the United States.”
(8 U.S.C. §§ 1621(d), 1623.) In place of the cumbersome phrase “alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present,” we shall use the term “illegal aliens.”

for someone that uses the term "anchor baby"[*] does it not seem the depths/heights of hypocrisy to complain about language to set a particular image of real situations?

[*]
like a baby becomes the problem instead of vampire trade policies that butter-raper will never lift a finger against....

From now on ANYONE discussing immigration policies should be required to discuss the role played by NAFTA/WTO free trade policies in worsening the divide between rich and poor in neighboring countries like Mexico.

The source of most undocumented immigration to the U.S. is a result of poverty and severe economic inequality in Mexico. This inequality was increased following the passage of NAFTA. The NAFTA free trade policies flood Mexican markets with taxpayer subsidized corn, thus driving smaller Mexican farmers out of business, off their land and into the stream of undocumented immigrants.

We would certainly be in a different situation if Manuel Lopez Obrador were the Mexican President instead of pro-NAFTA Felipe "Lapdog Jr." Calderon. The main reason that Mr. Obrador was not allowed to win the Mexican presidential election was his outspoken goal for Mexico to withdraw completely from NAFTA free trade agreeements.

We're not all so stupid to fall for the lies from the neo-liberal cabal who want people to believe that undocumented immigrant workers in CAFO feedlots, slaughterhouses and plantation agribusinesses are helping anyone except the greedy corporations (Cargill, ADM, ConAgra, IBP, etc...) that profit off of their exploitation. Of course the Democrats need to answer to their corporate lobbyists, so they will not challenge the industrial food corporations' access to a steady stream of expendable undocumented immigrant workers.

Nor will we fall prey to the neo-conservative lies that border walls and expanded police powers (as in AZ) will help stem the tide of undocumented workers, especially when many of the neo-con Republicans are equally heavily invested in the same industrial food corporations that profit from exploitation of undocumented immigrant workers!!

What people REALLY expect is for small family farmers to be able to prosper in ANY country of their choosing, whether U.S. or Mexico or anywhere else. This is very difficult under the NAFTA agreements that unequally favor consolidation of smaller farms into mega-corporate conglomerates.

At some point honesty and common sense will override the lies and distortions of BOTH neo-liberals AND neo-conservatives who only serve to reduce the immigration debate to utter nonsense. These politicians refuse to discuss repealing NAFTA because they may believe it is written in stone by none other than Moses!

Once again the ONLY two mainstream politicians who are making any logical sense in this immigration debate are none other than Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D), the oft mistreated "stepchildren" of their respective parties. Of course the corporate media remains silent on this important potential legislation that would repeal NAFTA once and for all;

"Congressmen Dennis Kucinich & Ron Paul Co-Sponsor Bill to Repeal NAFTA: H. R. 4759

Daily Paul

Call your congresscritters today and ask them to please co-sponsor this bill.

HR4759 - Full Text at Open Congress.org

111th CONGRESS, 2d Session

H. R. 4759

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 4, 2010

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KAGEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.

(a) Withdrawal of Approval- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the approval of the NAFTA by the Congress provided for in section 101(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Notification of Withdrawal- On the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall provide to the Governments of Canada and Mexico written notice of withdrawal of the United States from the NAFTA in accordance with Article 2205 of the NAFTA.

(c) NAFTA Defined- In this section, the term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on December 17, 1992."

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/128522

This legislation that would unite the family farmers in the U.S. AND Mexico, as both are negatively effected by NAFTA policies!!