Reading Amy's post reminded me of something sad:

About two months ago, an 11-year-old girl gave birth to a fetus with webbed limbs and without any internal organs in a small hospital in the Southwest. The baby was simply incompatible with life and died minutes after it was born.

An infant like this one signals something for hospital personnel: incest. And any time an 11-year-old finds herself in the maternity ward, doctors and nurses should also be searching for signs of rape. This young girl had been driven to the hospital by her seemingly adoring father, and both stuck to the story that she was carrying her suspiciously absent 16-year-old boyfriend's child.

There were alarming red flags at ever turn: in the waiting room, the delivery room, the nursery, and then in the lab where the fetus was sent for tests. But no one acted. The girl was released from the hospital and carted away in the passenger seat of her father's car.

Oh, and one more thing: both she and her father were illegal immigrants.

This little fact quickly closes any logic gaps left open. The hospital's employees wanted to help the girl, wanted to report and investigate the possibility of rape or incest - but they felt that it would do more damage. Instead of investigating the crime, local authorities would have simply deported the father-daughter duo.

Amy's Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class gets it so right. The ever-present threat of deportation rips the rug out from under 6.3 million immigrants' feet. Because of their threatened and restricted legal status, immigrant workers have little-to-no bargaining power, too scared to ask for fair wages or to report horrific labor conditions. And Amy's genius move is this: stripping immigrants of labor rights threatens "the ability of all working people in America to secure and maintain jobs that provide a middle-class standard of living." Suddenly the rights of immigrants matter to everyone with a job.

Here's how it all connects: Amy's report suggests that the heavy lifting done by labor rights is to serve as leverage in labor debates. I agree. But after thinking back on the 11-year-old’s story, I would like to suggest that the relationship between legal rights and labor power is more parallel and symbiotic. If, for example, the girl and her father had been better known in the community for their entrepreneurial business and for their buying power, the threat of deportation may not have over-shadowed an investigation into the girl's rape. Had these two been seen as assets to the community before walking into the maternity ward, their rights may have been understood differently.

It seems to be that the street runs both ways. Not only would legal rights allow immigrants to demand better wages and working conditions - as Amy argues - but having greater access to fair wages and safe working conditions might allow immigrants to weave themselves more fully into the economy and to be seen as more economically necessary. As assets, immigrants could be less likely to be deported, and could possibly be extended more rights and legal protections.

Over on Tom Paine you wrote:

The fact is, the most comprehensive study ever conducted of immigrants� economic activity, a 1997 report by the National Research Council, concluded that over time, immigrants and their offspring are a net tax benefit to the United States, paying more than they ever use in services.

I'm wondering why you chose to characterize the conclusions in the fashion that you did? The NRC report categorized different classes of immigrants. Here's a breakdown:

The most comprehensive research on this subject was done by the National Research Council (NRC), which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted in 1997, found that more-educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings, lower rates of public service use, and as a result pay more in taxes than they use in services. In contrast, the NRC found that because of their lower incomes and resulting lower tax payments coupled with their heavy use of public services, less-educated immigrants use significantly more in services than they pay in taxes. The NRC estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000. In contrast, the average immigrant with more than a high school education was found to have a positive fiscal impact of $105,000 in his or her lifetime. The NAS further estimated that the total combined fiscal impact of the average immigrant (all educational categories included) was a negative $3,000. Thus, when all immigrants are examined they are found to have a modest negative impact on public coffers. These figures are only for the original immigrant, they do not include public services used or taxes paid by their U.S.-born descendants.

To read your summation one could conclude that the waves of illegal immigrants from Mexico and the south are all college educated and earning above average incomes. We clearly know that this isn't the case. What we're finding with the 6th grade educated workers is that they definitely provide a considerable benefit to to their employers and the employer's customers, but the taxpaying public at large is subsidizing that cheap labor to the tune of $89,000 per immigrant, and this with all tax inputs netted out.

Contrast our immigration situation to a country like Canada, where immigrants must apply (heaven's to betsy, what a regressive concept, LOL), be screened, meet criteria like language mastery, education, age, marital status, health, etc, with the criteria designed to select immigrants who will make a net positive contribution to Canadian society. Further, it is the gov't officials, and not the immigrant, who decide who will be admitted to join the country.

Of course, many of Canada's immigrants are very educated and they suffer from lack of opportunity commensurate with their qualifications, thus you read stories of physicians not being able to practice, engineers not qualified for their professions, etc, but you also see that immigration provides a generation hiccup and that the immigrant's children perform to standards higher than the societal mean.

As the NRC report and other follow-up reports make clear, this is not happening with the Mexican illegals, and even into their 4th generation here in the US, they are substantially below the population mean in terms of high school graduation, not to mention college graduation.

As our society becomes ever more complex, and the jobs become more intellectually challenging, do we really need to import millions of slave like workers for the benefit of employers who don't want to expend the capital to mechanize the tasks, and to indirectly subsidize those workers?

To live in America one must generate enough economic value to pay one's way. Working for below minimum wage, because that is all that the market will pay for you skill-set, it becomes impossible to get ahead, hence the living conditions we see many illegals mired in. Further, as a society, we surely must owe our own citizens, those of limited education, a better shot at increasing social mobility and we do them a disservice by importing a greater supply of workers to compete against them. Consider one demographic, black men, aged 15-64, and the lastest reports show that of those who aren't homeless or in prison, that fully 25% are idle for periods greater than one year. With less competition from illegals these men would be available to work at the same jobs, albeit for greater wages than employers are paying illegals.

We also need to come to terms with the fact that some people just aren't marketable in terms of the economic value that they can create. These people, most likely earning minimum wage, will be net tax recipients that the rest of us will have to carry on our backs. As much grumbling as this reality generates from tax-adverse conservatives, the fact is that these people are fellow citizens, and we're all part of a social compact, so our obligations to them are largely unavoidable, however, why on Earth are we actively importing millions of illegals who aren't prepared, or capable, of generating the economic value to at least be self-sufficient, in our economy.

The challenge for liberals (sorry "progressives" is a term that make me laugh at the associated connotations) is to appeal to the interests of American citizens rather than illegal residents, break the self-inflicted straightjacket of ethnic interests that conflict with citizen interests, provide policies which mitigate the economic displacement that results from rationalizing industries as we attempt to stem the flow of subsidies to illegally resident workers. Paying slave wages is a direct benefit to employers and to start enforcing wage standards, legal immigration standards, etc is going to create a group of businesses screaming bloody murder, not to mention the hispanic interest groups seeking to protect their illegal constituency from being targeted.

The way I see it the liberal coalition can't please all of their thousand points of light interest groups with a rational immigration policy because many of those groups demand irrational immigration policies.

We need to encourage immigrants to apply to get here legally, screen them so that they make a positive economic contribution to the citizens of the US and make the transition for industries that rely on slavelike labor easier than simply targeting them for closure, that is if you want to garner their support for immigration reform, rather than develop an intransigent opponent committed to public subsidies for their labor supply.

TangoMan, I've already addressed many of the points you raise in my report on immigration policy. But I do want to clarify the findings of the NRC study.

First, the breakdown you provide from the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies chooses only to present information for
"the original immigrant, they do not include public services used or taxes paid by their U.S.-born descendants." Yet the NRC report itself cautions against excluding U.S. born descendents, arguing that it provides a fuller and more accurate picture to include U.S. born children both for taxes and services used.

Second, while it's true that less educated people (both immigrants and natives) tend to make less money and thus pay fewer taxes than those with more education, enhanced labor rights can lead to relatively well-paying work for people with little education. I use the example of hotel housekeepers, who make around minimum wage in many parts of the country, but earn more than $30,000 a year in the unionized hotels of Las Vegas and New York City. If undocumented workers had more secure rights in the workplace, they would be paying more taxes.

Finally, my main point in this blog post: we need to deal with the reality of 11 million people who are here now, not just engage in wishful thinking about the types of immigrants we would like to get (or keep out). The fact is, our economy relies on undocumented workers right now. To the extent that we push them into the shadows they will continue to be exploited and undermine the working standards of all U.S. citizens. To the extent we are able to bring them into the mainstream and ensure that they can exercise rights in the workplace, American workers will not be competing with "slave like workers."

If undocumented workers had more secure rights in the workplace, they would be paying more taxes.

Yes, but that's only half the picture, and draws a striking parallel to the job sitution in Germany & France. Those unskilled workers who were lucky enough to land a job would indeed be well compensated and become net contributors to the nation. However, that would leave many people without jobs for the higher minimum wage, or union negotiated contract, would price the cost of the job beyond the value that it created. Substitutes would be sought, usually technological in nature. The result would be more unemployed. You can't escape the fact that to impose an unwarranted premium on unskilled labor will create incentive to avoid paying that premium. You also can't escape the fact that most unskilled labor can't generate enough economic value to be net contributors to our society.

For the record, I'm not anti-union and I think that they have their place in the economy as a means of representing the collective interests of their members in negotiations with employers. The problem becomes when they try to extract value that can't be justified. As long as this extraction process is fairly negotiated by both parties, then whether the workers and company prosper or fail is on the shoulders of the negotiators. However, when the extracted value for labor becomes too great and the company becomes uncompetitive and seeks taxpayer support, then I think the company should fail for the wage compensation has gotten too far out of skew with what the market is willing to pay for the unskilled labor, for which I might add, there is an abundant supply or replacements.

So, I don't really buy into your solution of increased labor rights for illegal immigrants as being the panacea for our national problem, because it is an artificial solution that seems to violate the laws of supply and demand.

Perhaps a better solution is to restrict the supply of slave labor, force the companies that rely on such labor to become competitive with labor paid market rates, or seek technological substitutes, as we see in Japan:

Robots, you see, are wonderful creatures, as many a Japanese will tell you. They are getting more adept all the time, and before too long will be able to do cheaply and easily many tasks that human workers do now. They will care for the sick, collect the rubbish, guard homes and offices, and give directions on the street.

This is great news in Japan, where the population has peaked, and may have begun shrinking in 2005. With too few young workers supporting an ageing population, somebody�or something�needs to fill the gap, especially since many of Japan's young people will be needed in science, business and other creative or knowledge-intensive jobs.

Many workers from low-wage countries are eager to work in Japan. The Philippines, for example, has over 350,000 trained nurses, and has been pleading with Japan�which accepts only a token few�to let more in. Foreign pundits keep telling Japan to do itself a favour and make better use of cheap imported labour. But the consensus among Japanese is that visions of a future in which immigrant workers live harmoniously and unobtrusively in Japan are pure fancy. Making humanoid robots is clearly the simple and practical way to go.

This is a far more efficient process, for the Japanese aren't importing low education workers which they will have to subsidize for the remainder of their lives. The robots create a demand for more high value workers to design them, manufacture them, and to later service them.

The fact that the US economy, or parts of it, rely on slave labor, is no excuse to continue to prop up such a system. The excuse wasn't valid during the Civil War, and it's no better now. Our allegiance should be to our fellow citizens first and foremost. Our African-American community is in crisis, and by restricting the supply of illegal labor, the prospects of employment for Black men will increase as will the market rate for the jobs. Further, all of our unskilled citizen's will benefit, and it is at this point that you can advocate to introduce stricter labor standards, a time when labor supply and labor demand reach equilibrium. You can't have equilibrium for 30 million unskilled workers who clear the market at $5.00/hr when you raise the minimum wage to $25.00/hr.

Also, for the record, I'm not anti-immigration. I'm anti-illegal-immigration. I favor welcoming skilled and educated workers who will add to the strength of the nation and not become a drag on the nation as is currently the case. Most importantly, I advocate that it is the place of the voters and our elected representatives to decide who to invite to become citizens rather than have the coyotes and illegals decide that for us.

http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2006/01/immigrants_are_.html
In case folks aren't already reading the Working Life blog every day, and you should be, do read Tasini's take on our immigration policy paper.