325d
@wildgrass saidWhile you may prefer using opinion pieces from an anti-immigration hate group, I'll take data based information from the progressive economists at the Economic Policy Institute:
Bernie Sanders is definitely a progressive. He votes against all immigration bills that don't offer worker protections for low wage labor.
“If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive waged down even lower tha ...[text shortened]... opinion/immigration/579742-bernie-sanders-friends-big-techs-efforts-to-import-cheaper-foreign-labor/
"The immigrant share of the labor force reached a record high of 18.6% in 2023, according to our analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 Anti-immigration advocates have been out in full force, using this as a talking point for deeply misguided commentary and analysis that roughly translates to “immigrants are taking all our jobs.”
The reality is that the economy does not have a fixed number of jobs, and what we see today is a growing economy that is adding jobs for both immigrants and U.S.-born workers. Here are six key facts that show immigrants are not hurting the employment outcomes of U.S.-born workers.
1. The unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers averaged 3.6% in 2023, the lowest rate on record. Obviously, immigration is not causing high unemployment among U.S.-born workers.
2. The share of prime-age U.S.-born individuals with a job is at its highest rate in more than two decades. In 2023, the prime-age (ages 25–54) employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) for U.S.-born individuals was 81.4%, up from 80.7% in 2019 and now at its highest rate since 2001.2, 3
3. The prime-age labor force participation rate (LFPR) for U.S.-born individuals is also at its highest rate in more than two decades. In 2023, the LFPR for prime-age U.S.-born individuals was 83.9%, up from 83.3% in 2019 and now at its highest rate since 2002. Further, the increase in the U.S.-born prime-age LFPR over the last year was the second highest on record—below only the increase that occurred the year before last.4, 5
4. The prime-age LFPR of U.S.-born men without a bachelor’s degree grew at a record pace in each of the last two years and is above its pre-COVID trend. We focus here on prime-age men without a bachelor’s degree because though the immigrant population is comprised of men and women of all education levels, immigrants are somewhat disproportionately concentrated among men without a college degree (in 2023, the immigrant share of the overall labor force was 18.6%, but it was 20.0% of men without a college degree). That means that if recent immigration were affecting labor market outcomes of U.S.-born workers, it would be more easily detected among workers in this group. However, the LFPR of these workers is also beating expectations. It is clear the labor market is both absorbing immigrants and generating strong job opportunities for U.S.-born workers, including those in demographic groups potentially most impacted by immigration. 6, 7
5. Though the immigrant share of the labor force reached a record high in 2023, immigrant labor force growth is not occurring at an unprecedented rate. From 2019 to 2023, the immigrant labor force grew 2.3% annually on average, according to our analysis of CPS data. That is strong growth, but it’s roughly one-third the rate the economy experienced between 1996 and 2000 (which, just like 2022 and 2023, was a period of very low unemployment—and strong employment growth—for U.S.-born workers). Immigrant inflows into the labor force over the last year alone were also not unprecedentedly high—for example, the pace was slower than in 2022 and slower than three of the years from 1996–2000.
6. Immigrants are an integral part of our labor market, filling gaps caused by demographic changes in the United States and contributing to strong economic growth. The immigrants that make up 18.6% of the U.S. labor force are playing key roles in numerous industries and are employed in a mix of lower, middle, and higher-wage jobs. And as the Congressional Budget Office recently reported, immigration is contributing to strong economic growth—with future immigration forecasted to boost real gross domestic product by 2% over the next 10 years—as well as increasing government revenue. Immigrants are also complementing U.S.-born workers by contributing to overall population and workforce growth. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that if the U.S. were to have lower-than-expected immigration levels, the population would begin to decline in 20 years, and if there were suddenly zero immigration, the population would begin to decline next year, deeply harming economic growth.
As these six facts show, the idea that immigrants are making things worse for U.S.-born workers is wrong. The reality is that the labor market is absorbing immigrants at a rapid pace, while simultaneously maintaining record-low unemployment for U.S.-born workers.
https://www.epi.org/blog/immigrants-are-not-hurting-u-s-born-workers-six-facts-to-set-the-record-straight/
325d
1 edit
@no1marauder said
While you may prefer using opinion pieces from an anti-immigration hate group, I'll take data based information from the progressive economists at the Economic Policy Institute:
"The immigrant share of the labor force reached a record high of 18.6% in 2023, according to our analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 Anti-immi ...[text shortened]... //www.epi.org/blog/immigrants-are-not-hurting-u-s-born-workers-six-facts-to-set-the-record-straight/
While you may prefer using opinion pieces from an anti-immigration hate group,
Umm, I quoted Bernie Sanders. It was his opinion.
We focus here on prime-age men without a bachelor’s degree .... , the LFPR of these workers is also beating expectations.
Really? Is that true? Seems highly dubious. We've known for decades and decades that this number has been decreasing, and that non-citizen immigrants are beating them out for low skill jobs. Maybe when they write "beating expectations" they really mean "decreasing less than we thought"?
Here's the EPI, explaining why employers choose to employ immigrants instead of citizens...
https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wage-levels/
Here's a Politico article explaining how immigration, while good for the overall economy, leaves a subset of low-skill citizens behind (this is just common sense when you think about it):
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/
Limiting immigration is not anti-immigration.
325d
@wildgrass saidThe article from FAIR used a Bernie Sanders quote from ............ 2007 when US economic conditions were far different. That article than criticized Sanders for no longer endorsing such policies. Maybe you didn't read the article very carefully but you now doubling down on FAIR's "analysis" is troubling.While you may prefer using opinion pieces from an anti-immigration hate group,
Umm, I quoted Bernie Sanders. It was his opinion.We focus here on prime-age men without a bachelor’s degree .... , the LFPR of these workers is also beating expectations.
Really? Is that true? Seems highly dubious. We've known for decades and decades that this n ...[text shortened]... inton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/
Limiting immigration is not anti-immigration.
325d
@wildgrass saidYour links are both outdated; the EPI one you used refers only to the H-1B visa program, which brings in only a small fraction of the total migrant worker population in the US and has been extensively modified by the Biden administration since the 2020 article you cite.While you may prefer using opinion pieces from an anti-immigration hate group,
Umm, I quoted Bernie Sanders. It was his opinion.We focus here on prime-age men without a bachelor’s degree .... , the LFPR of these workers is also beating expectations.
Really? Is that true? Seems highly dubious. We've known for decades and decades that this n ...[text shortened]... inton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/
Limiting immigration is not anti-immigration.
The Borjas article from 2016 is useless as current data refutes his claims as the EPI article I cited shows.
325d
1 edit
@wildgrass saidAnd that's sure some deceptive "quoting" for the EPI article, omitting almost an entire paragraph. Here's that paragraph:While you may prefer using opinion pieces from an anti-immigration hate group,
Umm, I quoted Bernie Sanders. It was his opinion.We focus here on prime-age men without a bachelor’s degree .... , the LFPR of these workers is also beating expectations.
Really? Is that true? Seems highly dubious. We've known for decades and decades that this n ...[text shortened]... inton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/
Limiting immigration is not anti-immigration.
4. The prime-age LFPR of U.S.-born men without a bachelor’s degree grew at a record pace in each of the last two years and is above its pre-COVID trend. We focus here on prime-age men without a bachelor’s degree because though the immigrant population is comprised of men and women of all education levels, immigrants are somewhat disproportionately concentrated among men without a college degree (in 2023, the immigrant share of the overall labor force was 18.6%, but it was 20.0% of men without a college degree). That means that if recent immigration were affecting labor market outcomes of U.S.-born workers, it would be more easily detected among workers in this group. However, the LFPR of these workers is also beating expectations. It is clear the labor market is both absorbing immigrants and generating strong job opportunities for U.S.-born workers, including those in demographic groups potentially most impacted by immigration. 6, 7
So you are lying (I can't find a nicer word to describe your tactic) of then stating "Maybe when they write "beating expectations" they really mean "decreasing less than we thought"?" No, they mean what the data says in a sentence you omitted: The prime-age LFPR of U.S.-born men without a bachelor’s degree grew at a record pace in each of the last two years and is above its pre-COVID trend. "
You do know what the word "grew" means?
324d
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIts super misleading, mate. Have you seen a graph of prime male LFPR over time? It's been decreasing consistently since the 1960s.
And that's sure some deceptive "quoting" for the EPI article, omitting almost an entire paragraph. Here's that paragraph:
4. The prime-age LFPR of U.S.-born men without a bachelor’s degree grew at a record pace in each of the last two years and is above its pre-COVID trend. We focus here on prime-age men without a bachelor’s degree because though the immigrant populati ...[text shortened]... he last two years and is above its pre-COVID trend. "[/b]
You do know what the word "grew" means?
Immigration is great for the US economy. Indisputable. But I have a hard time believing that every undocumented migrant is contributing more than 1 job (the immigrants job, plus the job of the citizen that they did not displace) worth of growth to the economy. You seem intent on knocking sources, but the information is the same, just parsed differently.
We kind of got off track here. I still don't see how your argument, in favor of unauthorized border crossings to stimulate the economy, is progressive.
324d
@wildgrass saidIt's progressive to oppose policies mainly driven by a white nationalist agenda.
Its super misleading, mate. Have you seen a graph of prime male LFPR over time? It's been decreasing consistently since the 1960s.
Immigration is great for the US economy. Indisputable. But I have a hard time believing that every undocumented migrant is contributing more than 1 job (the immigrants job, plus the job of the citizen that they did not displace) worth of grow ...[text shortened]... w your argument, in favor of unauthorized border crossings to stimulate the economy, is progressive.
Check out any Average Joe thread regarding immigration for further details.
324d
@wildgrass saidImmigration is cited as the most important issue in this election by Republicans and guess why? It's not about economics; 72% of them regard immigration as a "Risk to National Identity". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/where-voters-stand-on-immigration
Its super misleading, mate. Have you seen a graph of prime male LFPR over time? It's been decreasing consistently since the 1960s.
Immigration is great for the US economy. Indisputable. But I have a hard time believing that every undocumented migrant is contributing more than 1 job (the immigrants job, plus the job of the citizen that they did not displace) worth of grow ...[text shortened]... w your argument, in favor of unauthorized border crossings to stimulate the economy, is progressive.
324d
@no1marauder saidThat's glass half empty kind of thinking.
It's progressive to oppose policies mainly driven by a white nationalist agenda.
Check out any Average Joe thread regarding immigration for further details.
Ironically, if Biden could deliver on his promise to secure the border, signs this bill, then the white nationalists lose their red herring rallying cry about border security and Dems stand a better chance in the fall.
324d
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThat's ridiculous; you really think that whatever Biden does he's going to out-Trump Trump on hostility to immigrants?
That's glass half empty kind of thinking.
Ironically, if Biden could deliver on his promise to secure the border, signs this bill, then the white nationalists lose their red herring rallying cry about border security and Dems stand a better chance in the fall.
The more Democrats agree with white nationalists that there's a "crisis" at the border, the more that issue helps the latter's cause.
324d
@no1marauder saidThe bill is not hostile to immigrants. It sets reasonable limits on the numbers of asylum seekers we can accept, streamlines the process, increases funding for the process, expands the number of detention beds etc etc.
That's ridiculous; you really think that whatever Biden does he's going to out-Trump Trump on hostility to immigrants?
The more Democrats agree with white nationalists that there's a "crisis" at the border, the more that issue helps the latter's cause.
We need more resources at the border to handle the influx. Immigrants should have documentation to be integrated into our society. Immigrants should not be exploited by human smugglers and their US employers.
324d
@no1marauder saidNo. Trump is opposed to passing this bill.
That's ridiculous; you really think that whatever Biden does he's going to out-Trump Trump on hostility to immigrants?
The more Democrats agree with white nationalists that there's a "crisis" at the border, the more that issue helps the latter's cause.
I think that this bill will decrease the percentage of immigrants who are undocumented. It will decrease the amount of time it takes to process asylum applications. It will help resolve some of the problems at the border.
He's not trying to out Trump Trump. He's trying to actually help fix a problem, which is something Trumps not capable of.
324d
@wildgrass saidThis has all been covered, so I don't feel like wasting further time discussing how the bill is hostile to immigration and repeals long standing features of law encouraging it AGAIN.
The bill is not hostile to immigrants. It sets reasonable limits on the numbers of asylum seekers we can accept, streamlines the process, increases funding for the process, expands the number of detention beds etc etc.
We need more resources at the border to handle the influx. Immigrants should have documentation to be integrated into our society. Immigrants should not be exploited by human smugglers and their US employers.
There were a few decent features in it, but overall it was a bad bill that was pretty much what right wingers have demanded for years. It's fortunate that they weren't willing to take the "W".
324d
@wildgrass saidBy imposing a stricter, in many cases unobtainable standard for asylum claims, it will encourage more crossing between points of entry, not less. The same holds true for automatically rejecting any claims for asylum (no matter how valid) after a certain, arbitrary number of border encounters are reached.
No. Trump is opposed to passing this bill.
I think that this bill will decrease the percentage of immigrants who are undocumented. It will decrease the amount of time it takes to process asylum applications. It will help resolve some of the problems at the border.
He's not trying to out Trump Trump. He's trying to actually help fix a problem, which is something Trumps not capable of.