Krugman - Out Of The Shadows On Immigration And Inequality

Paul Krugman, another Times pundit stranded on the Times Select Island known as "Lost", offers some thoughts on immigration, legal and otherwise.

We are particularly captivated by this passage, where the Earnest Prof briefly alludes to one of his pet topics, income inequality:

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality.

Believe it or not, Krugman's admission that immigration plays any role at all in income inequality represents a personal intellectual breakthrough.  He had a long NY Times magazine article in 2002 in which he presented his many thoughts on the topic.  Absurdly, the subject of immigration was never discussed, despite the fact that economists he lauded made much of the possibility that immigration was an important part of the statistical story.

But let's not get carried away with his new-found forthrightness - in his current column, Krugman is relying on the Borjas-Katz work on Mexican immigrants (here?), which, per Pew, are only about 60% of the total illegal immigrant population.  (Sorry, I am being hazy on the legal/illegal divide - presumably, low-skilled legal immigrants also depress wages and contribute to income inequality.)

And while on the subject of intellectual honesty, here is a good laugh-line from Krugman:

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

Just guessing - we could spend all day finding other politicians making that very argument.  Some of them will even be advocates for the immigrant community.

MORE:  These NY Times searches are indicative, rather than definitive, but nonetheless:

Among Krugman's columns, only today's piece provides a hit on (inequality, immigration).  However, "inequality" returns 15 hits through March 27, 2006.

STILL MORE:  Don't exaggerate the importance of immigration, either - not even Greg Easterbrook believes his claim that "Factor out immigration and the rise in American inequality disappears.":

In recent weeks, a new book has challenged this conventional wisdom, calling it a statistical mirage, and its striking claim has begun to receive national attention. Among native-born Americans, lower- and middle-income families have actually received proportionately bigger raises than the wealthy, according to ''The Progress Paradox'' (Random House), written by Gregg Easterbrook, a Washington journalist. Only a great influx of immigrants - many of them poor, but richer than they were in their home countries - has made inequality appear to widen in the statistics, Mr. Easterbrook says.

''Factor out immigration,'' he writes, ''and the rise in American inequality disappears.''

The idea has echoed from the book into the pages of The Washington Post, The Chicago Sun-Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Times of London and BusinessWeek magazine, among other publications. It seems like one of those facts that could rewrite conventional wisdom about the American economy.

It happens, however, not to be true.

The millions of immigrants who have entered the country in recent decades have indeed made inequality look larger than it otherwise would. But even among households headed by native-born Americans, the rich have done far better than others over the past 20 years - as well as over the past 30, 40 or 50 years, according to government statistics and the economists who study them.

...Mr. Easterbrook, a senior editor at The New Republic who is a visiting fellow at Brookings, acknowledged last week that he had gone too far in the book. His discussion of inequality occupies a very small part of ''The Progress Paradox,'' he said, and he was mainly arguing that immigration played a role in the rise in inequality. ''Even if there were not that increase in immigration, there would certainly be a rise in inequality,'' he said in an interview. ''I did a poor job of writing that page.''

Comments

[kim]

Si illegales; no criminales.
===============

[mike]

Kim: illegals son criminales. They use resources paid for by others -- schools, hospitals, roads, police, prisons, food stamps, security, ad infinitum -- that the law says they are entitled to. Ergo, they are thieves.

[mike]

Kim: illegales son criminales. They use resources paid for by others -- schools, hospitals, roads, police, prisons, food stamps, security, ad infinitum -- that the law says they are not entitled to. Ergo, they are thieves.

[Jake - but not the one]

Mike, we all use resources paid for by others. Roads, power lines, fire trucks - the list is literally endless. That doesn't make us criminals.

And besides, to the extent that illegal aliens actually pay into the system, and I don't know how much that might be, they are also contributors and rightful USERS of the system, at least to follow your logic backwards.

And, Tom, dou you actually have a point with this post? I read it twice in an effort to find some statement by you that implied in any way some kind of conclusion.

Nada. It just ain't there. It's almost spooky how you post this stuff without actually taking a position.

Shoot, GW could take lessons from you.

Or maybe he did. I mean that whole 9/11 "Saddam did it!" gordian knot without actually ever saying that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 was very clever, in a nasty sort of way.

Jake

[Sue]

Jake,

It is the super-duper mindray machine, only Bush isn't allowed near it, only Rove and Cheney. That is why, on 9/12/2001, over 69% of the American public thought Iraq was behind 9/11. That super-duper mindray machine was cranked up and put into action before Bush uttered a word about Iraq. Seriously. No really.

[windansea]

Jake writes like the "Jeff" who got banned at Protein Wisdom who writes like our very own Jeff...it's all so confusing...serial identity morphing J men spouting the same tired lies

[Barney Frank]

Kim,

"Si illegales; no criminales."

I take it you don't live in a border state. Correct?

[TM]

it's all so confusing.

You don't know the half of it - "Jake not Neo" has an IP address once used by Patrick Sullivan. Quite an unlikely pairing.

FWIW, and I am not a techie, my understanding is that ISPs rotate their IP addresses somehow.

[windansea]

ah well...our Jeff insists he is not the other Jeff who got banned at PW...

ALL YOUR DOUGJ'S BELONG TO US.....!!

[Jake - but not the one]

Yes, the ISP's assign no permanent IP's unless you pay for it.

For example, I am sure this is a different IP from other posts I have made. I think. It's certainly from a different place with a different network setup. :)

Anyway, I am just me, no Jeff's anywhere to be heard. And the "but not the one" could reasonably be a reference to neo, but it ain't.

I thought the addendum to this post interesting, Tom. Illuminating the issue a little further, even if it cast no light on your position.

OTOH, it is YOUR place, and if you don't want to take a position, that is perfectly within your rights.

Jake

[Jake - but not the one]

PS - I don't particularly care for PW. JG is ok - off the wall, but ok, even with his man-dog-peanut butter stuff - but many of the commenters are just a little - ill.

So far, I kind of like this place. Not because I agree with ANYTHING (though I might, actually) but because the commenters seem pretty cool, relatively speaking, and Tom comes highly recommended.

Unlike JG.

Jake

[windansea]

LOL Jake...yes we mind our manners here thanks to TM's fine example....admitting that you might actually agree with something here is both funny and good to hear...

[TM]

Actually, I am kind of warming to Jake, for whatever that may be worth. I happened to sit through the entire Matrix trilogy just last weekend to humor my 12 year old (who was *thrilled* to be watching R-rated videos, although I would have rated the last two "D" for tedious).

if you don't want to take a position

Well, my position on Krugman's general phoniness is a matter of longstanding record and tradition.

As to the specifics of rising income inequality, I agree that it is ocurring and may be symptomatic of societal problems, but Krugman has not exactly led an honest discussion of this up to now.

[Jake - but not the one]

Tom, thank you for that warm welcome and for your statement of position. :)

Jake

[Rick Ballard]

"As to the specifics of rising income inequality, I agree that it is ocurring and may be symptomatic of societal problems"

You're postive Gini is real? Others aren't. Gini may deserve a place in the closet next to the worn out hockey stick.

[Jake - but not the one]

Rick, I read Morgan's analysis, and while it is interesting, it speaks of 1999. That's the end of CLINTON, not GW. So let's see a similar analysis of the past 7 years.

Not yet available, you say? Then it kind of casts the whole analysis in weak light. It is, after, the explosion of income in the top 1%, on GW's watch, that drives most of the inequality discussion.

Jake

[Rick Ballard]

Jake,

What happens in the top 1% today doesn't have much to do with whether the Gini is an accurate or meaningful descriptor of middle class income over any period of time. Aside from the fact that the largest bump at the 1% level occured in '98-'99 as Clinton's bubble prepared to burst.

It's just a damn shame for the Dems that envy isn't a stronger motive for making a voting decision. Socialist redistributive policies simply aren't as popular here as they are in the economic abyss of Europe.

[Javani]

New York Times pea brains figuring this out at last? What will they end up telling decent, good, obedient liberals to think? Only the Times is arrogant enough to publish their ignorance and thought development. It will be hailed as a discourse!

Maybe the dictators of the Democratic party line finally figured out how the Repubs are going to clobber them in November. Running on "Iraq" and BDS only energizes the moonbats.

[Jake - but not the one]

This seems unlikely to me.

"Aside from the fact that the largest bump at the 1% level occured in '98-'99 as Clinton's bubble prepared to burst."

Support it, please. This is what I read from Brad Delong -

"The 2006 Economic Report of the President tells us that the real earnings of college graduates actually fell more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Over the longer stretch from 1975 to 2004 the average earnings of college graduates rose, but by less than 1 percent per year."

Here is the link:

Delong On Income - Graduates vs Oligards (and the oligarchs are way ahead)

And this seems unintelligible - probably just to me, not being privy to Republican-speak an all.

"It's just a damn shame for the Dems that envy isn't a stronger motive for making a voting decision. Socialist redistributive policies simply aren't as popular here as they are in the economic abyss of Europe."

Interpret, please, for the linguistically and comprehension challenged - me.

Jake

PS - notice how Clinton's bubble bursting coincided with GW's administration? Interesting that.

[Jake - but not the one]

And another from the WSJ - that bastion of - I forget, is it liberal or radical right?

Anyway, here is the money quote -

Since the end of 2000, gross domestic product per person in the U.S. has expanded 8.4%, adjusted for inflation, but the average weekly wage has edged down 0.3%.

and here is the link

Wages Fail to Keep Pace With Productivity
Increases, Aggravating Income Inequality.

More interesting stuff in the body of the article.

Jake

[The Unbeliever]

PS - notice how Clinton's bubble bursting coincided with GW's administration? Interesting that.

Factually untrue. Clinton's bubble was bursting during his own term: the US had negative GDP growth in Q3 2000 and Q1 2001, when we were still on Clinton's policies and budget. The rest of the impact bled over into Bush's numbers over the next few years, of course, but not even the silliest economist would try to ignore the years of bubble buildup and argue the resulting recession was an overnight phenomenon. I generally hate to give any President too much credit or blame for the US economy, but if you're going to attempt a partisan take, then make no mistake about it--Clinton owned the bubble bust.

[kim]

You ate Lotus with Bill. You crashed(dot.com, 9/11) deeply. Now you want to partake again? Fools twice?
=======================================

[kim]

BF, we all live in border states. We will no longer have a problem with illegal immigration when we are no longer a good place to which to emigrate. Be thankful for small favors, like accidents of birth.
======================================

[Jake - but not the one]

Yes, it is remembered as the Clinton bubble.

I am just going to have to watch those partisan bs statements. :)

Wrong company for THAT kind of speech, eh? LOL!

Jake

[kim]

Hee, hee, Jake. Someday it will be known as the Clinton dot.com bust to distinguish it from other dot.com busts.
===================================

[Charles]

Wow! These street demonstrations are great. There were thousands of criminals waving Mexican flags. I learned several new curse words in Spanish. It was just like being in Tijuana.

[Bert]

Well, the Senate has now basically caved on the immigration issue, unless the House pulls a miracle resistance on the issue out of their back pocket, better get ready to 'se habla', and lock up valuables etc., because the 'indians' are comin'...

Mexico is very close to being just another 3rd world country, with widespread poverty and lots n lots of other social problems. These are about to become OUR problems as their population transplants itself wholesale. Since I haven't read anything about Bush opening up HIS ranch to the spanish hordes, I can only assume that they're supposed to land in american communities whose infrastructure is already taxed by the people that already live in them. Taxes. Yes, taxes. This is gonna cost the country. Big. Like, another trillion in red ink, or so. That'll make your 'share' of the national debt like 35-38 grand in there, somewhere. Fixing Mexico would be smarter, but hey, that's not something Washington seems to do well anymore, so, why not? I mean, at the end of the day, it's just money....and the quality of schools, and the roads, power grid, water supply, public safety, public health, employment opportunities, healthcare, pensions, basically the whole trip. Well, the politicians have finally sold out the country lock, stock, and barrel, and good riddance to you snivelers and malcontents, 'cause you don't know anything anyway...or DO we? Hmmm...as a teacher once told me, 'time will tell'...but since the jig is up for Bush one way or another in 08, what the hell does he care? The 'buck' gets passed, country goes deeper in debt,
it's all good...right? Riiight....Bush and his republican cronies have done a superlative job of NOT living up to the standards or expectations of the conservatives in america, substituting their rules where they've seen fit to, and generally just doing what's fiscally expedient, the proverbial 'quick buck'.
Well, throwing money around is one way to make friends, but ponder on the nature of relationships when the money flow should happen to stop, for some reason, so does the friendship...almost eerie...

[kim]

Where's Ernie?
=========

[Cesar]

Krugman's Migra article has to be read at an in between the lines level of sophistication in the sophistic sense of the word. First the half truths: The Sadam/9/11 association sophism. Borders/illegals/bad people. Southwest borders are not the only entry for illegal immigrants. Florida beaches are "OK" for cuban illegals. East coast airports are open ports of entry for soon to be illegals from European, Arab, Asian and African countries by the hundreds of thousands after they overstay their visas. Canada's borders have allowed hundreds of thousands of "ok" illegals too, including real terrorists.
Focusing on mexican and latin american immigrants is nothing but a racist argument when it comes to secure borders.
WhiteAmerica is livid scared (se caga de miedo) of becoming another minority in a short decade. Twelve million illegals-in between the lines- cannot be allowed to become full citizens and exercize their full rights under the constitution.
All economic and legal arguments will not make this reality go away.
New comers earn their rightfull place in this society by paying taxes every day. Do the work no one else wants to do.(The European Union has Arabs, Turks, Africans do the same for them). Our illegals raise families, educate their children, send their cildren to war and are not going to give up their american dream regardless of the nightmare they are causing to racist americans.
Mr. Krugman also forgot to take into account what a brilliant solution to Social Security woes new immigrants will be if instead of being deported or turned into 2nd class citizens they were allowed to contribute into the system. Do the math, sherlock.
America once again will continue to flourish if it only embraced their new immigrants wholeheartedly.
This is no whispering matter.
Cesar

[jeff]

Poor illegal immigrants will become a drain on the Social Security System once they are given anmesty. Low earning workers get benefits that require taking money from high earning workers. And like the last amnesty they will "reconstruct" the work history of those get amnesty to increase those benefits.

[kim]

We are lucky to have our economic underclass co-religious with us and speaking a language with many similarities. We could be in Europe. Give thanks for the accidents of birth.
==================================

[Joy Schulman]

In some states immigrants might take more benefits than they contribute,but that is not the full picture. Immigrants often pay into social security and never collect benefits. Immigrant nannies keep working mothers from losing pay when their children are sick.
Immigrants revitalize neighborhoods with grocery stores and restaurants.

Immigrants come here out of economic desperation to work, not collect free benefits. The anti-immigration fever allows them to work less and need more benefits.

President Bush does not want to solve the economic problems of immigrants or low income workers. The worker guest program in fact keeps immigrants enslaved and wages depressed.

Immigrants would not come here if they could not get work. Serious sanctions against employers that would stop them from exploiting immigrant workers would do more than anything proposed.

The Sensenbrenner bill has nothing to do with protecting low paid US citizens. Criminalizing illegal immigrants, and those who assist them, is part of a political perspective to undermine the civil liberties of immigrants and US citizens. The only economic benefit is to those private companies profiteering off of running jails.
The United States already jails more people than any country in the world by criminalizing rather than treating drug problems. The Sensenbrenner bill would only create a repressive society and fill up the jails. This domestic repression and terrorism against US citizens and residents is part of the ideology that supports pre-emptive war in Iraq based on falsehoods and with the real aim of enriching US corporations at the expense of US soldiers and Iraqui citizens.

[kim]

Say it ain't so, Joy.

What an expansive ideology you embrace.

I've got a little excess repression, here; care to offer a nice price?
=========================

[kim]

So, Joy, is it better that these immigrants stay economically desperate where they were or economiclally exploited here?
============================

[Soylent Red]

Wow Joy...Republicans are evil. Hadn't heard that one before. What a delightfully fresh new theory. I'll bet the Dems could really make hay with that. Quick-email Kos your insight.

Meanwhile...

Anytime anyone starts talking about how Amerikkka is trying to repress immigrants and how this country was built on immigration and yada yada, it makes my gorge rise.

My ancestors came into America legally and immediately began trying to assimilate (in the face of quite a bit of anti-German sentiment I might add). Therefore, I have a deep admiration and love for immigrants who play by the rules because my forebears did it.

But those aren't the people that Sensenbrenner's bill targets.

What this bill does (or more properly re-does) is to simply call illegal activity what it is, i.e. illegal, and to institute penalties for the aforementioned illegal behavior.

Now in case I lost the bleeding hearts, it's a bit like armed robbery. I know you only knocked over that liquor store to feed your family and try to make a better life, but there are rules, and breaking rules carries a penalty.

So if you support ignoring criminal behavior (albeit well-intentioned), please let me know where your place of business is and have your cash drawer ready for my arrival. I'm only trying to make a living.

[clarice]

This is one of those issues where the elites are on a different planet than the people. Most Americans are sympatheitic to immigrants. What they are not sympathetic to is an influx of unskilled workers who come here, require social services (and swamp them all along the southern border), require additional expensive services foreign language teachers, health care workers, etc) and parade with Mexican flags and signs saying this land was stolen from us.

We have a right to determine who comes into this country, when and under what services we will provide those who are here illegally. (Just as Mexico does, albeit far more draconicallt.)
OTOH the rich do not bear the cost of this. It is the lower and middle classes who pay for these servies, see their school costs increase while the product suffers, their hospitals swamped and run out of business, and--most significantly--their wages kept down by the large number of unskilled and semi-skilled workers with whom they compete.)
I do not see a wide-scale expulsion of those here, but we must tighten up the borders and stop rewarding illegal immigration by, among other things, offering in-state tuition to illegals not offered to out of state citizens.

[clarice]

*urgh*when and under whatconditions, what services we will provide those who are here illegally. (Just as Mexico does, albeit far more draconically.)
OTOH the rich do not bear the cost of this. It is the lower and middle classes who pay for these servies, see their school costs increase while the product suffers, their hospitals swamped and run out of business, and--most significantly--their wages kept down by the large number of unskilled and semi-skilled workers with whom they compete.)
I do not see a wide-scale expulsion of those here, but we must tighten up the borders and stop rewarding illegal immigration by, among other things, offering in-state tuition to illegals not offered to out of state citizens.

[Harry Arthur]

Income inequality. It seems to me that statistically income inequality is inevitable in an expanding economy. The poor can get no poorer than $0 and the ranks of the rich will inevitably grow in an expanding economy, thereby increasing "income inequality".

Am I missing something here?

It also seems to me that the entire topic is somewhat less than useful. Unfortunately it is usually a precursor to the suggestion that we bring the "income inequality" into balance by reducing the assets of the rich through income redistribution of one sort or another. We can argue over the inevitable result of those policies I suppose.

[M. Simon]

"Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of ability, and recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the law... democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it." -- Will and Ariel Durant

from Profit

If the bottom is advancing there is nothing wrong with rising inequality. Because money diffuses over time.

My #2 son is on full scholarship at U. Chicago thanks to the oil baron J. D. Rockefeller who founded the school. Money diffuses over time.

[M. Simon]

Joy, Kim,

Perhaps the government is protecting us from a phantom menace:

Is Addiction Real?

And what is the profit in that?

I think Joy has touched on it.

[M. Simon]

Joy,

Despite the corruption you see America may in fact have real enemies. There are darker places on the planet than the USA.

[J. Bring]

There are some issues that raw data, statistics, are not useful at all because you make either type error 1 (most likely) or error 2.) You can one System Dynamics and Modeling and contrast with some behavioral reality as a much better method than Borjas does. You can see trends you observe in the real world and contrast them against your model: Either they're equal or you lack some key factors, functions are wrong, or the data used is wrong. This method gets you closer to "having lived quite tremendously in the field." Borjas doesn't take into consideration how many immigrants want to live (FLOW OUT), versus the one coming in (FLOW IN.) According to his Model, and popular belief the US is just "an accumulator," which it is as long as there is not policy, without policy without penalty or police OPENING the FLOW OUT. Once an immigrant is in the USA (hard but possible) there is NO WAY OUT. There is no way for an (illegal immigrant to get a new passport from his Embassy and just take an airplane without further ado. He/she the entire family must prove how they enter the US and if they cannot prove they have stayed here legally their lives are put in harms way. Most chose not to do so and wait. That is one solution that is escaping ant Immigration Law and most people against (illegal immigrants). Therefore, OPEN the borders in the way OUT: This would REDUCE the number of (illegal) immigrants tired of living in the USA.

[kim]

Thermodynamics rules.
Entropy remaint.
We won't be attractive,
When we ain't.
================

[DS]

[This is a response that Tom made on http://newus.blogspot.com>my blog.]

Unskilled immigrant labor does not depress wages when employer sanctions for employing illegal labor are enforced. If sanctions are enforced, and undocumented immigrant workers are given status and brought out of the shadows, then they compete on the same level as US citizen workers and other green card holders. If that's still too low, then what we should be talking about is raising the statutory minimum wage.

Plus, while Paul Krugman has his op-ed, other press states that illegal immigrants boost social security by billions, see Eduardo Porter, "Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security with Billions", N.Y.Times, Apr. 5, 2005, at A1, and that American workers don't go for immigrant-heavy jobs like landscaping. See this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/26/AR2006032601058.html>Wash. Post article.

[DS]

Oops - I meant that the previous comment is a response of mine to a comment that Tom made on my blog. Sorry for the confusion.

[clarice]

It's fine to note that the contributions of illegals outweigh the social costs, but that assumes the costs are evenly distributed which they are not. The illegal immigrants tend to congregate in certain areas overwhelming ths public service sector.IIRC 40% of the illegals from Mexico are in the So. Cal area. If they were more evenly distributed I think you would see less opposition.

And to be honest the Mexicans seem to engender more hostility because of their Reconquista notions.

In D.C. most of the illegal immigrants are from central America and Peru and while they retain ties to their homelands they want to be US citizens and are good ones.

[boris]

seem to engender more hostility because of their Reconquista notions

There is a form of pathological mindset I see too much of. Let me describe it hypothetically this way:

“We were poor, unfree and oppressed so we came to this country the US. Now we are prosperous and free but the culture we live in lacks the comfort of our home culture. So now lets change the US culture to be more like our home country.”

If you like your home culture so much why don’t you go back there?

“Because it is better to be prosperous and free, but we now want both.”

But ... if you recreate your home culture here in very short time you will no longer be prosperous or free. The prosperity and liberty of the US is not an artifact of location it’s the essence of our culture.

The leftists were born here but their thinking is the same. The culture they want to impose just happens to be from La La Land and not from elsewhere on planet Earth.

[LM]

Well, nothing like hearing the story of a former illegal immigrant to put things in perspective; although, I feel that most of the people here eat from the hand of conservatives, thus are not interested. Anyway, many years ago, I crossed the Canada-US border by just driving through one night, with friends. The crossing was sooooo easy; we just took some off the map roads, between farms, and in a few minutes we were on the way to NYC. No questions asked. If you think that there's anyone controlling the borders, you are very naive. Since NYC was too cold for my taste, I decided to cross the US by bus, for the scenery and some adventure. I crossed a bunch of states until arriving in California. No questions asked. The beginning was very tough; I slept a few nights at LAX and on the streets, until I found some work. I did it all: dishwasher, busboy, valet, construction, pizza delivery for major pizza chains (you know who), moving furniture, messenger, etc...ohhooo, yummie stuff. I worked hard everyday with illegal immigrants, which included Mexicans, Europeans, Central Americans, South Americans, Asians, you name it. I can tell you by experience that illegal immigration or amnesty is bad for America. Here's why: most illegal immigrants make their money in cash and send most of it back to their countries, working for any amount they can get, thus lowering wages for all American citizens. Have you seen any American black people doing roofing lately? The illegals put them out of commission. One thing that bothers me is that most illegals maintain aspects of their culture that made their own countries a faillure, such as trashing the environment, not obeying laws, not interested in studying, no ambition, no respect for the US. Moreover, they use American infrastructure and don't pay the taxes needed to support it, because they earn all the money in cash without spending most of it in our economy. Did I see illegal coworkers driving drunk? Yes. Did I see them stealling money from cars they parked as a valet? Sure. Did I see them getting hookers in Hollywood? You bet. Did I see them doing drugs while working. Of course. I refused to do all this stuff because of my education and to stay out of trouble to get a greencard; however, everyone around me was doing it. I witnessed this for years, in a daily basis, getting to know everyone's culture while learning how to speak their languages. Has any of you lived as an illegal immigrant, know their cultures well by experience, or really speak their languages? Furthermore, when illegals get hurt, the hospitals take their fake social security numbers and the bill is never paid. Works like a charm. Guess who picks up the tab? By the way, Mexicans, Salvadoreans, and Nicaraguans are the most hardworking people I ever met, truth be told. As you can see, I know all the ins and outs of this illegal life because I lived it long time ago, in the tough streets of LA and NYC. However, I'm an exception because I had a good education back home and came with a goal to make it in America. So far I've graduated twice (suma and magna cum laude) at good American universities. I also opened my own business, married a born and raised American bombshell (thank you very much), bought the house, bought the flashy cars, never got arrested, my FICO is 760, speak four languages (including spanish), have dual citizenship (two passports), registered to vote, safe driver, and even went to study French at Sorbonne in Paris a few years ago. So I know European life too. But don't you think that every illegal out there is doing what I did; very few do. You should hear the truth from educated people who lived this illegal immigration thing, not people with an agenda. Most illegal Mexicans (and everyone else around the world now) don't give a damn about Americans, and are here only to seek their own priorities like everyone else, hence all those Mexican flags. Sorry, I was an illegal immigrant too but I have to tell the truth, now that I can look back on my tough life in America and do a cost-benefit analysis on illegal immigration. Indeed, illegal immigration and this guest worker trick is bad for America (good for corporations though), like Bush and all his cronies are too (and most Republicans...you can put Fox on tha pile also). I'm independent, by the way. If you don't want to believe my story, fine. But I had the advantage to be an outsider and an insider in all aspects of American life. Plus I can talk to you about Adam Smith, Ricardo, Reaganomics, or what have you, because I went to B-School, and had a minor in economics. Therefore, I can assure you all that we've been heading in the wrong direction, especially with the environment. And now with immigration.

[kim]

So tell me what you know about the hockey stick.
==============================

[kim]

Or tell me more about the cost benefit analysis of 'illegal immigration'. Or speak of Fair Eire, and how the air has changed there.
====================================

[LM]

Hey Kim, you must be Asian. Kim is such a cliche name. Tell us your immigrant story, or just say it with your accent: "M-y n-a-m-e i-s E-a-r-l."