Skip to main content

Senate bill S. 744 is the proposed immigration bill named “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act”. Based on an assessment by a new report from the Congressional Budget Office, the economic advisor Jared Bernstein recently wrote for the Huffington Post: "Immigration is expected to generate more costs, but
even more revenues."

I've come to notice that, like most liberals, Bernstein tends to highlight the more positive aspects of the immigration bill, just as conservatives tend to emphasize the most negative aspects. I'm just going to reference what others are saying and primarily highlight what aspects of the bill are directly related to the labor force and employment.

Between health programs, entitlements and SNAP (etc.) the CBO expects spending to go up about $260 billion over the next ten years. But they estimate revenues to go up about $460 billion. The net difference, about $200 billion. The CBO says the increase in immigration would increase real GDP by 3.3% in 2023 and 5.4% in 2033.

The CBO report also says the proposed immigration bill "would significantly increase the size of the U.S. labor force [and would] increase federal revenues by $459 billion over the 2014–2023 period. That increase would stem largely from additional collections of income and payroll taxes, reflecting both an increase in the size of the U.S. labor force and changes in the legal status of some current workers."

On balance, the CBO expects new adults would participate in the labor force at a higher rate, on average, than do current adults in the United States. The CBO says in their report that enacting the proposed immigration bill "would increase the size of the labor force by about 6 million (about 3.5 percent) in 2023 and by about 9 million (about 5 percent) in 2033. Employment would increase as the labor force expanded, because the larger population would boost demand for goods and services and, in turn, the demand for labor."

I can not say I agree with the CBO's assumption that more people will automatically equal more jobs, and therefore translate into more revenue, because of a demand for more goods. People who have jobs, and have money to spend, will create the demand. It sounds to me like the CBO is putting the horse before the cart.

The CBO estimates that average wages would be 0.1% lower in 2023, because the capital/labor ratio (which boosts average wages in economic models) would fall and "because the new workers would be less skilled and have lower wages, on average, than the labor force under current law." (See my related post: IQs, H-1B Visas & the Tech Industry)

But then it's estimated that later, wages could grow by 0.5%, from 2023 to 2033. (Wow-wee! Yippee ki-yay!)

Now Hispanics represent a majority of all births in America, and last week The New York Times reported on census data that revealed that “deaths exceeded births among non-Hispanic white Americans for the first time in at least a century.” In fact, according to an Associated Press report last week, which cited government reports: “For the first time, America’s racial and ethnic minorities now make up about half of the under-5 age group.”

It's those demographics that mostly concern organizations such as ALIPAC, who say "Americans for Legal Immigration PAC has fought to not only ensure that our immigration laws are enforced, but to ensure that any type of so called immigration reform is not a concealed amnesty for the illegal aliens who have already entered our country."

Besides H-1B visas, the proposed immigration bill would also extend eligibility for E-visas for foreign investors, which are currently available only to citizens of those countries with whom the United States has treaties of commerce and navigation, and to citizens of nations with which the United States has free-trade agreements. The CBO estimates that "the increase in the U.S. population from the changes to employment-based immigration (using H-1B and J-1 visas, etc.) under the bill would total 2.4 million in 2023 and 5.1 million in 2033."

As an aside: The political economist and professor, Robert Reich, favors the current immigration bill and writes "The Democratic Party of the 1990s simply ignored its old base and became New Democrats, spearheading the North American Free Trade Act (to the chagrin of organized labor), performance standards in classrooms (resisted by teachers' unions) and welfare reform and crime control (upsetting traditional liberals)."

The CBO says the proposed immigration bill "would significantly increase the annual cap on temporary visas for highly skilled workers." As was reported by the National Journal, "Under the proposed immigration legislation the official quota of H1-B visas for high-skilled, foreign workers would nearly double the number, raising the maximum from 65,000 visas to 115,000. Additional visas would be offered in response to market demand, judged by how quickly the cap is hit. The number of H-1B visas would ultimately be capped at 300,000, regardless of demand."

I can understand granting a path to citizenship (again) to 11 million people who are already living in the U.S. --- especially if they had children born here --- because I see no good humanitarian reason for breaking families apart. But with a job market that's already over-saturated, in conjunction to high unemployment, which is already driving down wages (and not creating consumer demand), where is the logic with flooding the labor market with additional H-1B visas? Which, by the way, aren't benefiting the people south of the border near as much as those from India and China.

The Wall Street Journal reported that as job opportunities were fading in the United States, "many Mexicans and other Latin Americans are preparing to return to their homelands." The number of people that have immigrated to the U.S. from China and Taiwan has actually surpassed Hispanic and Latino immigration in 2012. Ironically, many of the jobs that they came here to acquire, may have already been outsourced to their own home country.

We already have too many unemployed IT workers and engineers, we don't need more to further depress the wage base. Let's put the unemployed back to work earning a living wage first, before diluting the labor pool any further. Let's bring back manufacturing to the U.S. and hire the unemployed who are already here.

The guestworker programs are only a tool for businesses to further undermine the wage base and to take advantage of an over-abundant labor pool. These visas programs are lobbied for by business groups who only have their own interests at heart, and not the interests of the American workers...or the interests of immigrants. The countless abuses of immigrant workers in the U.S. has been well documented.

Take my poll below.


What would you favor?

6%1 votes
25%4 votes
0%0 votes
50%8 votes
18%3 votes

| 16 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If people won't go protest in the streets, then they'll end up sleeping on them instead.

    by Bud Meyers on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 09:31:18 AM PDT

  •  Unlimited Funding and paygo waived? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So I took the time to read the immigration reform...As someone who has advocated for the unemployed for several years.  And asked for job creation to be passed and was told we cant pass anything unless its paid for....IMAGINE MY SUPRISE!!! when I discovered the immigration reform writes a blank check for funding and its marked as an EMERGENCY...(PROOF POSITIVE they don't want to deal with JOBS) So all these years we have been screaming JOB CREATION is an emergency treat It like it is...We was told we cant pass a bill without the funding being offset...paygo...well I just took the time to read the immigration reform....not only does it basically write a blank check for funding its marked as......YOU GUESSED it an EMERGENCY......DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.—
     SIONAL ENFORCEMENT.—In the Senate, amounts
     8 made available under this section are designated as
     9 an emergency requirement pursuant to section
     10 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the
     11 concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
     12 2010.

  •  I just received the WHITE HOUSE spin: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Update from the White House newsletter: "The nonpartisan experts who estimate the financial impact of legislation for Congress concluded that because undocumented immigrants will start paying more in taxes for things like education and Social Security, the immigration proposal in the Senate will make the economy fairer for middle class families while cutting the U.S. deficit by almost $1,000,000,000,000 over the next two decades."

    A link they provided:

    Do you like the way they dramatically added all the zeros in the CBO number?

    If people won't go protest in the streets, then they'll end up sleeping on them instead.

    by Bud Meyers on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 10:25:35 AM PDT

    •  Of course white house wont tell you this either (0+ / 0-)

      The white house wont tell you this either....
      ‘‘(ii) EXCEPTION.—An alien who de12
       parted from the United States after De13
       cember 31, 2011 will not be considered to
       14 have failed to maintain continuous pres15
       ence in the United States if the alien’s ab16
       sences from the United States are brief,
       17 casual, and innocent whether or not such
       18 absences were authorized by the Secretary

      So does that mean all those half million illegals that was sent home get to come back?????

  •  The opposition to IR from some on the left (0+ / 0-)

    is so short-sighted.  28% of small businesses created in 2011 were created by immigrants.  40% of Fortune 500 companies were created by immigrants.  And immigration would help shore up the solvency of our safety net programs.  According to the CBO's analysis of Bush's ill-fated 2006 immigration reform bill, if it had passed it would've added between 0.8 to 1.3 to GDP between 2012-2016.  Plus nonwhites tend to be more liberal than their white counterparts, which would seem to be pretty important to those of us who desire a more liberal America.

    But because the quote of H1NB visas will go up 50,000 a year - in a workforce of 154 million Americans - we should just scrap the whole thing?  And believe me, I'm no more thrilled with the increased in such visas as you are.  But the benefits far outweigh the good.  

    "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

    by puakev on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 11:00:49 AM PDT

    •  You don't know much about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      H-1Bs, clearly.

      The bigger issue, that you also don't seem to be following, is that the number of green cards will now be uncapped. This is a DESTRUCTION of the student class. Many, apparently including you, don't seem to care that unemployment among college grads is enormous. This fucking piece of crap cheap labor shit bill will HUGELY increase unemployment of US college grads. And the H-1Bs are mostly incompetents who are NOT better. I've had to hire some. I DO NOT hire H-1Bs anymore. Truly crap programmers, but they displace US workers.

  •  Be sure to read "The Border Security Ruse" (0+ / 0-)

    Lead editorial in today's 6/20/13 Wall Street Journal.

    The corporate conservatives want the even crazier teabagger, paleocon, and neocon factions to back off.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site