Res Judicata: Jobs for Americans First

November 14th, 2011 at 1:18 am | 24 Comments |

| Print

Last week’s blog post on restricting legal immigration as a partial solution to persistently high unemployment drew many comments. They made three basic arguments: 1) immigrants create demand for goods and services that results in a net plus for the economy, 2) immigrants do not compete with Americans for jobs, and 3) it is inhumane not to give citizenship to refugees.

I’ll address each in turn.

Working Immigrants Means Non-Working Americans. The entire premise of my piece was that the U.S. should reduce immigration at times of high unemployment because immigrants take jobs from citizens. The response was that immigrants may be taking jobs but pay taxes as sort of a silver lining. Tell that to an unemployed American who can’t find work.

My point was not that immigrants are unproductive and unemployed. Quite the opposite. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“the INA”) provides for 140,000 “employment-based” immigrants to be allowed into the U.S. per year. That means those people are coming into the country for the express purpose of working (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)). Not a single commenter provided any reason we should do so at a time of high unemployment. Nor did any commenter provide an example of a job that cannot be filled by an American citizen. Moreover, the 140,000 figure is not trivial. In October the economy added only 100,000 jobs.

If the argument is that these 140,000 legal immigrants create such a jolt to the economy by spending vast sums of money for goods and services that they create a net plus for American workers, then I’d like to see the proof of such an economic miracle. Nobody cited any.


Immigrants Do Not Compete With Americans For Jobs. This is the converse of Argument 1. In order to for this theory to hold up, immigrants would have to take jobs Americans won’t do. One economist, Giovanni Peri, is an advocate of this theory of segregation in employment. I know he is wrong. I litigate RICO cases against employers of illegal immigrants in the poultry processing, cleaning and construction industries. These are the places unskilled immigrants tend to find work. But they are a minority of the workforces in every case I have seen. Americans with high school educations still predominate. They do the same work for the same pay.

There are no jobs Americans will not do for market wages. I have written extensively about this argument in prior posts here, particularly noting that sewer workers, probably the least desirable job in the economy, are overwhelmingly Americans. They take the horrible jobs because the wages are good, particularly in the large cities, where unions negotiate with municipalities for their pay.

Once it is understood that immigrants work alongside Americans, I can’t understand the argument for high levels of immigration during periods of high unemployment. The result will be fewer jobs for Americans and at depressed wages.


The U.S. Does Not Have to Give Citizenship to Refugees. Some commenters were outraged by my opinion that refugees should not be given citizenship. I proposed that we allow refugees (we admit about 100,000/ year), to be employed and then repatriate them if possible. Conditions in some countries do improve, like Rwanda, and I don’t see why refugees cannot go back if this occurs. If it does not, and they remain here for life, then they should be given lawful permanent residency status (“LPR”) rather than citizenship. If that’s immoral, then it is hard to justify giving LPR status to anyone. But we grant LPR status to over 1 million people each year.


The U.S. Should Suspend Family Sponsored Immigration. If there is no justification for employment-based immigration at a time of high unemployment, then we should consider the much larger category of “family-sponsored” immigration. The INA allows up to 480,000 such persons each year (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)). (This is a ceiling, but the law requires at least 226,000 per year.) This the bulk of legal immigration.

Moreover, the “immediate relatives” of U.S. citizens do not count against the 480,000 ceiling. So, in theory, the government can admit an unlimited number of immediate relatives each year. No commenters offered any justification for doing so at a time of high unemployment. Yes, family reunification might well be a desirable policy. But it does not outweigh our national interest in providing employment for our citizens.

We should amend the INA to tie this number to the unemployment rate, and require sponsors to post a bond with the government for use in the event their newly admitted relatives become unemployed. Relatives should rely on their sponsors and not become public charges. This is another goal of the INA.

Recent Posts by Howard Foster



24 Comments so far ↓

  • Graychin

    “There are no jobs that Americans will not do for market wages.”

    Yes, there are – as they learned in Alabama when no Americans could be found to pick crops when the immigrants were driven out. Personally, I would rather work in the sewers than pick tomatoes in Alabama.

    Besides, most sewer workers enjoy a living wage and decent benefits – thanks to their public employees unions.

    • hisgirlfriday

      Yes, there are – as they learned in Alabama when no Americans could be found to pick crops when the immigrants were driven out.

      If the farmers couldn’t find workers to pick the crops then the farmers weren’t paying market wages. They had obviously been relying on a government subsidy of lax immigration enforcement to allow them to acquire labor at sub-market wages and they refused or were unable to pay the wages the market required to attract labor to the work they were offering.

      • jorae

        You got that right. Illegal immagration only benefits Owners…We have in place, with no quota…Seasonal Farm help…it pays a living wage to the foreign worker, gives housing and coordinates taking the worker back to the foreign country..i.e. Mexico.

        The newest push by republicans is to have labor from foreign countries on a temp visa…this does not cover housing….so it is quite okay to pay min wage, as before, and let them live under a bush. Sick…republicans are so money hungery…I will pay $10.oo a lbs for a tomato as long as it doesn’t all go to the owner.

      • zephae

        “If the farmers couldn’t find workers to pick the crops then the farmers weren’t paying market wages.”

        When I’ve seen farmers interviewed about this point, they claim that their products would not be competitive if they payed a higher wage that Americans would accept for that kind of work. What would you make of such a claim?

        • Rob_654

          Correct – market wages are not just wages in a small area – they are wages as compared to what farmers pay in other states and potentially other countries.

          If a farmer in Alabama has to pay a much higher local market wage to get people to pick produce they simply won’t be able to sell that produce to anyone – and certainly to no large company because that company is not going to pay that high of a price – they will just go elsewhere to buy the product.

        • buddyglass

          This suggests the farmer’s business is only viable when supported by immigrant labor at sub-market wages.

          The tricky thing is this: Are we better off buying fruit from a U.S. farmer who employs immigrant labor (at wages no citizen would accept), or are we better off out-sourcing domestic fruit production and allowing that farmer’s job to disappear?

  • jorae

    Res judicata is the Latin term for “a matter [already] judged”
    1. In both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal.
    2. Or continued litigation between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems.

    What do you mean using Res judicata as an argument? There is no legal argument to terminate jobs in in America?

    Laws come from morals…

    HB1 visa ….Basically stating other countries citizens can do better than Americans…Yah…India is a real mental power source…The push toward Programers are better from India…No, they are cheaper…

    Look up how many American supervisors work OT to fix the sloppy work…but that’s okay with the American Owner…who just doesn’t care…and uses black mail to keep the supervisor.

    My brother lost his job at Blue Cross of California/Premier…etc for company names…due to firing him and hiring some one from India….he was a 99er…got unemployment, paying UI over $2,000 a month…Costs…the comes down to the tax payer…profit, to Blue Cross with Indian workers.

    Me….Customer Service…Amazon.com….Lost my job to out sourcing to India…Cost to state/fed for 26 weeks was to tax payers…Gain in profit = Amazon.com.

    Do you want to address real facts and how profits cost taxpayers?

    • baw1064

      Unfortunately, laws don’t come from morals. They come from politicians, and whoever gains control of the political system gets to have the rules written for their own benefit.

      The idea that law=morality is a myth of the legal profession, which fancies itself as a latter-day version of Moses coming down from Mount Sinai. All we can hope for is that there will be some tenuous connection between law and morality

  • hisgirlfriday

    I would agree with the author of this piece that it’s simply not true that immigrants don’t compete with Americans for jobs.

    Practically every job I had as a teenager (10-15 years ago) even in rural/exurban America with a very small Hispanic population had me competing against or having my wages being dragged down by the market forces of illegal immigrants and I can only imagine it’s gotten worse.

    My first real paycheck was for farm labor for farm minimum wage and no overtime pay and no days off and no benefits for an agricultural business that would leave my hometown a few years later because that wage still wasn’t low enough for the shareholders of that business who could find a greater supply of illegal immigrants elsewhere to work under the table even more cheaply than 15 year old kids who couldn’t drive and needed jobs but were 15 miles away from the nearest mall or movie theater.

    My first job outside my hometown of 2,000 people had me exposed within my first six weeks of working there to an INS raid taking away all but one dishwasher/food prep person in the entire restaurant. The managers weren’t punished because bogus SSNs were involved but it was pretty obvious what was going on. I guess they did not want to hire too many English speaking high school kids because when the employees speak English they can ask for raises above minimum wage or seek time off or complain about sexual harassment or complain about not getting break time they are required to receive or whatever. I would find similar dynamics of teenagers and illegal immigrants working alongside each other in subsequent part-time jobs in the restaurant/hotel banquet business.

    Now in the professional sphere, I still see this drag on wages via immigration taking place in front of me where if I stop at McDonald’s the cashiers are speaking Spanish and if I pass a couple of maintenance men in the hallway of my building they are speaking Polish.

    The question though is: are we a protectionist country or not? Because I don’t think it makes sense to have a globalist trade policy and protectionist labor policy and that seems to be what Republicans who want to crack down on immigration into this country suggest.

    I also find Mr. Foster’s concerns on illegal immigration driving down wages fascinating given his previous anti-union column. It seems to me if there was more unionization, there would be more market pressure exerted on employers to pay fair wages to Americans and employers would face more pressure to not hire illegal workers. But I guess that would mean less RICO lawsuits work?

  • Ogemaniac

    I am an American born American citizen, wedded to a Japanese national. Are you saying that you would essentially make marriages like ours impossible unless we chose to live outside the United States?

  • Fart Carbuncle

    Corporations will only bring their jobs back to America when the standard of living is adjusted downward on a competitive scale with China and India.

    American labor unions inflated this scale artificially, and like all bubbles in a free market, it popped when globalisation occured.

    • valkayec

      I can’t wait to see your wages dropped to $3.50/hr. That should just about enough to cover your food bill and transportation for the month. Good luck living on that wage.

    • zephae

      If you’re going to try and argue that unions created a wage bubble that globalization is popping, then you might as well say that the entire middle class was a bubble created from the post-WW2 reconstruction of Europe with America as the only country with major productive capacity, which globalization is now properly reversing. Would you make such a statement? I certainly wouldn’t, since technology and globalization are both new market forces and that there was nothing artificial about rising wages prior to their introduction.

      Secondly, do you really think that the only way to compete in a global market is to have cost-equivalent wages? What about all the inconveniences and costs that arise from having your products halfway around the world from your customer base, especially in service industries? Higher levels of productivity, innovation, and knowledge-intensive fields that favor more advanced countries are just a few examples of ways that countries with higher wages can compete, but there must be policies to complement these factors instead of a relentless drive to a global floor.

    • Houndentenor

      In other words, you want America to become a third-world country.

      • jorae

        ….according to 21-year-old Dong Zhanli, who worked 16-hours days assembling DVD players in China —even on weekends—for the equivalent of $175 a month.

        So, when apartments in America can be rented for $50.00 a month…we will be able to compete?

        Of course, it would appear, he would certainly be entitled to food stamps and health care… But that means taxing the company in America who thinks going to $175.00 a month will bring back jobs…lol

  • fatharpdavis

    “I’d like to see the proof of such an economic miracle. Nobody cited any.”

    Did you see the paper, Card (1990) that I posted on your last blog post?
    Let me explain it:
    How does one learn from data about the effect of immigration on unemployment? If you compare municipalities with high immigration to those with low immigration, I would imagine that you’d find that the municipalities with high immigration had low unemployment–but this is misleading: as you wrote, immigrants come here to work, and of course they will migrate to cities that offer them jobs. Ideally, from a statistician’s perspective, we would randomly select certain cities to receive immigrants and certain cities not to, and observe the difference between “treatment” and “control” groups. However, this is clearly impossible. The next best option is a “natural experiment,” in which immigrants arrive in a city due solely to factors that are unrelated to economics. Economists will call this an “exogenous shock.” That’s exactly what happened in 1980, due to the Mariel Boatlift–Miami’s labor market increased overnight by 7% because of Cuban refugees. One of our country’s preeminent empirical economists, David Card, analyzed the data and found that “the Marie1 influx appears to have had virtually no effect on the wages or unemployment rates of less-skilled workers, even among Cubans who had immigrated earlier.” That’s about the best proof of anything you can hope for relating to the effect of immigration on employment.

    Is this a miricle? Here’s a story: Roberto (my father-in-law) immigrated to the US and got a minimum wage job. This is about 25 years ago, so let’s say he made about $15,000 a year. At first you might think that that’s $15000 that could have gone to Americans but didn’t. But what happened to the $15000 that Roberto earned? He had a family to support, so he spent it all. He thereby increased demand for whatever goods or services he bought. To accomodate the increased demand, the businesses he patronized were forced to hire more workers, and the $15000 went back into the system, into American pockets.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    “The Immigration and Nationality Act (“the INA”) provides for 140,000 “employment-based” immigrants to be allowed into the U.S. per year. That means those people are coming into the country for the express purpose of working (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)). Not a single commenter provided any reason we should do so at a time of high unemployment.”

    So when foreign corporations invest in factories in the US, say Haier or Samsung, we absolutely have to keep out the foreign managers because…well, just because we can’t let them in the states. Would Foster prefer the factories not be built for fear of seeing a foreigner? Does Foster speak a word of Mandarin? Or Korean? Or does he imagine that Koreans or Chinese all speak English because…well, Foster does so they should too.
    I guess Foster is against foreign trade as well because we should make everything just for ourselves…or something. Foreigners are bad. White people are good. I got it.
    Does Foster have any idea how many of these 140,000 people are in company transfers, being moved from an office in Shanghai or Mumbai to an office in NYC? I have a friend who was transferred from Shanghai to San Francisco because she was one of the top people in her field in the world and was better use to her company in San Francisco than Shanghai, but Foster wants to undercut Capitalism because he is a nativist fool. Then, of course, we have truly brilliant people, another friend is working in oncology research in Ohio and he was recruited from Shanghai. Or does Foster imagine we have geniuses at ready supply in the states? Better a million Americans die of cancer than one Chinese live in the states.
    I also guess the Foster would restrict foreigners from playing professional sports too as they make little runts like him look like pussies when he tries to play sports.
    140,000 is a blip in the radar. We have well over 300 million people in America. The overwhelming majority of the 140,000 HIB visa holders create far more value than they ever take out, and no, most of these jobs can not be filled by Americans. Why not make the claim that Google would have existed as well as it did if the Brin family (yes, I know they were Jewish refugees but were a net plus to America in their own rights) was not allowed in the states? Maybe Foster believes if not for Brin he would have invented google.
    And then we have a real chance that other countries will restrict Americans. Right now 100,000 expats live and work in Shanghai alone, with many Americans among them. Does Foster want to cut us off from the Chinese market because a few thousand highly educated Chinese move to America? I guess so.

    Foster is a commie who hates Adam Smith and Capitalism, (you know, the free movement of goods and labor) go back to Russia.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    or we can just do what the Chinese and Soviet Union did and get rid of internal migration issued residency cards so that people can’t move from state to state. That would lower unemployment in Texas, right?
    But somehow internal migration is good, but external migration wherein we cherry pick the worlds best and brightest is bad because…

    it makes Foster feel inadequate.

  • armstp

    “Working Immigrants Means Non-Working Americans.”

    First, both legal and illegal immigration naturally declines during times of recession, so no need to change anything. There is no proof that cutting immigration during recessions will have any meaningful impact on the unemployment rate in the U.S.

    Not a single commenter provided any reason we should do so at a time of high unemployment.

    Here let me repeat a point I made from you last post – about half of all patents taken out in the U.S. every year are by non-U.S. born residents; why would you want to cut that potential pipeline off? Immigrants are driving the economy foward. You take away immigration and it will make the recession and long-term growth worse.

    And likewise you have provided no proof that restricting immigration would help the job situation. Studies like the one below I link to say that even during periods of economic recession, immigration has almost no impact on jobs and unemployment in America.

    “The Impact of Immigrants in Recession and Economic Expansion” by Giovanni Peri at University of California Davis

    http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Peri-June2010.pdf

    “Nor did any commenter provide an example of a job that cannot be filled by an American citizen. “

    Actually if you have been listening to corporate America for the last 15 years you would hear loud and clear that we need to issue more H1Bs because they need to recruit more people overseas as they cannot find enough qualified people in the U.S. They still complain today, even during this economic weakness.

    …the 140,000 figure is not trivial. In October the economy added only 100,000 jobs.

    Actually, it is a trival number when we created 1.3 million private sector jobs in the last year and that is with the slow growth.

    Immigrants Do Not Compete With Americans For Jobs.

    There is a wide body of research that says that immigration has a minor impact on jobs in America and at most it puts some minor wage pressure on unskilled jobs, which is even debated and in fact may not be a bad thing.

    In the bigger context of the big well paid or true value-added jobs you can say that immigration helps to add jobs to America, by making America more innovative and competitive.

    Do immigrants take American jobs? It’s a common refrain among those who want to tighten limits on legal immigration and deny a “path to citizenship” — which they call “amnesty” — to the millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. There’s even a new Reclaim American Jobs Caucus in the House, with at least 41 members.

    But most economists and other experts say there’s little to support the claim. Study after study has shown that immigrants grow the economy, expanding demand for goods and services that the foreign-born workers and their families consume, and thereby creating jobs. There is even broad agreement among economists that while immigrants may push down wages for some, the overall effect is to increase average wages for American-born workers.”

    .
    .
    .

    “Immigration and Wages: Methodological advancements confirm modest gains for native workers”

    http://www.epi.org/publication/bp255/

    In the ongoing debate on immigration, there is broad agreement among academic economists that it has a small but positive impact on the wages of native-born workers overall: although new immigrant workers add to the labor supply, they also consume goods and services, which creates more jobs.

    The real debate among researchers is whether a large influx of a specific type of worker (say, workers with a particular level of education or training) has the potential to have a negative impact on the wages of existing workers of that same type. Some research argues that immigrant competition is quite costly to certain groups of native-born U.S. workers, while other research finds that native workers—even those who have levels of education and experience similar to new immigrants—may actually reap modest benefits from immigration.

    We begin this paper with a review of the scholarly literature on immigration’s effect on wages, focusing on recent methodological advancements. We then use Current Population Survey (CPS) data from 1994 to 2007 to conduct our own empirical analysis of immigration’s effect on wages over this period, incorporating these recent methodological advancements. Our analysis finds little evidence that immigration negatively impacts native-born workers.

    “A key result from this work is that the estimated effect of immigration from 1994 to 2007 was to raise the wages of U.S.-born workers, relative to foreign-born workers, by 0.4% (or $3.68 per week), and to lower the wages of foreign-born workers, relative to U.S.-born workers, by 4.6% (or $33.11 per week). In other words, any negative effects of new immigration over this period were felt largely by the workers who are the most substitutable for new immigrants—that is, earlier immigrants.

    Additional key results from this analysis:

    For workers with less than a high school education, the relative wage effect of immigration was similar to the overall effect. U.S.-born workers with less than a high school education saw a relative 0.3% increase in wages (or $1.58 per week), while foreign-born workers with less than a high school education saw a relative 3.7% decrease in wages (or $15.71 per week). In other words, immigration among workers with less than a high school degree served to lower the relative wages of other immigrant workers with less than a high school degree, not native workers with less than a high school degree.

    The wages of male U.S.-born workers with less than a high school education were largely unaffected by immigration over this period, experiencing a relative decline of 0.2% due to immigration (or $1.37 per week). Female U.S.-born workers with less than a high school education experienced a relative increase in wages of 1.1% due to immigration ($4.19 per week).

    Around 3% of the increase from 1994 to 2007 in wage inequality between workers with less than a high school degree and workers with a college degree or more can be attributed to immigration.

    This analysis finds no evidence that young workers in particular are adversely affected by immigration.

    While the methodology used in this paper does not allow for a racial breakdown of the effect of immigration on U.S.-born workers in different education groups, we find that the overall effect of immigration on wages is similar for white non-Hispanic U.S.-born workers (+0.5%) and black non-Hispanic U.S.-born workers (+0.4%) .

    From 1994 to 2007, the effect of immigration on wages did not vary greatly over periods of very different labor demand, in part, because immigration flows respond strongly to the conditions of the U.S. economy.

    An analysis of the four states with the highest immigration over this period—California, Florida, New York, and Texas—revealed some interesting departures from the national average. In these states, like at the national level, the overall relative effect of immigration was positive on native workers. However, some subgroups in these states fared worse—particularly male workers with less than a high school degree.

    .
    .
    .

    Again, Howard Foster why don’t you quote some actually credible objective research to support any of your thoughts or ideas?

    You would have more crediblity if you actually supported your posts with some numbers, facts and research.

    You just give the standard Tea Bagger rhetoric pointing at very small examples and try to extrapolate or suggest that is the whole story.

    My Mexican gardener took my son’s grass cutting job, so immigration is bad.

  • jskdn

    The problem I see with this and so many immigration discussions is that, while majorities of voters have consistently indicated that they wanted immigration limited, that is no more or even less immigration, and are against illegal immigration, the operative debate in this country seems to be premised upon some need to justify the government acting in a way that represents the wishes of the majority, including effectively upholding existing laws. And it it not just that those opposed to the kind of immigration we are having have to provide reasons why the government should represent them on the issue, it’s that somehow those reasons also need to be accepted by the minority that the government is serving, as if that were ever possible.

    It seems to me the default policy ought to be what most voters want and the burden ought to be on those who want something different to convince them that their policy preferences are a better option.

    Here’s a blog post citing polling data related to the Republican Presidential debates.
    “GOP candidates out of step on immigration?”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/gop-candidates-out-of-step-on-immigration/2011/10/04/gIQAoQimcL_blog.html

  • Rob_654

    Hard to imagine that a person who was born and raised in the United States – given 13 free years of education, reads\writes\speaks English, knows the customs, knows the system, has had access to Community Colleges, and even higher levels of education (yes it is expensive) – given all of that if that American is having to compete against Unskilled, Uneducated, Non-English Speaking, New Arrivals for a job – I think that that says more about the Americans involved than anything else…

  • Brittanicus

    Amid the nearly $15 Trillion dollar U.S. treasury deficit, the 12 special politicians are scrambling to cut back on uncontrollable spending, why we not saving some of this money by stopping welfare benefits to illegal aliens? We can accomplish some instant cutbacks, by removing the encouragement, that criminal business have brought upon the average American worker, by displacing them with foreigners from other countries. It’s not like we don’t have our own share of poverty, but when the government-sponsored invasion has allowed this continuing for decades. Most every law to discourage illegal immigration has been tabled in Congress, or it has never collected enough sponsors to reach the floor. When I read a very thorough analysis by the Conservative think tank ‘The Heritage Foundation’ that illegal aliens were being subsidized to the unheard amount of $113 Billion tax dollars annually, then I knew that the Liberal progressives, Democrats and political class Republicans were behind this disgusting behavior. NO wonder the political perpetrators had never enacted illegal entry as a FELONY; instead it is even less than a misdemeanor?

    We have become a dumping pit for incompetent governments for their 20 million unauthorized aliens. Incidentally, President Obama in his wisdom, with I’m sure from inside and outside influence to introduce some policy that illegal aliens were now classed as–undocumented immigrants. Well I will not oblige him in my commentary, even if the Liberal press writes in their columns, that all illegal aliens are now just immigrants? Guess this is the lefts push for strengthening their ‘Political Correctness’ agenda, which has been forced on every America? Except that the TEA PARTY knows better and that foreign aliens will be even more alienated after more authentic TEA PARTY Representatives, slide into Senate and Congressional seats by the time of the Presidential race in 2012. It’s almost laughable that the rabble ‘Occupy’ in city centers have been identified with the TEA PARTY–of course by our countries subversives and Liberal extremists. We are nothing like these people and shouldn’t be associated with any of this mob rule. The TEA PARTY doesn’t build tent cities, leave mounds of garbage, rape, kill or cause mayhem on the streets.

    THE TEA PARTY NEEDS CHANGE FOR EVERY AMERICAN.

    It’s time to look at this bipartisan spending spree and that includes illegal immigration. THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION HAS BECOME EQUALLY PREDOMINANT AS OUR LIFELESS ECONOMY, THAT IT IS A COST WE DON”T NEED AND CANNOT AFFORD. A TEA PARTY CONGRESS SHOULD START WITH A THOROUGH RE-DESIGN OF THE BORDER BARRIER, WHICH IS A DOUBLE LAYER FENCE, AND A RIGOROUS NATIONWIDE SWEEP OF BUSINESSES WHO ARE VIOLATING HIRING LAWS. This doesn’t include the immigrants that have proved by their highly skilled experience should be no admitted to settle, work. This country will always need people with substantial credentials in Science, math and engineering. Not the uneducated that are still streaming across our undermanned border. We can certainly stop the grim rising statistics of drunken driving, drug cartel criminals spilling over the border region and the endless tracks of impoverished people contributing to our own people’s poverty. Whether it’s by international jet or across the Southern border, 300 thousand pregnant women are arriving and cannot be detected. These females know the loopholes and become mostly permanent squatters in America, a foothold child with instant citizenship. The schools, education, healthcare are all forced federal mandates, left for this nations taxpayer to support.

    ENFORCEMENT CHAMPION RUSSELL PEARCE’S DEFEAT, HAS LITTLE MEANING FOR OTHER STATES
    The open-borders bloggers and pro-illegal alien organizations are suggesting that the recall of Arizona state senator Russell Pearce means the beginning of the end for state efforts across the country to stop illegal aliens from taking jobs and taxpayer-provided benefits. And some of our allies in other state legislatures are even asking if they should feel vulnerable Pearce was beaten by Jerry Lewis, another Republican, who won with about 53% of the vote. If the challenge to Pearce had happened during a regular election year, it is doubtful that nearly as much open-borders money and energy could have been funneled solely to this recall effort. That alone might easily have made the difference in election results. All of this is to say that it took some very special circumstances to engineer Pearce’s defeat. Roy Beck of the pro-sovereignty NumbersUSA stated “I see nothing in the highly individualized circumstances of Pearce’s unfortunate election loss last week that should cause other elected leaders to pull back from their duty to protect the American workers and taxpayers in their jurisdictions from reckless lawlessness by the federal officials who refuse to fully enforce our immigration rules.”

    E-VERIFY–Lamar Smith’s Legal Workforce Act (H.R.2885) would require 100% of companies—large and small– to use E-Verify for all new hires within 2 years. This bill would also require all federal, state, and local agencies as well as federal and state contractors/ sub-contractors and critical infrastructure sites to use E-Verify within 6 months; eliminating the majority of illegal alien workers from the 8.5 jobs they are holding in this country. Increase employer penalties and fines for knowingly hiring illegal alien workers. Require the Social Security Administration to send no-match letters to employers if existing employee’s name and social security number don’t match in their system. Require the Social Security Administration to notify owners of a Social Security number if their number is used multiple times.

    Phone the Washington switchboard at 202-224-3121 and they can direct you to all House Representatives responsible for moving Chairman Lamar Smith’s ‘Legal Workforce Act’ (bill H.R.2885) to the House floor. Make a judgment for yourself and study more about the illegal alien occupation, which has caused major financial disruption issues in every nook throughout America. By going to NumbersUSA web site the truth is available instead of reading the devious repressed information from the two party system.
    Perhaps your attention should also be drawn to H.R. 1148? My assumption is, nobody has heard of it before? It’s being kept awfully quiet in a bipartisan manner. Its legal title is the ‘Stop trading on the Congressional Knowledge Act’. This silent unethical award has manifested itself in the halls of power, as ‘Insider Trading’ by the both parties, having in advance financial intelligence of stocks and shares. Regular Americans on Wall Street would be prosecuted for inside trading and using it for their own greed, or communicating it to friends and relatives, so why are policy makers immune? Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs, having a way in to information directly linking to the Wall Street businesses implicated. Republicans such as House Speaker John Boehner, who has also profited from transactions. These handsome rewards—are not available to members of the public.

    A non-political equitable committee should be formed into delve into the rot of unfettered corruption, which resides in Washington. Learn more about corruption at Judicial Watch.

    Please remember that ACORN is still out there under a different assumed name, but will be canvassing for Borack Obama for a second term, and will do anything necessary to keep him as President; even to allowing illegal aliens voting in any state or election leading up to 2012. Many states intentionally have flexible laws that leave a wide gap for non-citizens to vote, as California, Nevada and other partial Sanctuary states and cities.

    Lastly President Obama has been hesitating on a oil pipeline from Canada, and now they are talking about handing it over to Asia. We could be well on our way to becoming self-sufficient in energy instead of being beholden to foreign countries, who mostly would kill us—if they had the chance. The administration’s decision to delay the Pipeline, which would have brought Canadian oil to US refineries in Texas, is now at a stalemate. THE UNITED STATES THAN ANY OTHER LOCATION IN THE WORLD HAS MASSIVE RESERVES OF OIL, WHICH WE COULD BE SELLING TO OTHER COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS CAPITALIZING ON IT FOR THE AMERICAN CONSUMER.

  • Mercer

    Frumplestiltskin said:

    ” external migration wherein we cherry pick the worlds best and brightest is bad because…”

    I would like an immigration system that cherry picked the world’s best. That is how Canada’s system works. That is not how the US system works. The US immigration system lets people in mainly based on family ties as Foster notes. Most of our immigrants are not the best and brightest – they are illiterate peasants from Latin America.

  • jorae

    Typical H-1B occupations include architects, engineers, computer programmers, accountants, doctors, veterinarian, dentist, registered nurse, business managers, and college professors.

    Wage depression is a chronic complaint critics have about the H-1B program: some studies have found that H-1B workers are paid significantly less than U.S. workers.It is claimed that the H-1B program is primarily used as a source of cheap labor.

    U.S.: H-1B workers outnumber unemployed techies.

    The government’s interest in H-1B fraud-related unemployment turned up in court filings in a case in U.S. District Court in Iowa against a New Jersey IT firm, Visions Systems Group in South Plainfield, NJ.

    Visions Systems was included in a sweep that led to arrests of some 11 people in six states. The government, in announcing its action, said the companies and people involved were “displacing qualified American workers”.

    YOUR FIRED IN AMERICA… When there was an America Citizen to do the work.

    Feb 14, 2011

    America’s top banks including Citigroup, JP Morgan and Bank of America are set to outsource IT and back office projects worth nearly $5 billion this year to India.
    http://articles.economict…outs-outsource-top-banks

    If one job is lost under this republican program … it is too many.