No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ...


  • #2


    • #3
      Senate Bill is a COMPROMISE.

      Meaning it's not "My way or highway", but a Bill which is crafted with understanding of the various interests , with the intention of finding a middle ground ,that would allow to impose stricter laws and law enforcement along with accepting reality of 12 million poeople who government can't b deport, and who should be given some legal status to stay here under color of law (with various length of stay, depending on time lived in US, ties and etc).

      If any pro-immigrant makes argument against Senate Bill (while ignoring HR4437, and also ignoring the fact that it's impossible to pass IMFA-86 kind of legislation under current political climate), so if any "pro-immigrant" makes argument against Senate Bill it makes me wonder whOse interests they actually advance?



      [COLOR:BLUE][B]When the creations of a genius collide with the mind of a layman, and produce an empty sound, there is little doubt as to which is at fault.

      One day it will have to be officially admitted that


      • #4
        HR4437 is a very bad bill, for sure, creating a police state.

        But if you are so eager to criticise Senate Bill (S.2611), please tell me, what better bill can you realistically expect to be passed under current political climate?

        [COLOR:BLUE][B]When the creations of a genius collide with the mind of a layman, and produce an empty sound, there is little doubt as to which is at fault.

        One day it will have to be officially admitted that


        • #5
          First, note that illegal aliens and their supporters are hypocrites in calling for "fair play" when their actions are inherently unfair--unfair to Americans who democratically voted for the Congress which set the immigration laws which illegal aliens are violating, and unfair to would-be legal immigrants who now have longer waits and less likelihood of being able to come. There is no "human right" to immigrate to the U.S. (or anywhere else), and there certainly aren't "civil rights" for noncitizens beyond those that citizens choose to grant to them. By definition, civil rights are rights belonging to citizens.

          The House bill hardly creates a "police state". Mexico, for example, already has penalties for illegal immigration that are comparable to our "felony", and I have yet to hear IT called a police state. Plenty of other things, but not a police state. Mexico also requires a secure photo ID to vote in its elections. Nor do most of its states accept its own matricula consular as proof of identity. Again, hypocrisy.

          Having secure ID, such as verifiable Social Security card or driver's license, is NOT a police state, nor is it the same thing as having a national ID card which may be checked at any time for any reason. Ask yourself, what is the point of having a Social Security card or driver's license IF IT'S NOT SECURE, i.e., if you can't be sure the person presenting it is the person to whom it was issued? In fact, credit bureaus and marketers such as credit card companies already have tremendous information about Americans--information which they can use pretty much as they want because they are private, and which we give them voluntarily. By the way, aliens in this country are ALREADY required to carry proof of their status with them at all times, something that was brought up again after 9/11 but has never really been enforced.


          • #6
            *****--If anyone's so concerned about "human rights" for illegals, they should be worrying about providing human rights (and civil rights) for them in the countries that they come from.


            • #7
              Let me see now--if we import the entire population of Mexico, how can we not become Mexico?

              I doubt that "felonization" will happen, but it's very likely that IF any bill is passed it will require enforcement first. And what illegal alien advocates are pushing for is complete amnesty--continued and complete nonenforcement of even the milder laws that already exist, and amnesty for everyone here, which is what created the problems we now have.

              What illegal alien advocates had better learn is when you push too far, you risk losing everything. What happens to illegal aliens largely depends on the GRACE of Americans, not some imaginary "right" to live here that they're trying to create.

              By the way, we already GIVE illegal aliens human rights: emergency medical care, basic education, informing them of Miranda rights in their language... But there is NO right, human or civil, for noncitizens to live in this country.


              • #8
                Iperson--Secure ID cards are part of the bill you're complaining about, and hence part of the "police state". Also, you're jumping to conclusions--I have lived in the Middle East, in Egypt (which has had secret police since heaven knows when) and in the UAE which is not a police state but an oligarchy run by sheikhs whose word is law. Also, it's significant that YOU are not a lifelong resident of the U.S., or you'd realize that what is going on now, with a total disregard for our laws, is more of a threat to our democracy and our way of life than a "police state". Pres. Bush's attitude that HE can disregard the laws passed by our duly elected representatives, use "signing statements", and have his minions (Gonza***, Chertoff) do the same turns this into something far closer to the Emirates than I would ever care to see. In fact, you could even consider such actions the very police state that you fear. Likewise the idea that policy should be set by mobs of illegal aliens in the streets and their supporters. That's mobocracy, not democracy. They can protest all they want, but at the end of the day, what matters is citizens at the ballot boxes in free elections choosing the people they want to represent them. Mobs demanding legalization and citizenship as "human rights" had better think again. They're exhibiting a massive sense of entitlement which does not set well with many Americans.


                • #9
                  Yes, I am very smart. But I'm also a citizen, and a lifelong resident of the U.S., and I know better than most illegal aliens and immigrants how our political process works in reality, and how illegal immigration is being perceived by the "silent majority" that isn't being so silent about it anymore.

                  Also, bear in mind--citizens' confidence in the economy has been going down with every lay off and interest rate increase, despite the purported good economic news. Now that the economy is really turning down, and there are even talks of recession, Congress will find it even harder to justify "guest workers" and spending on expensive amnesty programs to the satisfaction of the voters.


                  • #10
                    When economy is down, houses don't get built so illegal alien jobs in construction go bye-bye. When economy is down, people spend less on eating out, so jobs for illegal alien bus boys, waiters, and cooks go bye-bye. When economy is down, people lose jobs, so don't need and can't pay illegal alien nannies and yard workers. When economy is down, people (and businesses) cut back spending on IT, so H1-Bs are not needed. When Americans are worried about their jobs or their kids' jobs, or see friends and family laid off, losing houses (mortgage defaults are drastically up) they don't vote for Congresspeople who support expensive amnesty programs and they don't vote for "guest worker" programs. On the other hand, building prisons for illegal aliens and creating government jobs to build fences and protect the borders creates jobs. In fact, a big growth area for jobs in the past couple of years has been government. A couple of $billion for enforcement, which is what the Congressional Budget Office estimates HR 4433 would take is far more affordable than $127 BILLION over ten years that the CBO says the Senate amnesty would cost--minimum. Amnesty costs after the ten years would actually go up as legalized illegal aliens, many among the working poor and therefore eligible for welfare, sponsor THEIR relatives.


                    • #11
                      A couple billion, that would be just about $182 per immigrant. But all those immigrants would have to be prosecuted as felons. When you consider the cost of public defense for a class B felony to average $1500, well, the figures don't make much sense.


                      • #12
                        You forget about your government taking a job away from you, not the illegal aliens. Check out how many companies outsource and why the government allows that.
                        The US does not allow outsourcing. Second, have you read Alliance Captial's annual report on manufacturing jobs worldwide. If you have, places like India, China, and Brazil, traditional places where outsourcing is allegedly occuring, have negative growth in manufacturing jobs. Mexico has a very little to zero growth. The primary culprit is technology. Immigration laws have some measure as well for it is easier for an employer to hire a contractor outside the US than to bring a qualified candidate into the US under the current immigration circumstances. Senate Bill 2611 does allow this and makes it easier for employers to bring the much needed labor into the US.

                        Fortunately I have a home in booming EU.
                        Hate to say this, but the EU is not booming with double digit unemployment rate staggering PPI inflation offset by governemnt subsidies, and stagnant consumer spending, if you look at long term results over the past several years.

                        And if they build jails for illegal women and children here and if they build the police state here, you finally are going to achieve your dream come true. Only white anglo saxons are going to remain here, jobless and unable to make ends meet. Everything is going to be outsourced outside of the US. Your country is heading towards the brink of not only recession but permanent on
                        Not if I can help it. Yes, Nativists, immigration restrictionists, and Paleoconservatives are pressing the agenda, but this has happened before and everytime it has been temporary. The US has had a very minor recession. The main problem is that everyone wants it to be like the 1950's or 1990's, depending on how old your are. The economy is very efficient, but the core laborers have become grossly complacent in what they should achieve. Europe has the same problem BTW. Ever read "Camp of the Saints?"

                        We'll see you begging to open the EU doors.
                        Knock, knock! Who's there? American citizen looking of a job.
                        Oh, hi, thanks but no thanks
                        The EU is one of the worst protectionist developed economic systems in the world. It will only last a short while. This is why the US must develop strong economic ties in Asia with support in Latin America. Leave the EU to rot.
                        "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre


                        • #13
                          When economy is down, houses don't get built so illegal alien jobs in construction go bye-bye. When economy is down, people spend less on eating out, so jobs for illegal alien bus boys, waiters, and cooks go bye-bye. When economy is down, people lose jobs, so don't need and can't pay illegal alien nannies and yard workers. When economy is down, people (and businesses) cut back spending on IT, so H1-Bs are not needed. When Americans are worried about their jobs or their kids' jobs, or see friends and family laid off, losing houses (mortgage defaults are drastically up) they don't vote for Congresspeople who support expensive amnesty programs and they don't vote for "guest worker" programs. On the other hand, building prisons for illegal aliens and creating government jobs to build fences and protect the borders creates jobs. In fact, a big growth area for jobs in the past couple of years has been government. A couple of $billion for enforcement, which is what the Congressional Budget Office estimates HR 4433 would take is far more affordable than $127 BILLION over ten years that the CBO says the Senate amnesty would cost--minimum. Amnesty costs after the ten years would actually go up as legalized illegal aliens, many among the working poor and therefore eligible for welfare, sponsor THEIR relatives.
                          The CBO, GAO, and JCT have done studies on entitlement programs which is estimated at incrasing twice as much as inflation or more, particularily with the baby booomers lasting long years and a decline in the fertility rate. This is why it is very important to eliminate entitlement programs altogether or graatly reduced the programs to mare affordable levels. That way, most people will not have that safety net called welfare but can actually get educated and work while families would take care of each other, not the government being used as surrogate schools, a crutch, or anything else.

                          HR4437 has more flaws in it than a proposal by Hugo Chavez to solve the world's problems. Enforcement only provisions is not the way to go and will make the US look more like the Soviet Union or Cuba than anything else, despite the rhetoric you suggest. It has eliminated the difference between honest mistake and gross negligence while violating certain Constitutional provisions. It would also make it illegal for those who were without status in the past but now have legal status which the bill pre-dates the difinition of "illegal alien."

                          Senate Bill is a compromise by balancing enforcement and providing a guest worker program for those who are already here. However, I do believe automatic citizenship should be eliminated in the guest worker program. It is an anti-immigration bill masquarading as an immigration enforcement bill.

                          The bill does nothing resolving the deficits of those who want to come legally and makes the US vulnerable to Australia, Canada, Japan, China, Philippines, Singapore, and Latin American countries which would take the highly educated immigrants to directly compete with the US. And with the US current educational system in disrepair, you are digging your own grave.
                          "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre


                          • #14
                            And you are wrong here. The US not only allows outsourcing but doesnt do anything to stop it. Every single big company is outsourcing jobs. Your every single piece of clothing you own comes from outsourced jobs. Ebay outsources its employess too.
                            I am amazed you don't know it??
                            Myths and Realities: The False Crisis of Outsourcing
                            by Tim Kane, Ph.D., Brett D. Schaefer, and Alison Acosta Fraser
                            Backgrounder #1757

                            May 13, 2004 |
                            Print PDF
                            | Email to A Friend

                            The American economy is never at rest. New technologies and trade links have expanded America's economy for centuries, making historically impressive economic growth seem routine. A side effect of high growth expectations is hypersensitivity to the slightest downturn. Even the relatively mild 2001 recession brought with it the undying myths of failure, stagnation, and the internal contradictions of capitalism, all summarized in one word: outsourcing.

                            Outsourcing is a new variant of the timeless assertion that capitalism is good for capital (greedy businessmen) at the expense of labor (hard-working Americans). However, this rehash of liberal populism is not based on sound economics. As stated by University of Chicago professor Daniel W. Drezner, "[B]elieving that offshore outsourcing causes unemployment is the economic equivalent of believing that the sun revolves around the earth: intuitively compelling but clearly wrong."[1]

                            One can only hope that an examination of the facts will kill off the following myths before policymakers overreact.

                            Myth#1: America is losing jobs.

                            Fact: More Americans are employed than ever before.

                            The notion of anemic job growth during the recovery rests entirely on one measure of employment: total non-farm payroll employment. However, the U.S. Department of Labor's payroll survey has problems capturing a changing workforce[2] as well as a history of large revisions, which are announced months and even years after the initial data are released. While the payroll survey has a vast sample size, its sample quality remains a concern due to overcounts of job changers and miscounts of other workers.

                            Most labor measures show real gains over the past three years and even some record highs. Real earnings are up; the rate of unemployment is low; jobless claims are 10 percent below the 25-year average; and the household survey"”the only direct employment survey of Americans"”indicates that 2.2 million more Americans are employed now than were employed before the recession ended in November 2001. Never before have this many Americans"”138.6 million to be exact"”been employed.[3]

                            Myth#2: The low unemployment rate reflects a discouraged workforce.

                            Fact: Unemployment is dropping, despite a surging labor force.

                            The latest U.S. unemployment rate has fallen steadily over the past few months and is now 5.6 percent, below the average of 5.9 percent for 1959–2003 and well below the average rate of 6.3 percent between 1973 and 2003.[4] Moreover, the U.S. enjoys far better unemployment rates than other developed nations. The average 2003 unemployment rate was 7.1 percent for the 30 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.[5] Recent 2004 data show that unemployment is 8 percent in the Euro area (9.6 percent in France and 10.3 percent in Germany) and 7.4 percent in Canada.[6]

                            The assertion that unemployment is low in the U.S. only because many discouraged workers have abandoned the labor force is incorrect. The unemployment rate that includes discouraged workers is 5.9 percent: only 0.3 percent higher than the official rate,[7] which is no higher than usual. In fact, the U.S. labor force has grown by 2.3 million people since November 2001. In other words, the unemployment rate illustrates real gains because the ratio of unemployed Americans to the total labor force is declining, even though the size of the labor force is growing.[8]

                            Myth #3: Outsourcing will cause a net loss of 3.3 million jobs.

                            Fact: Outsourcing represents less than 1 percent of gross job turnover and brings net gains to the economy.

                            Over the past decade, America has lost an average of 7.71 million jobs every quarter.[9] The commonly cited Forrester Research prediction of jobs lost to outsourcing estimates that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced between 2000 and 2015"”an average of 55,000 jobs outsourced per quarter.[10] According to these numbers, at worst, jobs lost to outsourcing represent only 0.71 percent of all jobs lost per quarter as part of normal turnover in the economy.

                            Other consulting firms have jumped on the bandwagon, but the author of the original Forrester study "now says his numbers were hyped"[11] and expresses frustration that the issue has spun out of context. The context, of course, is the net positive impact of trade and technology. America has averaged gross gains of 8.11 million jobs per quarter over the past decade"”an average net increase of 400,000 jobs every quarter, swamping the impact of outsourcing.[12]

                            The new interest in outsourcing is producing a wave of new research, and the overwhelming consensus vindicates the position espoused by Greg Mankiw, renowned Harvard economist and current chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, that trade-induced labor flows are a net positive for the U.S. economy.

                            First, the gains of trade have been shown to vastly outweigh the costs, even when job dislocations are factored into account.

                            Second, the U.S. economy is going through a permanent structural change, so the labor force dislocations are more severe than during normal recessions, which means the productivity gains are higher as well. The data support the theory here, with the U.S. economy experiencing record high gains in productivity.

                            Finally, even net jobs are gained due to outsourcing, as emphasized by a recent Global Insight study:

                            While global IT software and service outsourcing displaces some IT workers, total employment in the United States increases as the benefits ripple through the economy. The incremental economic activity that follows offshore IT outsourcing created over 90,000 net new jobs in 2003 and is expected to create 317,000 net new jobs in 2008.[13]

                            Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.

                            An underlying myth is that economic freedom is a "race to the bottom" in which American workers must accept lower wages and fewer benefits in order to compete with low-cost labor in other countries.

                            Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.

                            Countries that embrace economic freedom"”including freedom of trade, labor, and capital"”experience stronger economic growth than those that seek to thwart the market through regulatory hurdles and policy restrictions. The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom confirms a strong, positive relationship between economic freedom and per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Moreover, average GDP growth rates increase as a country's economic freedom score improves, as measured in the Index.[14]

                            In other words, policies that are antithetical to economic freedom, including trying to protect the jobs of a few workers from outsourcing, will inevitably retard economic growth and lead to fewer jobs in the future. Trade freedom is one aspect of economic freedom, of course, and the U.S. Trade Representative confirms that the benefits of free trade are staggering:

                            Last year alone, hidden import taxes cost American consumers $18 billion. Duty-free trade would eliminate these hidden costs and lower prices for consumers. While this proposal would offer substantial benefits to all Americans, it would particularly help low-income families. A recent study by the Progressive Policy Institute found that cutting U.S. import taxes especially benefits single-parent, low-income families, who typically pay a higher proportion of their income on import taxes than other households. A University of Michigan study found that the U.S. economy would expand by $95 billion as a result of tariff-free trade"”contributing to job-creation and higher wages.[15]

                            A case in point is America's experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been a net boon for the U.S. economy and American workers. Employment in the U.S. increased by 20 million jobs between 1993 and 2000. In the 10 years since NAFTA's enactment, real hourly compensation has increased by 14.7 percent, including a 14.4 percent increase in manufacturing wages.[16] Trade among the three NAFTA nations has more than doubled, helping to lower prices for all consumers.

                            While free trade can cause localized pain for a few workers, the overall gains are overwhelming. The myth of lower wages due to increased trade is wrong on theory and wrong on the facts.

                            Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.

                            An underlying myth is that trade is a zero-sum game in which prices do not matter.

                            Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.

                            In 1997, President Bill Clinton "advocated outsourcing as a major budget-balancing tool and the National Performance Review urged agencies to consider farming out common computing tasks wherever feasible."[17] Clinton was not calling for job losses; instead, he recognized that efficiency in government meant a lower burden on the taxpayer and that private firms can often provide a service at a lower cost with higher quality than the government can.

                            The larger point is that "outsourcing" was never about exporting jobs. Outsourcing, from a business perspective, simply means having a component sourced externally from the firm that sells the final product. This leaves the business free to focus its resources on their highest and best use, producing and selling its products or services.

                            For example, a typical American company needs office supplies, from pens to computers. Yet producing these materials within the company makes little sense. An economy in which each company produced from scratch all of its own office supplies, uniforms, food, and infrastructure would be extremely inefficient.

                            In recent years, the trend toward outsourcing was viewed correctly as a positive evolution of business practices toward nimbleness and flexibility. Old jobs can be outsourced domestically, or to foreign firms, but technology often replaces the old job, with machines replacing workers. This is like the automation of farm labor, which has been replaced largely by tractors and other agricultural equipment over the past two centuries.

                            The result of this drive toward efficiency is visible to all Americans in the form of lower prices and a higher standard of living. For example, computers and televisions today cost a fraction of their cost in 1980, thanks to a relentless process of efficiency-driven change.

                            Foreign outsourcing is undoubtedly taking place and may increase, but it goes hand in hand with higher wages, lower prices, higher profits, and enhanced U.S. competitiveness. Punishing firms that outsource would only erode standards of living by raising the prices Americans have to pay.

                            Myth #6: Outsourcing is a one-way street.

                            Fact: Outsourcing is a two-way street.

                            There are currently 6.4 million jobs in the U.S. in which the employer is a foreign company. The rate at which these "insourced" jobs are growing is faster that the rate at which jobs in general are being lost. According to the Organisation for International Investment (OFII), "Over the last 15 years, manufacturing 'insourced' jobs grew by 82%"”at an annual rate of 5.5%; and manufacturing 'outsourced' jobs grew by 23 percent"”at an annual rate of 1.5%."[18]

                            Moreover, insourced jobs are often higher paying than those that are outsourced"”e.g., the 4,300 workers at the BMW factory in South Carolina and the more than 14,000 employed at Honda plants in Ohio. Senator Mitch McConnell (R–KY) brought these facts to the Senate floor on March 4, citing data from the OFII and pointing out that every state has thousands of insourced workers. Michigan has 244,200. Ohio has 242,200. Even Idaho has 13,900 insourced jobs.[19]

                            Indeed, the nature of economic development means that while some lower-paying jobs may move overseas, higher-paying jobs move in. A study by the Institute for International Economics (IIE) found that:

                            [O]f the 12 IT occupations that earned more than $50,000 in 2002, 75 percent increased their employment from 1999 to 2002. IT jobs earning more than $50,000 expanded by 184,000 from 1999 to 2002, of which computer software engineers earning approximately $75,000 per year accounted for 115,000 jobs.[20]

                            The IIE also punctures the myth that white-collar jobs are fleeing American shores in droves:

                            The majority of US jobs, projected by the most widely quoted industry report on the issue, to be lost in occupational categories threatened by offshore outsourcing pays less than the US average wage, suggesting that many of these jobs may face medium-term elimination through technological change, regardless of whether they are outsourced to offshore locations or not.

                            Some IT occupations have declined, but the declines are concentrated in lowskilled IT occupations, and in occupations where economy-wide trends dominate (managers and manufacturing). This mitigates the overall macroeconomic impact to the US economy of such job losses.[21]

                            Myth #7: American manufacturing jobs are moving to poor nations"”especially China.

                            Fact: Nations are losing manufacturing jobs worldwide"”even China.

                            U.S. manufacturing jobs are down by 2.45 million in the past three years. The zero-sum view of the world imagines that these jobs went somewhere else"”specifically that American jobs were exported to a country with lower wages.

                            However, America is not alone in experiencing declines in manufacturing jobs. U.S. manufacturing employment declined by 11 percent between 1995 and 2002, which is identical to the average world decline according to a study by Alliance Capital Management.[22] Contrary to the myth, China's losses were even sharper: 15 percent of its industrial jobs over the same period.

                            The real culprits for declining numbers of manufacturing jobs in all countries are increasing productivity, capital investment, and technological innovation. Although manufacturing jobs have declined in America over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing output has jumped by 38 percent.[23] Today, the U.S. manufacturing sector produces more than the entire Chinese economy.

                            Trade should not be blamed for what is really a technological process, especially because America has experienced this job-winnowing productivity trend for decades. Current job losses of 2.45 million in manufacturing are nearly identical to the sharp hit that manufacturing experienced between 1979 and 1982. Employment recovered then, but only when new companies created new jobs in new sectors.

                            Myth #8: Only greedy corporations benefit from outsourcing.

                            Fact: Everyone benefits from outsourcing.

                            Critics err seriously in trying to divorce benefits for corporations from benefits accruing to all Americans. Outsourcing is about keeping costs down in response to competition. As costs decline, every consumer benefits. The vast benefits from lower costs are usually overlooked because the benefits are diffused throughout the economy.

                            In contrast, the much smaller cost of jobs lost to outsourcing is sharply focused. In other words, the relative few who lose their jobs to outsourcing are far more vocal than the millions of consumers who save a few hundred dollars each year due to lower prices for such things as computers, cell phones, and coffee.

                            Early studies found that the gains of trade outweighed losses by 50 to 100 times. More recent studies also take the serious matter of job dislocations into account. A 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest includes dislocation costs in its calculations, concluding that the benefits of trade outweigh its costs by 100 percent, or 2 to 1.[24] Overall, free trade saves American consumers billions of dollars.

                            Myth #9: The government can protect American workers from outsourcing.

                            The underlying myth is that free trade is not fair trade because fair trade can "protect" American companies and workers.

                            Fact: Protectionism is isolationism and has a history of failure.

                            Lawmakers have a longstanding record of pandering to specific interest groups on all issues, but the economic damage can become acute when the issue is trade. Misleading protectionist rhetoric fuels policies that are designed to placate these special interests and should be called what it really is: economic isolationism. One example is the recently imposed"”and later rescinded"”steel tariffs, which raised steel prices for all U.S. manufactures, hindered competitiveness, destroyed jobs domestically, and violated trade agreements.[25]

                            A recent flurry of anti-outsourcing proposals in Congress and at least 36 states threatens businesses that engage in free trade and investment.[26] Aside from inviting retaliation, clamping down on the ability of U.S. firms to open subsidiaries abroad will simply erode their competitiveness.

                            Economic isolationism is not new, and it has been an abject failure whenever adopted. A well-known example is the Smoot–Hawley tariff, enacted by Congress in June 1930 to reduce imports and protect American businesses and jobs.[27] Smoot–Hawley did halve imports between 1929 and 1933, but exports also declined by half over that period.[28] Subsequently, the rate of unemployment grew from 3.2 percent in 1929 to 8.7 percent in 1930 and peaked at 24.9 percent in 1933. U.S. efforts to constrict outsourcing can be expected to meet similar barriers among U.S. trade partners, harming Americans and the global economy.

                            It is not in America's interest to fall victim to hostile trade rhetoric. Bills before Congress and the states that restrict outsourcing are sending exactly the wrong image: a wealthy America that jealously guards against its prosperity and freedom leaking out to the Third World. This hostility only breeds resentment against America and makes efforts to adopt greater economic freedom around the world more difficult.

                            Myth #10: Unemployment benefits should be extended beyond 26 weeks.

                            Fact: Jobless benefits are already working.

                            The median duration of unemployment is 9.5 weeks, which means that the vast majority of workers who can file for jobless benefits are fully covered by the existing unemployment insurance program of 26 weeks. Calls for extensions are inappropriate, given that new weekly jobless claims are down by more than 100,000 in the past year (10 percent below the long-term average) and continuing claims are down by 700,000.

                            The goal of unemployment insurance is to help Americans make the transition to a new job, and it is working. Extending the standard 26 weeks of coverage to 39 weeks would cost billions of dollars and do little to help the workforce reorient to new sectors.

                            What Should Be Done

                            America's workers deserve a more informative, less partisan debate on outsourcing. Outsourcing's negative impact on the economy and American employment has been greatly exaggerated, while its benefits have been almost entirely ignored.

                            The real problem is not trade, investment, or low wages overseas. The real culprit is not labor-related at all, but the reduced competitiveness of the U.S. business environment. Instead of focusing on the non-issue of outsourcing, Congress and the Administration should cooperate to strengthen the U.S. economy and benefit individual workers and all Americans by:

                            * Ending lawsuit abuse. Frivolous lawsuits cost the U. S. economy between $180 billion[29] and $233 billion in 2003,[30] which is enough to pay 1.8 million to 2.3 million additional six-figure salaries. According to one study, this is up 13.3 percent over 2002, following a 14.4 percent increase over 2001, and strongly suggests continued double-digit growth unless steps are taken to end frivolous and abusive lawsuits.[31]

                            Congress should take steps to reform class-action lawsuits and restrain the growth of medical malpractice lawsuits. Since one-third of the increase in tort costs is driven by increasingly broad asbestos awards, lawmakers should limit damages for non-sick claimants. Businesses pay these costs in three ways beyond payment of tort claims: through increasing product and general liability insurance, higher employee health-care benefits due to medical liability costs, and legal fees. The burden these costs impose on the economy is more than two times greater than the burden on some major U.S. trading partners (e.g., Japan and Canada), putting American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.[32]

                            * Eliminating overly burdensome regulations. Regulatory compliance costs the U.S. economy nearly $850 billion a year,[33] approaching the amount Americans pay in federal income tax. While some regulation is necessary"”such as rules to protect against fraud"”much is unneeded and overly burdensome. As the Council of Economic Advisers has observed:

                            [T]he absence of competition, enforceable property rights, or an ability to form mutually advantageous contracts can result in inefficiency and lower living standards. In some cases government intervention in a market, for example through regulation, can create gains for society by remedying any shortcomings in the market's operation. Poorly designed or unnecessary regulations, however, can actually create new problems or make society worse off by damaging parts of the market that do work.[34]

                            Congress should strengthen the review process for all proposed regulations, with stricter guidelines for conducting and evaluating cost-benefit analyses and greater resources for reviewers to critically examine the effects of proposed regulations. Policymakers should target regulatory reforms in areas ranging from burdensome telecommunications rules that slow progress toward next-generation Internet technologies, to unnecessarily costly environmental regulations that make economic growth difficult, to outdated workplace regulations that discourage job creation.[35]

                            Simplifying and flattening the tax code. America's tax code is overly complex and incredibly inefficient. Special tax breaks to politically connected businesses, groups, and voting blocs have resulted in a bewilderingly complex mess that forces corporations and individuals to spend at least $194 billion each year to comply with the ever-changing tax code.[36] Adopting a simpler and flatter tax code would eliminate the need for this waste of time and money, free billions of dollars for more efficient uses, and remove incentives against saving that leave many workers with little cushion during hard times.[37]

                            Moreover, eliminating counterproductive tax policies that undermine U.S. business competitiveness, such as America's policy of worldwide taxation and reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate (the second highest in the industrialized world), would greatly benefit American businesses, and hence American jobs.[38] President Bush's tax cuts move the tax code in the right direction and should be made permanent, but substantial gains remain unrealized.[39]

                            Ensuring affordable and reliable energy supplies. While consumers readily complain about increases at the gas pump and in their utility bills, the high costs of energy also hurt America's employers. Manufacturers alone consume 30 percent of electricity and 40 percent of natural gas.[40] Thus, national energy policies directly affect the cost of American goods and the ability of companies to create jobs.

                            Congress should remove mandates that force the utility industry to use power from renewable producers (e.g., wind) and instead allow the market to equate real demand and supply and find the right role for the renewable energy industries. Likewise, policymakers should reform the current command-and-control regulatory scheme of the Clean Air Act and replace it with a market-based approach that sets standards and allows the electric industry the flexibility to meet those standards in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible while simultaneously enhancing the nation's air quality.

                            Congress should also address the needs of the electricity grid by eliminating restrictive regulations that discourage investment"”such as the Public Utilities Holding Company Act"”and utilize innovative transmission pricing incentives. Finally, Congress should increase domestic supplies of energy by opening up access to reserves that are currently off limits or restricted.


                            Outsourcing is not a credible threat to the U.S. economy, and objective research is quickly debunking its many underlying myths. At worst, outsourcing is a politically charged trigger word that has the potential to advance seriously flawed economic policy. For example, if state governments begin to bar contracts with firms that subcontract any work overseas, they will hamstring the competitiveness of U.S. firms.

                            Policymakers cannot stop the process of outsourcing any more than they can stop gravity, but they can scare off profitable U.S. companies. Businesses survive on slim profit margins, and threatening competitiveness will be felt immediately where it hurts the most"”in U.S. jobs and salaries.

                            American companies lead the world in developing sophisticated global supply chains in close coordination with worldwide trading partners. Any disruption to the efficiency of that supply-chain network will have a negative ripple effect. By criticizing and regulating multinational companies that trade, invest, outsource, and insource, Congress is paving the way to major disruptions in efficiency that will lead simultaneously to both inflationary and recessionary pressures.

                            Instead, policymakers should address the underlying reasons that would induce a company from any country to site a business on foreign soil instead of in the U.S. In a global economy with global competition, the cost environment of taxes and regulation looms larger than ever. Although America has the world's most productive and skilled workforce, its high tax rates, tax complexity, burdensome regulations, and frivolous lawsuits discourage job creation.

                            The question is not the outsourcing of jobs, but the forcing out of jobs through inept policy. Congress and states would be wise to continue America's tradition of free and open markets.

                            "”Timothy Kane, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, Brett D. Schaefer is Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics, and Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
                            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre


                            • #15
                              So why do most Asian and European countries out of the EU flocking the borders and paying huge amounts of money to get in?? Havent heard those stories yet have you?
                              There is much bigger push on EU borders right now than you have the problem with Mexico dear.
                              Read up on it
                              The EU has had a backlash at immigration with far worse consequences than the US has had. The fiasco in Belgium where it stripped the citizenship of a immigrant, but later reversed its decision and the anti-immigration laws currently on the books. England has introduced legislation to reform its immigration laws, but it also has met with stiffed resistence. I have no idea where you have received such, especially if you are muslim. Also keep in mind, the EU has placed tariffs on some Chinese exports with intetntions on placing more tariffs on additional products in the near future. THe EU is more afraid of a Bull Market in China than it is more worried about the US.

                              No. Have not read the book.
                              The US is in big recession already and heading for worse.
                              Surprised again you don't know i
                              You should read the book. It will give you, at least, a little humility about the EU and how anti-immigrant it really is.

                              The US is not in a recession. To be in one, the US GDP will have to have 3 consecutive negative growths. It has not had that since 2001. In reality, the financial services, health industry, construction, and mid-tech and high tech service industries, with the exception of IT, have had substantail growth. Manufacturing has increased its capacity and productivity, public service industries have had modest growth, but most of that was regained from the losses in the 1990's, and other industries have had mixed results. The US economy is best described mixed, but not in a recession.

                              Wow! So afraid of EU, are we? That sums up all my points
                              The EU is very protectionist. The last time the world had a Eurocentric view, the world was engulfed into two world wars. Befor that 75% of the population were associated with colonies where the nation had a net nagative outflow of its natural resources. The US has had a very minor role in colonialization between 1898 and the 1920's. Most of the problems in Africa and Latin America can be directly or indirectly attributed to the harsh colonial rule by France, Germany, UK, Belgium, Russia, Spain, and Portugual. The worst of the Lot was France especially when De Gualle was President. The US should have never endorsed De Gualle in WWII.
                              "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre


                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily


                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board



                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation


                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW



                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us



                              Immigration Daily