Immigration, Employment, and Wages

If you haven't batted the evidence on immigration around enough yet, here's a little more from Pia Orrenius of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. She was a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 2004-2005 and supports a relatively open door policy:

The Impact of Immigration, by Pia Orrenius, Commentary, WSJ: ...The stereotype of the hard-working immigrant still rings true in our country. Male immigrants have labor force participation rates of 81%, exceeding U.S.-born men's participation rate of 72%. Illegal immigrant men have even higher participation rates -- around 94%... Immigrants have contributed more than half of U.S. labor force growth in the past decade as a result of high immigration rates and their desire to work. ... Economists have noted time and again that the effect of immigration on natives' wages is small.

In a study with Madeline Zavodny of Agnes Scott College, we found that during the mid- to late-1990s, immigration had a small negative impact on manual laborers' wages -- about 1% -- but did not adversely affect the wages of professionals or service workers. Our paper follows in the footsteps of widely acclaimed work, such as David Card's study of the Mariel boatlift. Mr. Card ... found that the wages and unemployment of low-skilled workers in Miami were largely unaffected by the sudden influx of 45,000 Marielitos into the local labor force. Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, and Gianmarco Ottaviano of the University of Bologna concluded in a study last year that immigration to the U.S. can even have a positive effect on natives' wages when one considers two points: Immigrants are often complementary to native labor and physical capital is not fixed over time.

Identifying the effect of immigration on wages presents tricky measurement problems. The newcomers naturally migrate to places where the labor demand is greatest and wages are rising ... National-level studies try to address this issue by not relying on cross-area variation, but these studies have their own problems as long-term economic trends become difficult to sort out.

It should not be surprising that most studies find immigrants have little effect on average wages. New immigrants are more likely to compete with each other and with earlier immigrants than with native-born workers. Those just arriving in the U.S. are not close substitutes for U.S. workers, because they typically lack the language skills, educational background and institutional know-how of native-born workers. As immigrants gain this human capital over time they become more substitutable for native workers -- but they also become more productive. It is also important to keep in mind that low-skilled immigrants compete against a dwindling group of native workers. The number of native-born, high-school dropouts has been declining for years...

Market forces on both the demand and supply sides also mitigate the labor market impact of immigration. With an influx of immigrants, the return on capital rises, spurring investment. Firms also increase production of labor-intensive goods....

Meanwhile existing workers, like firms, respond rationally to immigration. Natives and previous immigrants move, upgrade their skills or switch jobs ... much as they do in response to broader market forces, such as the rising skill premium. These responses reduce immigration's negative impact. And as consumers we all benefit from the greater output and lower prices...

We rightly worry about the wages of low-skilled workers, which have been falling in real terms for close to 30 years. Although trade and immigration are often blamed for diminished low-skilled earnings, most research suggests that they have not played a major role. Instead, the evidence points to more pervasive skill-based technological change as the main culprit. Today's production processes increasingly rely on highly educated workers and so the labor market increasingly rewards them.

Changing labor market institutions have also done their part: Falling real minimum wages and a long decline in union rolls have disproportionately affected wages at the low-skilled end of the workforce. ...

Immigration's impact on wages has little relevance on the debate over how we deal with the 12 million illegals in this country -- ... these immigrants have largely been incorporated into the labor force, and prices and wages have already responded to their presence. It is estimated that over half of the illegal immigrants are working "on the books," paying income and payroll taxes. Bringing the rest of them into compliance will actually raise the cost of employing them. This aspect of legalization should even the playing field and help, not hurt, native-born workers.

The big challenge is not the wage impact of immigration reform, but the fiscal impact of low-skilled immigration: How much do these immigrants cost in public services and how much do they contribute in taxes? How do the costs and contributions change over time as immigrants assimilate? Legalization will raise both costs and contributions, but the net effect depends on the nature of the proposal and the generosity of benefit programs. Some of the costs could be offset by lowering barriers to high-skilled immigrants, who pay far more in taxes than they receive in public services. ...

Comments

[Devang]

Did Adam Smith talk about free movement of labor, just like capital? Why isn't this brought up in more discussions?

[John Konop]

Desire to work or work cheap ?

Multi - Nationals = monoplies

Raise prices = Cheap labor to multi-national

Adam Smith

Monopoly:-
§ "A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate." (vol. I, bk. I, ch. 7.)
§ "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice." (vol. I, bk. I, ch. 10.)

[Live Wire]

And why do economists continue to write about immigration when the issue is so obviously ILLEGAL immigration? What is it about ILLEGAL that economists don't understand?

I think immigration is wonderful. I have no doubt it is good for America and everyone else. But I wonder... how do they feel about ILLEGAL immigration coupled with ILLEGAL employment practices?

This leaves me questioning if economists have a general problem understanding the difference between legal and illegal actions in all fields? Are they capable of noting the difference between a legal transfer of property versus an illegal transfer of property? Do they understand the difference between a legal bank withdrawal and an illegal withdrawal? If I sold them a child-safety seat made with ILLEGAL parts that endangered their child's life, would they make a distinction? Somehow I think they might understand the conceptual differences between legal and illegal actions if I withdrew their life savings from their bank with a gun.

If I see one more intellectual elite confuse immigration with illegal employment practices, I think my head might explode.

[save_the_rustbelt]

According to a recent Knight-Ridder news article, both the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are ignoring widespread forging of federal documents, misuse of real or phony Social Security numbers, and income tax evasion.

One of the apparent scams is to use the SS numbers of children - won't they get a surprise someday when their records do get cross referenced with a pattern of tax evasion.

Also, SSA is not notifying legitimate taxpayers when their numbers are misused, that will create a giant mess.

So who told these federal agencies to stop applying standard procedures to illegals? (When an employer filing has a huge percentage of bogus numbers everyone knows what is happening)

If a legitimate employer or legitimate taxpayer has any document matching problems the IRS will beat them to death over $100 - so what is up with this?

[John Konop]

save the rustbelt,

You are right, payroll services have a list of most of the illegal immigrants using fake SS cards. They could send the list to the INS before they give it to employers today. Also this give us a false data on employment #s. In 2004 the SS department had 9mm fake SS card #s. It takes about every 4 months before this information catches up with employers. The other factor is part time jobs count as full time jobs. With the # of illegals growing every year and illegal having multiple part time jobs and changing about every 4 months, how do you economist account for all the factors in your job creation #s ?

[calmo]

I wonder how much of this attitude comes from the cited period "mid to late 90s" when there were other forms of employment than residential construction/maintenance.
It may have been true then, but this may not be the case now, esp with ~11M illegals:

"immigration had a small negative impact on manual laborers' wages -- about 1% -- but did not adversely affect the wages of professionals or service workers."
[Professional associations know how to protect their turf and plunder those sub-professionals who don't.]

"Mr. Card ... found that the wages and unemployment of low-skilled workers in Miami were largely unaffected by the sudden influx of 45,000 Marielitos into the local labor force." (Are we supposed to take this micro study and apply it to ~11M workers?) [Does Pia get this from highly skilled workers/academics or lower paid immigrants?]

If this study occurs in the last year, I wonder if Katrina has skewed the picture. I would expect that construction labor costs everywhere were increased because of the draw to New Orleans.
Do I want to say anything about wages that are not monitored for half of these immigrants (as per Live Wire)? [ from Pia later: "It is estimated that over half of the illegal immigrants are working "on the books," paying income and payroll taxes."] How about the black employment statistics?
Not really. I want to stick this one down the toilet though:

"Today's production processes increasingly rely on highly educated workers and so the labor market increasingly rewards them." [Pia refuses to believe the BLS that services, not production of goods, is where the employment growth has been. How brave.]

Especially if you are an oil executive. If you are manufacturing, there is an education gradient with the people between upper management and forklift operators being displaced by that capital intensive fancy tech, no?
Let's get real and look at where most of these illegal immigrant workers slave away: construction and residential services. [Maybe there is no construction in Dallas.]
Pia does note:
"Changing labor market institutions have also done their part: Falling real minimum wages and a long decline in union rolls have disproportionately affected wages at the low-skilled end of the workforce."

and quarantines this thought so as not to infect any of the foregoing (rubbish).
I am not happy with Pia. I'm not.

If the illegals were Indian software engineers or British financial consultants would she be singing this tune:
"Immigrants are often complementary to native labor."

[Fred Hapgood]

> If I see one more intellectual elite confuse
> immigration with illegal employment practices, I
> think my head might explode.

All laws are not equally important. You should feel free, as I know you do, to have your own priorities, but for many people the laws controlling immigration are only marginally more worthy of respect than the laws controlling adultery. And I bet the last time adultery came up in conversation you did not hold your head in despair over the general lack of appreciation that it is illegal (as it still is in most if not all jurisdications).

Like I say, you are free to feel that the laws against adultery ought to be rigorously enforced. That's what America is all about.

[John Konop]

Fred,

Should we have no traffic laws ? No drunk driving laws ?

Should anyone be able to take food from my home as long as no one gets hurt ? Are you suggesting, to not use the court system ? How do you draw the line?

[Fred Hapgood]

> How do you draw the line?

You're the one unhappy with the present state of affairs. I'm not. I think you should be telling me where you draw the line.

The reason lots of people have no problems with illegal immigrants is the same reason people don't want to see the laws against adultery enforced. The targets of these laws are too easy to identify with. In the case of illegal immigration they are even easy to admire, which is not always true with adultery. I have a friend whose wife just had a relative arrive illegally from the Dominican Republic. They picked him up at the bus stop at noon and took him home for a beer. Around two he put the beer down and went out looking for work. At six he was back with a job.

As you can imagine, my friend thinks this guy is going to be a real earner for the US of A.

[NinjaPlease]

Re: Fred Hapgood

"All laws are not equally important."

This is completely false. All laws are equally important or they would not be laws. The courts decide the punishments for breaking the laws (unless the laws punishments are already predefined within the law itself, ala mandatory minimum sentencing for drug trafficing.)

Adultery is not a criminal offense, if your wife doesn't forgive you, it's a most the grounds for divorce, in a civil court.

Hiring illegal aliens is a criminal offense.

Forging federal documents such as social security cards, driver's licenses, or falsifying proof of residency documents is a criminal offense--just ask Ann Coulter.

Paying workers below the minimum wage is a criminal offense.

Operating a work environment outside of OSHA compliance is a criminal offense.

Human trafficing is a criminal offense.

Driving commercial vehicle without a commercial driver's license is a criminal offense.

You have a lot of laws to repeal Fred, get to work!
(or outsource it.)

[NinjaPlease]

Re: Fred Hapgood,

I hope the business that hired your friend from the D.R. gets fined out of business.

[Live Wire]

I think Fred clearly draws the line at laws that don't dent his own wallet.

But Fred does a convincing job of stating the obvious... that all laws are not treated as equally important. I imagine that was my point Fred.

I think most people find that laws protecting their money and way of life ARE important. So, if you want to compare illegal employment practices with adultery, that's your business. Feel free to compare the guy that steals all your money, your job and your children's future to the guy that stole your wife... who knows, in your case Fred maybe the two are one and the same.

[Fred Hapgood]

> Adultery is not a criminal offense,

It most certainly is. I don't know where you live, but I feel to predict that whereever it is your politicians have not had the balls to repeal their laws against adultery. And even if they have, which they haven't, every state's lawbooks are stuffed with laws that no prosecutor would ever enforce. (In my state we still have a law against blasphemy.) Why not? Because too many people would identify with the defendants.

And that's the key point. The agitation against illegal immigrants depends 100% on demonizing them as the alien other, on derailing this identification. Look at the responses here: they are all about you versus him, us versus them. But for many Americans the basic preconditions for that appeal are just not there. We have met illegal immigrants, and they are us. Indeed, I can think of a few 100% legal citizens I would be happy to swap for them.

[dryfly]

The problem with immigration whether 'legal' or 'illegal' is how many and under what conditions...

There are 6 (plus) billion people out there now heading to who knows how many... 8 billion? 10 billion? More? We have approximately 300 million here now.

Do we want to open the door to all of those outside the US, all 6 plus billion? If so do we do it immediately? If not how do we restrict & manage it? Do we only restrict the 'rate' we allow them to come or do we restrict both the rate and the amount? And how do we execute this process? How do they 'submit' for entry?

Then after we set those 'restrictions & processes' are we going to enforce THEM... unlike how we currently DON'T enforce the laws we have now.

Now I realize that not everyone in the world will want to come to America... but what if say only a half billion want to come here in the next decade or two... they would over run us quite literally. Our institutions would disappear like the 'institutions' of the Iroquois Confederacy or the Sioux Nation.

I find the 'open door' faction of this argument a bit disingenuous. Until they answer some of these questions with more specifics I tend to disregard a lot of their 'pie in the sky'. But maybe that is just me.

[Fred Hapgood]

The problem with immigration whether 'legal' or 'illegal' is how many and under what conditions...

These are of course very difficult questions, but it is not at all obvious who has to answer them. It seems to me that the people arguing for a change in the status quo are the ones who have to spell out how much change they want, how far they are going to go, and why. If they can't answer these questions, then the argument for change becomes a lot weaker.

On the other hand, people who have no problem with the status quo, who do not see, or feel, any need for a change, have a much more moderate burden. Like the man said, if it's not necessary to change, it's necessary not to change. Of no issue is this more true than immigration.

[jalrin]

A short dose of remedial political theory appears to be in order. For the United States to be a democratic republic, the laws that the people's representatives have enacted must be enforced and obeyed. Anytime you have a group of people who decide that they do not have to play by the rules, you have a direct assualt on the whole concept of a democarcy is at risk.

We can only expand immigration when the public can trust us to keep our promises (unlike say 1986) and enforce whatever number is agreed upon. What would it do to our social contract if the public realized that politically important businesses and groups can do whatever they want?

[Fred Hapgood]

For the United States to be a democratic republic, the laws that the people's representatives have enacted must be enforced and obeyed.

It's all a matter of resources. It's against the law to play poker over the internet. And that's Federal law. Passed by the people's representatives and all that. I suppose if the government went after internet gambling hammer and tongs, it could reduce its incidence somewhat, though of course it could never stamp it out. Think that would be worthwhile? Can you think of a better use of those resources? Bet you can.

It's against the law -- federal law again -- to possess 'any detectable amount' of marijuana. We spend tens of billions a year on enforcing this law (the war of drugs is basically a war on marijuana users) with the result being that twenty million people smoke it regularly -- and that's just the people willing to tell interviewers over the phone that they smoke it regularly, which means the surveys miss some people. I suppose if the government spent hundreds of billions on stamping out marijuana use it might. Think those resources would be well spent?

We already spend a lot on border control of one sort and another. I guess the argument is over whether to spend a lot more. Nobody, no matter how xenophobic, thinks that spending a lot more would ever end illegal immigration. The law would still not be being 'obeyed' by that standard. It might drive the rate down from X to X/2, at least for a while. How many billions of dollars are you willing to spend for that? Fifty? A hundred? Think you can find a better use for those resources?

Bet you can.

[NinjaPlease]

"Look at the responses here: they are all about you versus him, us versus them."

No it isn't, re-read my responses, it's me vs the government who decided to make it easy for jobs to be replaced.

[dryfly]

It seems to me that the people arguing for a change in the status quo are the ones who have to spell out how much change they want, how far they are going to go, and why. If they can't answer these questions, then the argument for change becomes a lot weaker.

We agree - and I'm waiting to hear from some of them. Instead they spend most of their time attacking & counter-attacking those who question how much is too much.

On my part I'd like to see more legal immigration and a whole lot less illegal immigration but even then I want the 'legal people' coming in to be vetted carefully to be sure they qualify as good citizens and secondly that they are 'committed to our institutions'.

I think this can be done but not if the bulk of the flow is 'undocumented'. But even then we will still have a limit to what we can absorb & how fast and still remain 'American'.

[brandon]

I read this site regularly but don't often post. I am an attorney, who sometimes deals with immigration law, so I thought I could bring something to the debate. As for adultery being a crime. In some states it is but in many states these laws have been revoked. It also used to be an actionable offense in civil suits called "alienation of affection." Most states have revoked this law. Therefore, aldultery really is only actionable as a grounds for a fault-based divorce, which often has no real consequences (accept in a few states) in the actual divorce. As for immigration I am mixed. It saddens me when I see clients who go through the processes legally when others are able to ignore the law and work in the US. The problem is unlike inforcement at the borders inforcement of immigration law is stringent. When these people work here illegally they are accruing unauthorized presence time in the US. Depending on the time this will limit their ability to adjust status to become US. I have clients who have been here for years but because of their unlawful presence they cannot become (in a resonable time frame) a US citizen. The sad part is that they were used by businesses who pay no real consequences for their actions. I don't think naturalizing the citizens who are already here is bad, they will then at least make minimum wage. The only way to stop illegal immigration is to criminalize the action of hiring these employees. Sarbannes-Oxley did this for accounting standards, why not for immigration?

[brandon]

It is enforcement, sorry I was writing quickly.

[Mark Thoma]

Thank you.

[John Konop]

Fred,

In all due respect you are missing the point. First I hear economist like you talk about Adam Smith and free market all the time. Yet as I posted he was against monopolies that would manipulate the system and kill his model. A detail guys like you avoid in your argument. We have lobbyist paid by multi-nationals who buy off politician to ignore laws or trade deals to get cheap labor. Yet you want to get into a semantics argument , while all of us are getting our pockets picked.Why are corporate profits on a record pace and wages down ? Are companies more productive or did they find cheap workers?

[Fred Hapgood]

But even then we will still have a limit to what we can absorb & how fast and still remain 'American'.

There is also a limit to how high a wall we can build around ourselves and still remain 'American'.

We have 5% of the world's population and are responsible for 30% of its goods and services. The average American is six times more productive than the average person. Why is this? Are we six times smarter than the random guy living outside our border? Six times better educated? Do we work six times harder? What? What's the explanation?

I don't have any trouble figuring out the answer to this problem. You get off the plane with two kids and a dollar in your pocket, with no cultural baggage defining how you think and act, you are in a position to see the world as it is and react to it as it is. You can pick up a hammer when it is needed without becoming a hammerperson, or whatever they would call you in France. An idea stops working, you drop it. Feng shui for aquariums becomes a trend you can hop on it. I know a British engineer here who likes to say that the difference between the United States and Britain is that over there people say 'what are you doing that for?', while here people slap you on the back and congratulate you.

That kind of openness, that cultureless ability to try anything, is what interests me about the country, and I trace that quality directly to our immigrant heritage.

So I have zero interest in 'absorbing' immigrants culturally. That way lies Europe. The issue lies in just the opposite direction: we should always have enough immigrants in this country to be absorbed by them. Plus a little more just to be on the safe side.

[John Konop]

Fred,

I am old school show me the #s to back your story. In my world no #s no money.

[John Konop]

Brandon,

You are right. We have laws now that fine an employer 10k per incident. Our politicians are bought off by the lobbyist who represent the multi-national corporation like ADM,Tyson..... who profit from cheap labor at the expense of our middle class and the illegal aliens

[Fred Hapgood]

... show me the #s to back your story.

The US pop = 300 million; world pop = 6 billion. I leave the math to you.

Googling US GDP gives lots of references to the ratio of US GDP/World GDP. Here's one from the Harvard International Review:

The United States currently produces just over 30 percent of total gross domestic product (GDP) when measured at market exchange rates, or 21 percent at purchasing power parity (PPP) rates. This is down from 46 percent just after World War II, but up slightly over the past decade due to the strong dollar and stock market boom of the mid-1990s.

[camille roy]

Hapgood: "We already spend a lot on border control of one sort and another. I guess the argument is over whether to spend a lot more. "

That is specious. Obviously the only effective thing to do is to enforce existing laws re: employers, with heavier fines.

If it were my call, I'd bring in a tougher enforcement and higher fines in a phased fashion, so all parties could make adjustments over time. I'd also make some provision for illegals already here for a signif. period.

For the record, I'm in favor of immigration and a reasonable path to citizenship. I'm not in favor of opening our country without limit because business wants cheap workers.

In a different political era, a compromise would be possible. In our spasm of business thuggery, it will not happen.

[John Konop]

Fred,

GDP = GROSS

Consumer debt and national debt are rising faster than GDP. In simple terms, this is like doubling your sales of pizza slices at a 25 cent loss per slice. I have secret, the more you sell the more you go in the RED. The more we trade the bigger the hole. By the way, I did not need to go to Harvard to figure this out.

[John Konop]

Fred,

I am old school tell me how go from red to black with trade with our current policy?

[John Konop]

Sorry,

How do we go from red to black with our current trade policy ?

[dryfly]

There is also a limit to how high a wall we can build around ourselves and still remain 'American'.

I agree with that... it is a balancing act.

But your British engineering friend is simplistic & playing with unfounded stereotypes...

First of all I know people who have immigrated to Europe and it isn't all that stiffling or locked in to the past. Maybe once but not now. Europe today is pretty damned dynamic.

Secondly I know LOTSA immigrants here and more than a few of them complain of how generic we are... a suburb in Boston isn't that different than a suburb in Phoenix or Seatle... same stores in the Mall, same products on the shelf, same shows on the same big screens coming from the same cable companies showing the same networks stars.

Not assimilating? Hell it isn't a 'melting pot' its a high speed blender...

So recognizing that I do believe we can take a lot more immigration without destroying the country... but there still has to be limits... all six billion humans can't be Americans unless we take the war in Iraq to 'new levels'. If you catch my drift.

[jalrin]

Mr. Hapgood,

I fear you are missing the point. Of course there are limits on how much enforcement we can do, but we are not there yet. In my hometown we have employers who have openly stopped hiring blacks because they prefer illegal immigrants from Mexico (and are quite open about it). These individuals are prepared to either commit felony perjury when they lie on their income tax forms or assist illegal immigrants who they know have commited the serious crime of forgery. These corrupt business people do not fear imprisonment for their crimes and that is dangerous.

Finally there is a credibility problem. Until we are prepared to enforce immigration laws, we cannot offer a change as a concession to get an amnesty or do anything else on immigration because people will know we are liars.

[cm]

dryfly, all: I think at the end of the day (as they say), it's a fairly safe bet to say it comes down to Live Wire's "denting the wallet" thing. That's very consistent with what I have observed in others, and admittedly myself.

A number of people are humble enough to know this, with others it is interesting to watch them being full of themselves and confidently taking the high road when pontificating about others, but getting all fickle and het up over issues they perceive touch their stakes, e.g. trial balloons on limiting mortgage interest deductions. The latter was quite a spectacle at work.

[John Konop]

Mark,

You ask the same questions again and again and again and then do not listen when people answer them.

In all due respect you have never come close to answering the question. I am not be an economist like you , but I was in the real world running business and raising money. The reason you will not answer the question showing how we get out of this mess is you have no answer.All theory with no tangible solution.

Let me take you to my world. You guys go to a bank and say we have customers with to much debt buying my products. Yet give me money because my gross sales are growing yet I am losing money on every transaction. Do not worry will we make it up in volume. Bottom line look at what guys like you and Fred have used as examples, all gross not net.It is clear to me,you guys have never raised money, which is a big part of understanding the issue.While you put your nose in the air about me,lets see which one of us could actually make economics work in the real world.

... show me the #s to back your story.

The US pop = 300 million; world pop = 6 billion. I leave the math to you.

Googling US GDP gives lots of references to the ratio of US GDP/World GDP. Here's one from the Harvard International Review:

The United States currently produces just over 30 percent of total gross domestic product (GDP) when measured at market exchange rates, or 21 percent at purchasing power parity (PPP) rates. This is down from 46 percent just after World War II, but up slightly over the past decade due to the strong dollar and stock market boom of the mid-1990s

[Fred Hapgood]

I fear you are missing the point. Of course there are limits on how much enforcement we can do, but we are not there yet. In my hometown we have employers who have openly stopped hiring blacks because they prefer illegal immigrants from Mexico (and are quite open about it).

I'm sure there are some easy busts out there, but by and large illegals do not work for General Motors. Their jobs come precisely from the sectors of the economy -- painting, cleaning, yard work, baby sitting, handyman --where enforcement would be toughest, which is another word for expensive. Of course with enough flying raids on middle class homes you could bust enough nannies and floor sanders to cut the problem in half, though probably not more than that. (I read that one traffic stop in six turns up a driver with no driver's license, and of course the enforcement of traffic laws is way more intense than anything we are talking about here.) Whether half would satisfy anyone is unclear. Anyway, it would cost a lot of money. INS agents do not come cheap. You have to decide whether there are more more important priorities out there, like the abysmal state of our federal finances, the tidal wave of entitlements, the energy transition, or health care. Is illegal immigration a worse problem than those? I know what my choice is. I'll respect yours if you respect mine.

[Fred Hapgood]

It is clear to me,you guys have never raised money, which is a big part of understanding the issue.

You use these ad hominem arguments a lot. I'm just curious. Do they only work one way, or do the rest of us get to post stuff about the failings in your personality and biography too?

[John Konop]

Fred,

You will not answer the question, just put me down why ?Could it be a guy like me understands the rules of the game better than you?

[Fred Hapgood]

You will not answer the question, just put me down why ?

Ad hominem arguments are over the line. Why are they over the line? Because once you start calling names the other guys start calling names back, and in email there is no way to shut anyone up. The name calling goes on and on and gets worse and worse. And speculating about what type of person I am is name-calling, as you would see soon enough if I started speculating about what type of person you are.

However just this once I will participate in the game: I founded my own business 35 years ago and it is still going strong.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6386&exhibition=7&u=99|10|...

Eastern Towhee Singing
New York City--Central Park, Nutters Battery.

Yes; but 35 years is only the beginning :)

[John Konop]

Fred,

What does that have to do with my point about ROI.Or you not answering the original quetions. Are you telling me you went to a bank and got LC,Bl... with no plan for re-payment.

[Fred Hapgood]

What does that have to do with my point about ROI.

I thought you meant the point about being the type of person who raises money.

I have no idea how important the trade deficit is or how it will wind down (and neither does anyone else). But the deficit has nothing to do with the thread here, which is or was why so many Americans don't worry more about illegal immigration.

[clinton]

please send me this particular page to my e-mail box