Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 24, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

IMMIGRATION....Via Tyler Cowen, here's a new paper about the effect of immigration on wages of native workers. Nickel version: among workers with no high school degree, wages go down 0.7% in the short run and up 0.3% in the long run. Among all workers, wages go down 0.4% in the short run and up 0.6% in the long run.

In other words, not much effect at all.

Kevin Drum 1:59 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Then why do we encourage immigrants if their effect is nearly zero?

Posted by: Matt on July 24, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

.6% might be only $270 for the median individual, but on the aggregate that's something like 81 BILLION dollars a year on the aggregate economy.

If you have a better business plan that generates a higher cash flow I would love to hear it.

Posted by: clone12 on July 24, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK
Then why do we encourage immigrants if their effect is nearly zero?

No one said their effect was nearly zero, but that their effect on wages of native workers was nearly zero (specifically, slightly negative in the short term and slightly positive in the long term); and

Posted by: cmdicely on July 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Too bad Americans are only in it for the short run.

Posted by: Maurice Green on July 24, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Important last line from the abstract: a 6% decrease in the wages of existing immigrants from new immigrants.

In southern California and inner-city Chicago, the supply of unskilled Mexican/Central American immigrants just about hit the saturation point in the '90s, even though new immigrants kept coming to those places because of their traditional gateway status. The same thing happened after about 1910 with Italian immigrants and after 1950 or so with blacks moving from the South to the North.

Not coincidentally, here in California there was widespread support among naturalized citizens--presumably many of them beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty--for Prop 187 back in '94. Pulling up the ladder behind yourself is one of America's grandest traditions.

Posted by: Pete on July 24, 2008 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, and CM... did you not notice all the caveats by the paper's authors?

Geez, it must be the dog days of blogging summer.

Kevin's linked to Cowan and McArdle already this week and it's only midday Thursday. Amy Sullivan can't be far off, can she?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on July 24, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

It would be interesting to see it split by

legal - highly educated, tax paying

illegal - less educated, tax avoiding

Posted by: dennisBoz on July 24, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

It would be interesting to see it split by

legal - highly educated, tax paying

illegal - less educated, tax avoiding

Posted by: dennisBoz on July 24, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

6% might be only $270 for the median individual, but on the aggregate that's something like 81 BILLION dollars a year on the aggregate economy.

Try again:

among workers with no high school degree

Posted by: Simp on July 24, 2008 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Pete: here in California there was widespread support among naturalized citizens--presumably many of them beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty--for Prop 187

Presume away, but it doesn't make it so. Few people get more annoyed by our tolerance of illegal aliens than legal immigrants. Since California has amongst the highest proportion of legal immigrants (both LPR's and naturalized citizens) it seems more reasonable that that's where the support came from. Of course that wouldn't fit in with your snark.

Posted by: alex on July 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

So?

The .6% increase is the number for ALL workers. That comes out to be 81 billion additional dollars to the aggregate economy per year.

Again, if you have a plan that can generate that much additional dollars into the economy. I would love to hear it.

Posted by: clone12 on July 24, 2008 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Jasper is right, legal immigrants are not "more annoyed at illegal immigrants" than any else. The Chinese community in California was mostly Republican leaning until Prop 187.

This idea that there is a clear demarcation between legal and illegal immigration is not grounded in reality. Some legal immigrants are married to "illegal immigrants", some legal immigranst were "illegal" because their visa ran out for a couple of days.

The view that legal immigrants see illegal immigration as some sort of a serious felony rather than something akin to a traffic ticket or jaywalking is basically suburban folklore.

Posted by: clone12 on July 24, 2008 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK
Since California has amongst the highest proportion of legal immigrants (both LPR's and naturalized citizens) it seems more reasonable that that's where the support came from.

Really? Its reasonable to assume that the voting in support of Prop 187 was mainly from legal permanent residents who can't vote and from naturalized citizen?

But, why argue about what we should assume when, through the magic of the internet, we can just look at data gathered at the time:

White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin. Blacks and Asians were about evenly divided, with 52% of each group voting Yes and 48% voting No.
Posted by: cmdicely on July 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, Lou Dobbs can suck it.

Posted by: clb72 on July 24, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: Its [sic] reasonable to assume that the voting in support of Prop 187 was mainly from legal permanent residents who can't vote and from naturalized citizen?

No, which is probably why I never said that. Since you're a champion of precise parsing, I'll suggest that you re-read my post. The point was that naturalized citizens who came to the US as legal immigrants were more likely to support Prop. 187 than naturalized citizens who came to the US as illegal aliens but later received amnesty.

White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage point margin ...

Non sequitur. That's a breakdown by race and ethnicity, not the relevant categories of native-born citizens, legal immigrants who became naturalized citizens, and illegal aliens who were granted amnesty and became naturalized citizens.

I get tired of disingenuous attempts to conflate opposition to the de facto US policy of tolerating illegal aliens to opposition to legal immigration, or worse yet, ethnic or racial prejudice. Coming from someone who's usually a champion of precise language and reasoning though it's especially disappointing.

Posted by: alex on July 24, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ottaviano & Peri's work contains an assumption that any Progressive should find troubling. Their estimates of a long-term positive effect on wages relies on their assumption that natives & immigrants are not perfect substitutes in the labor market. In plain language, that means they are assuming the existence of a largely unassimilated underclass of immigrants _over_the_long_term_. This is the opposite of a progressive outcome. Once you take away this assumption, even Ottaviano & Peri find a long-term negative effect on the wages of the unskilled.

Furthermore, Ottaviano & Peri are focused on _all_ immigration, including foreign PhDs like themselves. This isn't what most people are concerned about. If you confine the analysis to the unskilled, non-high school, poor english immigrants that are the source of controversy, the estimates of negative wage effects would be larger still.

Finally, given your other recent post on the intractable problem of concentrated poverty on educational achievement, do we really want to import more impoverished high school drop-outs?

Posted by: DCreader on July 24, 2008 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

From Kevin Drum's post below this one:
"other things equal, it turns out that academic achievement for all races shows dramatic gains when the proportion of low-income students in a school falls below 50% or, even better, 40%."

Doesn't higher academic achievement predict long-term higher wages?

So if the "Improving Our School's" post is correct, then the immigration of poor people does lower the long-term wages of the poor already here, by increasing the percentage of poor people and thus decreasing the likelihood of a school district's percentage of poor people falling "below 50% or, even better, 40%."

I realize that that is far beyond the scope of the paper Kevin cited, but Kevin could have made the connection, especially since the two posts are adjacent.

Posted by: scottynx on July 24, 2008 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Jasper: this country's huge legal immigrant population has moved away from the party that is the more intolerant toward illegal immigrants

Which party is that? Actions speak louder than words. Despite the recent handful of high profile raids, the fact is that there was far more action against employers of illegal aliens under Clinton than under Bush. The Republicans may scream about illegal immigration, but the important thing is that they're the party of cheap labor and lax labor law.

Posted by: alex on July 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK
No, which is probably why I never said that. Since you're a champion of precise parsing, I'll suggest that you re-read my post. The point was that naturalized citizens who came to the US as legal immigrants were more likely to support Prop. 187 than naturalized citizens who came to the US as illegal aliens but later received amnesty.

I suggest you re-read your post; you referred to the support coming from "legal immigrants (both LPR's and naturalized citizens)".

If you meant "naturalized citizens whose initial status was legal", and not "LPRs and naturalized citizens", presumably you would have said that, or once called on the ridiculousness of what you did say, corrected it rather than suggesting that what you wrote be re-read.

I get tired of disingenuous attempts to conflate opposition to the de facto US policy of tolerating illegal aliens to opposition to legal immigration, or worse yet, ethnic or racial prejudice.

I get tired of disingenuous attempts to portray policies which amount to ethnic and/or racial discrimination and harrassment of apparent immigrants as the only ways to oppose the status quo immigration policies in this country, and to pretend that those who oppose that policy in different ways are, in fact, supporting the policies they oppose.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK
Ottaviano & Peri's work contains an assumption that any Progressive should find troubling. Their estimates of a long-term positive effect on wages relies on their assumption that natives & immigrants are not perfect substitutes in the labor market. In plain language, that means they are assuming the existence of a largely unassimilated underclass of immigrants _over_the_long_term_. This is the opposite of a progressive outcome.

It is, however, something that, to an extent, occurs in fact; basing economic analysis on reality rather than ideological aspirations seems to be a sounder approach.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

True. Instead of giving Americans raises, employers have hired immigrants to keep the wages constant for the last 40 years, while inflation rises and Americans change careers. In my field roughly 50% of my American co-workers left for greener pastures when they saw the tsunami of immigrants coming in, and they were replaced by far inferior workers, from India mainly. That's one of the primary reasons that innovation and industry died in America.

Posted by: Luther on July 24, 2008 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: I suggest you re-read your post; you referred to the support coming from "legal immigrants (both LPR's and naturalized citizens)".

So ya wanna play grammarian? Ok. I'm guilty of an unclear antecedent. Which is why, for the benefit of the deliberately obtuse, I later clarified it by saying "naturalized citizens who came to the US as legal immigrants were more likely to support Prop. 187 than naturalized citizens who came to the US as illegal aliens but later received amnesty".

The real point though is that the meaning was obvious from context and the common knowledge than only US citizens can vote in California elections.

Concentrating on such minor and easily resolved ambiguities is nothing more than a "throw a monkey wrench into the works" tactic. As such it detracts from the credibility of any serious arguments you may have.

I get tired of disingenuous attempts to portray policies which amount to ethnic and/or racial discrimination and harrassment [sic] of apparent immigrants

Hey, look, an ambiguity! To avoid being overly pedantic though, I'll assume you meant "harassment".

While I'm no great defender of Prop. 187 (which mixed good and bad ideas), I do wonder how it, or similar policies, amount to "harassment of apparent immigrants".

Take, for example, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It requires that all prospective employees submit documents to verify that they can legally work in the US. I've always been required to submit such documents despite the fact that I'm an "apparent non-immigrant". In other words, enforcement of the law is based on documentation, not appearances.

Meanwhile, you've conflated a person's immigration history with their race and ethnicity. Where did you get such prejudices?

Posted by: alex on July 24, 2008 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

There's so much disinformation out there, why believe this? Remember that corporatists love being able to pretend to wallow in liberal values while actually wanting to drive down wages. Their tentacles are in academe, not just the media.

Posted by: Neil B. on July 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK
So ya wanna play grammarian?

No, I was responding to your claim that I needed to carefully read what you originally wrote. The whole precision thing (despite your misattributing it to me) is something you brought into this discussion, with the claim that you were being precise and I wasn't reading what you wrote.

I just took your request to reread what you wrote—and followed it.

There is no ambiguity in what you said, it is clear and unambiguous. Its not what you later claim you meant, but misstatement is different than ambiguity.


Ok. I'm guilty of an unclear antecedent.

An unclear antecedent is when the intended antecedent of the pronoun is not the one grammatically suggested, but something else referred to before the pronoun but placed elsewhere.

What you now claim you meant by the "that" is not something you said somewhere else, besides the unambiguous antecedent in the sentence, but something that you never said at all, which is not an "unclear" antecedent, but a completely unstated one.

The real point though is that the meaning was obvious from context and the common knowledge than only US citizens can vote in California elections.

The meaning was not clear from context; that you intended to disagree with the prior poster was, how you intended to do so, presuming your present characterization was your original intent, was far from clear. That aside, there isn't any support for the position you now adopt either (nor is there any support for the thing both you and the prior poster are arguing about the explanation of: that there was strong support among naturalized citizens for 187.)

Hey, look, an ambiguity!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

While I'm no great defender of Prop. 187 (which mixed good and bad ideas), I do wonder how it, or similar policies, amount to "harassment of apparent immigrants".

By mandating that people in various institutions, including, inter alia, public hospitals, identify suspected illegal immigrants, and deny them service unless those suspicions were refuted.

Take, for example, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, whatever faults it may have, is not Prop 187 or a similar policy.

It requires that all prospective employees submit documents to verify that they can legally work in the US.

Prop 187 did not merely establish blanket, non-selective requirements for all covered institutions to gather specified proof of authorization to be legally present in the US. If it had, while it would still have been bad policy, and would still have been an unconstitutional usurpation of exclusively federal roles, and would still have probably been unconstitutional on a variety of other grounds, it might be more parallel to that aspect of the 1986 act.

In other words, enforcement of the law is based on documentation, not appearances.

Which is a difference from prop 187, which required specific covered institutions to act on any suspicions of illegal status, over and above the various documentation requirements it established.

Meanwhile, you've conflated a person's immigration history with their race and ethnicity.

Only insofar as I have relied on the reader understanding that the vast majority of California's White, non-Hispanic voting population are natural born citizens, and pointed out that that is where support for the measure was, in fact, strongest, in responding to your explicit claim (which you now claim was misstated) that the support came mainly from "LPRs and naturalized citizens".

Now, to respond to what you now claim was your point—establishing which subset of naturalized citizens was the source of the supposed particularly high support among naturalized citizens—well, its hardly necessary to explain that. From the same report I linked earlier:

The Los Angeles Times exit poll also asked voters whether they were a first generation, second generation or third or more generation U.S. resident. The results show that voters who have resided in the U.S. for three or more generations were more supportive than those who have been here for a shorter period.

So the argument about which subset of naturalized citizens explains the high support among naturalized citizens is misguided from the start: from the evidence, the result for which you are positing (without any support, I might add) an explanation is purely mythical.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 24, 2008 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Neil B.: Their tentacles are in academe, not just the media.

It's worse than that. If you'll pardon the reference to one of the few valid Marxist ideas, it's false consciousness.

The widespread glorification of immigration started with a noble purpose - to diffuse the prejudices that had developed during the high immigration levels of the late 19th and early 20th century. Unfortunately, the glorification of immigration seems to have reached the point where people just mindlessly chant "immigration good". As a result, any attempt to enforce our immigration laws - which have been scrupulously non-racist for over forty years - is called "racist". That mentality is like saying that because you believe in birth control you must hate children.

Posted by: alex on July 24, 2008 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: The whole precision thing (despite your misattributing it to me)

Uh, huh. I'm sure that I'm the first person to note your tendency to pedantically criticize minor errors or imperfectly clear statements, in preference to countering the substance of an argument.

Please note the use of "[sic]" where I quote you above. Here's a hint: I'm making fun of you.

The meaning was not clear from context

Right, and I'm the Queen of England. The gist of my original statement was clear to anyone who isn't brain dead. Since you seem like a bright fellow, I figure you're playing your usual game of being deliberately obtuse.

As to the rest of it, I could spend the rest of the night defending my use of the word ambiguity, claim of unclear antecedent, the proper interpretation of parenthetical remarks, yada, yada, yada, but it's a silly game.

re: Prop 187: By mandating that people ... identify suspected illegal immigrants

Using unclear language like "suspected" (without further clarification) sounds like one of those "bad ideas" in 187 that I mentioned.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, whatever faults it may have, is not Prop 187 or a similar policy.

Of course it's not similar. The fact that they were both intended to deal with illegal immigration and it's problems is probably a coincidence.

Admittedly, Prop. 187 was so badly written that it could be mistaken for a fifth column effort to derail serious policy. By contrast, the act of 1986 was intended, or at least had the effect, of only putting on a show without having any real effect. Or maybe it's just that, like almost any law, it required at least a good faith effort to enforce it. Social Security number 000-00-0000, hey, not a problem! Employer sanctions, nah, we weren't serious about those (that was just a show for the chumps who don't belong to the cheap labor lobby).

me: Meanwhile, you've conflated a person's immigration history with their race and ethnicity.

cmdicely: Only insofar as I have relied on the reader understanding that the vast majority of California's White, non-Hispanic voting population are natural born citizens

And probably most black Californians are too. But saying that most white folks voted for it is hardly the same thing as a break down by history of immigration status. It's funny though how some people will inappropriately use race and ethnicity as a proxy for immigration status. Personally I detest racial profiling.

Posted by: alex on July 24, 2008 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

Alex, just admit you were wrong and move on.

The idea that legal immigrants are somehow especially upset by illegal immigration is a myth, and the idea that you are now postulating (without evidence) is probably also a myth.

Posted by: on July 24, 2008 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Alex, just admit you were wrong and move on.

The idea that legal immigrants are somehow especially upset by illegal immigration is a myth, and the idea that you are now postulating (without evidence) is probably also a myth.

Posted by: LaurenceB on July 24, 2008 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK
It's funny though how some people will inappropriately use race and ethnicity as a proxy for immigration status.

Unless you can challenge the correlation I pointed to, the use I explained wasn't inappropriate in response to the claim you originally made but have since walked away from; it's not, in general, a good proxy, but its good enough for the specific point that was being made. That something can be used inappropriately does not mean every use of it is inappropriate.

And, while you've blathered on about the side issues, I noticed that you haven't addressed or acknowledged the facts I pointed to rebutting your revised claim; apparently the unsubstantiated speculation that you claimed, when your first argument was rebutted, was really your whole point all along isn't as important to you once it, also, runs headlong into the contrary facts.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 24, 2008 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

LaurenceB: The idea that legal immigrants are somehow especially upset by illegal immigration is a myth

I do admit that. It was based on my anecdotal experience, but it doesn't jive with the polls. As though this sort of shoot-from-the-hip error is missing from all the other posts on this thread.

Most of the pissing match though is about cmdicely's annoying habit of pedantically concentrating on imprecise or unclear wording and other unimportant details, instead of the thrust of the argument.

Sometimes he has good arguments, but when he falls into that mode I should probably treat him as a troll.

and the idea that you are now postulating (without evidence) is probably also a myth.

Which idea is that?

Posted by: alex on July 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

WM isn't even worth a copy-and-paste, so anyone who wants to know all the things that Kevin Drum doesn't know should see my comments at this MattY thread. Needless to say, there's a lot Kevin Drum doesn't know.

[Note: WM and/or KD have a habit of deleting or editing comments without notice, so this comment may disappear or be different from what I posted. Search for "kevin drum" at my site for examples of comments that were deleted.]

Posted by: The annoying LonewackoDotCom on July 25, 2008 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: it's not, in general, a good proxy, but its good enough for the specific point that was being made

What a crock. Your own source had a breakdown by number of generations a person's family has been in the US, yet you chose to use race and ethnicity instead. That's a bad way to read the polls, and smacks of race baiting.

I noticed that you haven't addressed or acknowledged the facts I pointed to rebutting your revised claim

My revised claim was that "naturalized citizens who came to the US as legal immigrants were more likely to support Prop. 187 than naturalized citizens who came to the US as illegal aliens but later received amnesty". Are you rebutting that? If so, where?

Posted by: alex on July 25, 2008 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Look at the building trades. In every area where there has been an influx of illegal aliens, the standard area wages for everything from drywall to carpentry has fallen. If you won't work for the wages illegal aliens do, you won't get hired.

It's a great deal for contractors and developers. Their margins have never been better.

Posted by: DevilDog on July 25, 2008 at 4:34 AM | PERMALINK

DevilDog (4:34am) is absolutely right. But it's not just the building trades. There have been dramatic effects in, among others, employment in garment manufacture (what amount of it still manages to survive in this country), meat processing, food service, and janitorial services. And, of course, the financial impacts -- both on wages, and on the costs/inputs to government spending (education, healthcare, law enforcement vs local tax revenues) -- are heavily concentrated geographically. In California, Florida, certain states in the MidWest, and even in my current state of Massachusetts, there are negative effects that are real, and substantial. To try to pretend otherwise is dishonest, counterproductive, and a huge political loser.
Why is it that so many of the same posters who rightly decry the rightwing's use of "average" and "per capita" GDP and income stats, because they conceal the realities that 90% of the increases over the last decade or two are overwhelmingly concentrated among the already-well-off, and that everyone else is barely hanging on, or losing ground, can't see the analogous problems in studies on the net impacts of immigration, especially undocumented immigration, and especially the undocumented immigration of people of little education?
The Republicans are pissing off a major slice of their own base by so blatantly favoring the needs of the corporatocracy over the needs of working citizens. I'd bet that the disfavor in which so many Rethug voters hold McCain is at least as much a function of his well-known stance on immigration as it is for his insufficient loyalty to the Christianists, and probably a good deal more. This provides Democrats with a huge opportunity to further siphon off Republican voters -- especially in bringing back the so-called "Reagan Democrats" -- many of whom have very real grievances that can't be written off as racism or nativism.
We could accomplish more good for all the players in the economy -- including would-be and existing immigrants -- and enjoy greater political success, if we were to first, be honest about the facts that, while the net impacts of high immigration, both legal and otherwise, might be overall even highly salutary, the distributions of the impacts, both by economic stratum and geographically, as well as over time span, are highly uneven. Since the preponderance of the studies do seem to suggest that the overall effects, long-term, are positive, we could -- and must -- find policy solutions that would mitigate the very real short-term harms to specific groups of workers and to municipal, county, and state governments. Such stances would be a win/win/win/win, at least.
But first, we have to be honest about the effects, and who is, under current conditions, winning and who is losing. Is that really so tough to do?

Posted by: smartalek on July 25, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK
My revised claim was that "naturalized citizens who came to the US as legal immigrants were more likely to support Prop. 187 than naturalized citizens who came to the US as illegal aliens but later received amnesty".

Even with the revision, your claim was in response to another poster offering an explanation of the supposed effect that naturalized citizens had particularly high support for Prop. 187. If you are now offering that not as an alternative explanation for that (refuted) effect, I am more than willing to note merely that it is both completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant to anything else that has been discussed in the thread, rather than worry about refuting it in the absence of any evidence or other reason offered to believe it or any relevance to, well, anything.

If you are offering it as an explanation of the effect, the evidence against the supposed effect also refutes any explanation of that effect, since if an effect did not occur, no explanation of it can be correct.

Take your pick.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 25, 2008 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK
Your own source had a breakdown by number of generations a person's family has been in the US, yet you chose to use race and ethnicity instead.

Either would rebut your initially apparent argument relating to where most of the support for prop 187 came from, and either would take an equivalent degree of indirect inference to do so (the first takes knowledge of the relation between ethnicity and immigration status, the seond takes knowledge of the proportion of the population in different immigration statuses, neither of which was a component of the poll). The information in the report that was directly related to generations in the country was somewhat weaker in that regard, because it was qualitative (indicating the support decreased with succeeding generations) rather than quantitative. Prefering what is both the strongest and the first evidence in the report that would rebut your argument isn't race baiting.

Your idea seems to be that information that makes any reference to race or ethnicity must be unconditionally rejected even when valid inferences may be drawn from it. I would categorically reject that as nonsense; one must, of course, be careful not to use racial, ethnic, or any other data to support invalid inferences, and habitually using a particular kind of data to support invalid inferences is certainly evidence of prejudice, and certainly, whether or not based on prejudice, any argument based on those (or any other) invalid inferences is hollow, whether or not there may be some other strong argument for its conclusions.

On the other hand, making gratuitous, ungrounded ad hominem accusations of racism, ethnic or racial prejudice, race baiting, racial profiling, as you have in this thread—instead of providing any rational support for any of the various iterations of your argument—is also not a particularly convincing way to support one's argument.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 25, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

So, you know, a young black girl at MSUM (Minnesota State University Moorhead) presented a paper on this in 2006--and came to the same conclusions with almost the same numbers.

Old news.

Posted by: MNPundit on July 25, 2008 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Like most such articles, this one fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on July 27, 2008 at 4:16 AM | PERMALINK

Devil Dog, you're absolutely right. Here in Dallas, it's ridiculous.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on July 27, 2008 at 4:42 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly