Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   8/25/2015

Immigrant job gains—native-born losses

Another example of mainstream news (MSN) complicity with Democrats is their favorable treatment of Emperor Obama’s unilateral, unconstitutional immigration executive actions (in case you forgot, he said 22 times that he couldn’t just set aside immigration laws passed by Congress; he said he wasn’t “an emperor”). I’ve cited the reluctance of the MSN, and even local news, to honestly inform Americans about the many crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

They offer us similarly agenda-driven “news” by putting a positive spin on the effect of border-crossing and visa-overstaying workers on our economy and employment. In “Obama immigration plan good, not great for economy” (AP, Chico Enterprise-Record, 11/23/14), the writer might have discovered the fact that immigrants were taking American jobs and driving wages down, which is the actual case.

No, he instead asserted, “President Barack Obama’s expansive executive action on immigration is good for the U.S. economy—just not as good as partnering with Congress on broader reforms.” Further into the article it is explained that, while Obama’s actions would be a “boost to labor income by $6.8 billion, helping to generate 160,000 new jobs and $2.5 billion in additional tax revenues…Their economic potential is being held back” (Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, UCLA professor). Get it? If only Congressional Republicans would pass complete amnesty, the economic benefits would be even greater. Does that make sense to you?

If only illegal immigrants would arrive with qualifications to be university professors, reporters or editors, or news media employees—and work for a fraction of current wages and salaries. Am I being cynical to suspect that such cheerleaders for massive, illegal immigration might suddenly find it has a detrimental impact on their respective professions?

“Still, any gains from the executive action would be modest in the $17 trillion economy.” Yes, modest in the big picture, but it’s pretty darn significant if an immigrant, legal or otherwise, is filling your job, or if you haven’t had a raise because the labor market is skewed towards the lower compensation that visa-carrying foreigners accept.

The elites of academia and MSN advance the “immigrants are great for America” spin, while avoiding the down side of immigration—particularly the illegal flood of recent years. These elites are just doing their well-paid jobs, forming everyone else’s opinions, without any fear of being replaced. They also have the satisfaction of being among the progressive “group think” leaders of America—but leading America where?

As if to double down on using the “news” to influence readers’ thoughts in the preferred direction, another AP article in the same paper presented us with “Winners and losers under Obama’s immigration plan” (not labeled analysis or opinion, mind you). If you think that the reporter researched and discovered the possible, even likely, downsides to providing legalization for illegal immigrants—the costs for schooling, health care, subsidies, downward pressure on wages, and the public money needed to support jobless Americans—you would be mistaken.

No, that “news” story regaled the reader with anecdotes of illegal “winners” who will become part of American’s economy without bothering to go through our immigration requirements. Those are juxtaposed with sob stories of unfortunates who won’t be legalized although they crossed the border, or over-stayed their visas, just like the “winners.”

Perhaps you think I’m just blowing my own spin; you would be wrong. In “Does illegal immigration explain the disconnect between jobs and wages?” (June 9), John Hinderaker observes, “After seven years of ‘recovery,’ the jobs picture is finally beginning to brighten a bit…economists are puzzled. If hiring is picking up, why are wages and GDP stagnant, or even shrinking?” He refers to Tyler Durden’s writing, at ZeroHedge.com, for a likely answer to the lack of wage growth: immigration.

Durden’s focus on immigration is only the most recent analysis to factor that phenomenon into our employment doldrums. Look up “CIS study: All growth in employment since 2000 has gone to immigrants” (6/26/2014, NationalReview.com and 6/28/2014, Powerlineblog.com), “Where did the jobs go?” (12/20/2014), and “Net U.S. job gains since the recession have gone to foreign-born workers” (2/07/2015, Brietbart.com).

For over a year, the answer has been in front of our faces in the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which conveniently separates foreign-born employment from native-born employment in America. Durden: “But the biggest surprise came from Table 7, where the BLS reveals the number of ‘foreign born workers’ used in the Household Survey. In May this number increased to 25.098 million, the second highest in history, a monthly jump of 279,000…this would mean that there were just 1,000 native-born workers added in May of the total 280,000 jobs added.

“Alternatively…then the 272,000 increase in total Household Survey civilian employment in May would imply a decline of 7,000 native-born workers offset by the increase of 279,000 ‘foreign borns.’ Using the BLS’s own Native-Born series, we find the following stunner: since the start of the Second Great Depression, the US has added 2.3 million ‘foreign-born’ workers, offset by just 727,000 ‘native-born.’” Only a candidate who acknowledges, and will fix this, deserves our vote. No Democrat will touch it; our future depends on the right Republican.