Perusing through the NRO Corner this morning I found that Mr. Krikorian had posted about a meeting he had attended an immigration debate held by FrontPage Magazine. Now just on the quick read through on the 'pro' side of the immigrant debate to have illegals put into a 'regular' status we have Linda Chavez and she has one very interesting part of her view which I will highlight:
The bigger problem is that a guest worker program should be only one component of an immigration overhaul. We also need more legal permanent residents if we are to satisfy our labor needs, on the order of about 1.5 million a year when our economy is creating 1.5 to 2 million new jobs each year as it is now. And these should be new persons, not just those already here adjusting their status, which is the current practice. I have no problem with a point system based on our economic needs in determining who gets in—with the caveat that we need not only more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians but also more people who can fill jobs that require little education but can’t be outsourced to another country or done away with by automation. What sense does it make to encourage Americans with 13 years of schooling (on average) to take these jobs—even if an employer could afford to pay wages to such workers to entice them into the jobs? And if any of the critics actually spent time with employers who have seen their industries transformed by immigrant workers, they would learn that having employees who are eager for these jobs-- not resentful as most American high school dropouts are that they’re stuck doing difficult, often dangerous and dirty, work, even at $20 an hour-- they would understand why employers are so eager to hire immigrants. It is worth remembering that the labor force participation rate of illegal alien men from Mexico is 94 %, while the comparable rate for native-born white men is 46% and the rate for blacks is 40%, and many of those not in the work force are in school or entangled in the criminal justice system. These men are largely unemployable.You know, when folks complain about Republicans making elitist arguments, this is what they mean. So here's the deal: if you actually educate someone through high school it makes NO SENSE to have them take low skills jobs, and if drop-outs took them then they RESENT it. Well, isn't that a lovely view? Yes, American children are, apparently, over-educated *and* want high skill, high wage jobs when they don't have the skills to get the job. So they are resentful! Excuse me for saying so, but THAT is not a well functioning society that encourages that attitude in children: drop out and feel that you should get a high wage job.
The idea of 'universal education' was to get adults who learned civics and their role within society as citizens and the expectation of THEM within society. If those dropping out feel that they should have a privilege to high wage jobs with no skills, then this Nation has a far deeper problem way beyond illegal aliens taking jobs.
Now lets take a look at the labor force participation rate, as seen from Wikipedia:
The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range). In the West during the latter half of the 20th century, the labor force participation rate increased significantly, largely due to the increasing number of women entering the workplace. In the United States, the labor force participation rate rose from approximately 59% in 1948 to 66% in 2005, with participation among women rising from 32% to 59% and participation among men declining from 87% to 73%. Conversely, the labor force participation rate can decrease when the rate of growth of the population outweighs that of the employed and unemployed together. The labor force participation rate is a key component in long term economic growth, almost as important as productivity.This is a form of cohort analysis, to see about how a cohort, usually a group of individuals having similar characteristics like all of those born in a given year, performs on various criteria. An example of this is longevity of the cohort, so that when a given cohort passes a set survival amount, it can be said to be in decline with only a minority survivorship. Insurance companies love this stuff with actuarial tables for selling life insurance. Here Ms. Chavez is looking to use the overall participation of a given sub-cohort (illegal aliens from Mexico) and compare that to the overall white and black male participation rate for their cohorts (whites and blacks). She is saying, if I read this right, that of all illegal alien males from Mexico 94% participate from their cohort, while in the overall US cohort, the sub-cohorts of white and black males are 46% and 40% repsectively. She is also ignoring the participation rate of women in the US and the overall labor force participation rate for the Nation which is *rising* as seen from 1948-2005. What she also does *not* address is that within these cohorts are steep demographic differences: children, elderly, retirees, and those in otherwise non-labor roles are included in the overall population analysis, while for the illegal aliens from Mexico who are primarily childless, male, and non-retirees, the participation rate is much higher.
Well of course it is!
They are not here permanently, do not have families here, are not children, have not reached retirement age or are elderly. They have a high participation rate HERE because they are NOT part of our society. Apparently this is news to Ms. Chavez. The moment you make them LEGAL those rates will DECREASE as dependents, children, retirees and non-working mothers show up in the pool. It is only high because these individuals lack all attachments and overhead to society that they can get such a high participation rate. And once those children become Americans they won't want to do these jobs EITHER.
Perhaps it is time to pay a bit more for undesirable jobs or to not look down upon those that take manual work that is 'dangerous'. Apparently Ms. Chavez has never seen an episode of 'Dirty Jobs' on the Discovery Channel. I have not seen loads of illegal aliens lining up for coal mining, cess pit cleaning, sewer cleaning, or working to make charcoal. There are loads of dirty, dangerous and down right disgusting jobs that do NOT have high pay and people are still found to do them without looking for illegal aliens.
Then there is Clint Bolick who puts forth this lovely inanity:
Building a wall on our southern border will not halt the flow of illegal immigrants. Immigrants want the something we have: freedom and opportunity. People who would risk their lives to come to our nation---like our forefathers and mothers---are not easily deterred. Conservatives usually understand the laws of supply and demand. Our immigration laws have not been overhauled in more than 20 years. Millions of people want to come here, and employers hunger for them. Why don’t opponents of comprehensive reform---who love to say they are not anti-immigration but only anti-illegal immigration---ever propose approaches that lift the number of immigrants who can lawfully enter from Latin American countries? Until that issue is addressed---until those who enter illegally because there is no hope for legal immigration perceive a meaningful change---true border enforcement is a pipe dream.To which the answer is: we don't know as NO ONE has tried to put a wall there. But the areas that used to be high traffic ones that have *fences* have seen a dramatic decrease in border crossings AND crime. These illegals may want freedom and opportunity, but that only comes with respecting the law. They are not respecting the law and actually degrading it which puts those same freedoms and opportunities at risk for everyone. As for proposing to lift the limits on Latin American countries, how about a counter-offer: raise the limits to all of those Nations that have been Friends and Allies in war and peace? Why make it regional and *not* conditional that people must come from Nations that respect and are friendly to the US and help us out when we need it, and we do the same for them? How about Nations recently out from under Communist repression for decades? How about Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Georgia? How about long time Friends and Allies like: the UK, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea?
Those should work out just as well and give us stronger ties with Nations that have supported us and not those that look to exploit the US economy by coming here illegally. Probably even better as people from those Nations tend to respect the rule of law and understand the responsibilities of being a citizen.
No wonders we have a problem with illegal aliens in the US.
We are teaching our children to HATE work.
Tell you what, lets stop over-educating our children, teach them to respect all forms of work, that getting good paying jobs requires decent education and work attitude and, if you drop out of that path to success, you tend to get stuck with low paying, low skill jobs. Apparently we are teaching our children just the opposite of these things and we are paying for THAT with illegal aliens.
Of course if you say *that* then you really are out of tune with the elitist atmosphere of the education establishment of the US and, apparently, the two political parties.
It is sounding more and more if we need a Nationalist party - a political party that actually supports the Nation and not ideological objectives. The goals of having a law abiding citizen that actually understands and adheres to the responsibilities of *being* a citizen. Not ones of citizen as sum of their 'associations' or as 'economic unit', but as individuals to respected as such and to have expectations of them for the Nation.
I would support a party like that.
Too bad we don't have one like that in America these days.