If you have DLLR operating workers will take home the wages they are supposed to rather than having $5 of $9 taken in wage fraud as happens to immigrants. It brings all workers to the same playing level and employers will hire for ability to work and not how cheap that labor is. A healthy domestic economy CAN employ both immigrants and US workers comfortably. Republicans want all undocumented gone but do not want regulations and oversight of employers that will do this.
IF YOU PROTECT ALL WORKERS THAN HIRING WILL BECOME A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AND THE BALANCE MOVES AWAY FROM CHEAPEST WAGE.
We know when workers have more money in their pockets---and it does not have to be much----they buy things that give small businesses income ergo the broad economy. Global corporations do not want this kind of economy----they kill wages and small businesses -----GET RID OF THESE GLOBAL POLS. Baltimore City is an economic basket case because Baltimore Development which is simply Wall Street and Johns Hopkins want deep poverty and unemployment and movement of more and more immigrant labor to cause civil unrest and intense competition for jobs.
IT IS POLITICAL STRATEGY AND IT IS DONE WITH POLITICIANS RUNNING AS DEMOCRATS AND SERVING AS NEO-CONSERVATIVES.
Of course it is the Republican states with the voters most against undocumented workers taking jobs that use immigrants the most for cheap wage. What was called a progressive policy-----allowing undocumented immigrants to attain drivers licenses----was only Clinton neo-liberals expanding the job categories undocumented will work. So, Johns Hopkins' transportation corporation can now use immigrant drivers. The number of job categories opened by this one policy is great and it is why US citizen unemployment grows more and more----WHICH IS THE GOAL. When the bond market crash comes next year and we have a deep and long recession/depression----we will see those global manufacturing corporations building up and hiring and bringing more and more immigrants pushing the US and citizens further and further to third world status while immigrants brought to the US for a better life will be worked as they are in their own nation with just a few global corporations getting richer and richer.
THAT WAS THE SOLE REASON FOR DOING THIS---NOT TO PROTECT THE IMMIGRANT. REMEMBER, IF YOU ARE BEING PROGRESSIVE YOU ARE NOT FLEECING IMMIGRANTS ONCE THEY ARE ON THE JOB.
Now saying you are for workplace enforcement and actually doing it are two different things as we see in the article below with Obama and Clinton neo-liberals in Congress pretending they want enforcement. Remember, Obama installed with Executive Order the Federalism Act that says the Federal government is NOT going to enforce Federal law. We know the Department of Labor is working for corporations and inspections are not really happening and we know states like Maryland have no DLLR that would do this. So, this is progressive posing.
How to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants
By Dylan Matthews January 30, 2013
An American workplace. (Justin Lubin/AP)
One point of agreement between President Obama and the Senate's Octogang is on "workplace enforcement." They both want it! And even immigration rights advocates are keen on it.
"The border security issue is, at this point, 90 to 95 percent solved," Frank Sharry, head of the pro-immigrant group America’s Voice, told Ezra yesterday. "Employer verification is, at this point, less than 10 percent solved."
But wait — what are we talking about when we throw around phrases like like "employer verification" and "workplace enforcement"? After all, it's already illegal for employers to hire workers who they know — or should have known — came to the U.S. illegally. Under the 1986 immigration reform law, employers found guilty of employing 10 or more workers whom they know to be here illegally could face up to five years in prison.
But as a recent policy paper from the Migration Policy Institute explains, the reality is a lot less stringent. All employers have to do to comply with the law is complete a form called an I-9 verifying new workers' legal status. Doing more than that opens employers up to penalties for discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin. And even if they don't fill out the form, fines start at only $3,200 per worker, and max out at $16,000 per worker for third or additional offenses. Perhaps unsurprisingly, employer compliance is much lower than it is for other workplace laws and regulations, such as the minimum wage.
Currently, the system is enforced via three mechanisms: E-Verify, work-site raid and labor-standards inspections.
As this research shows the positive effects on the US economy from undocumented workers is not there----there is no reason to do it. The displaced US workers are growing and that makes the economy worse. So, the motivation of Bush neo-cons like Johns Hopkins and Clinton neo-liberals like Obama is simply to create that civil unrest and intense competition that leads to deepened impoverishment.
PROTECT THE UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS HERE NOW SO WE HAVE JUSTICE FOR ALL BUT STOP ENCOURAGING MORE AND MORE TO COME WHILE DOMESTIC UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH.
If you keep allowing Clinton neo-liberals to control the Democratic Party this will grow and grow and become a mess in just a few decades. GET ENGAGED IN POLITICS AND BE THE CANDIDATE IN ALL DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTIONS.
The Economics and Policy of Illegal
Immigration in the United States
Gordon H. Hanson
University of California-San Diego
and National Bureau of Economic Research
Policymakers across the political spectrum share a belief that high levels of illegal
immigration are an indictment of the current immigration policy regime. An estimated 12
million unauthorized immigrants live in the United States, and the past decade saw an
average of 500,000 illegal entrants per year. Until recently, the presence of unauthorized
immigrants was unofficially tolerated. But since 2001, policymakers have poured huge
resources into securing US borders, ports, and airports; and since 2006, a growing range of
policies has targeted unauthorized immigrants within the country and their employers.
Notwithstanding these efforts, no agreement has materialized on a system to replace the
status quo and, in particular, to divert illegal flows to legal ones. Policy inaction is a result not
only of a partisan divide in Washington, but also of the underlying economic reality that
despite its faults, illegal immigration has been hugely beneficial to many US employers, often
providing benefits that the current legal immigration system does not.
Unauthorized immigrants provide a ready source of manpower in agriculture, construction,
food processing, building cleaning and maintenance, and other low-end jobs, at a time when
the share of low-skilled native-born individuals in the US labor force has fallen dramatically.
Not only do unauthorized immigrants provide an important source of low-skilled labor, they
also respond to market conditions in ways that legal immigration presently cannot, making
them particularly appealing to US employers. Illegal inflows broadly track economic
performance, rising during periods of expansion and stalling during downturns (including
the present one). By contrast, legal flows for low-skilled workers are both very small and
relatively unresponsive to economic conditions. Green cards are almost entirely unavailable
to low-skilled workers; while the two main low-skilled temporary visa programs (H-2A and
H-2B) vary little over the economic cycle and in any case represent scarcely 1 percent of the
current unauthorized population, making them an inconsequential component of domestic
Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled
native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US
employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land,
capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized
immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude
these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined
to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US
employers’ gains is tiny. And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized
immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a
This is really only about broadening job categories for immigrants and with it the decline of wages and workplace protections. I want immigrants to drive with protections but I do not want a steady growth of unemployment for US workers in these broad job categories. This is the dynamic that is hard for REAL progressives and Clinton neo-liberals know it.
States Offering Driver’s Licenses to Immigrants
Gilberto Mendoza 7/8/2015 Table of Contents
States issue driver’s licenses under the constitutional authority of the Tenth Amendment. Congress enacted REAL ID in 2005 creating standards for state-issued driver’s licenses, including evidence of lawful status. This is a summary of state legislation authorizing driver’s licenses or authorization cards for unauthorized immigrants (not to be used for federal identification purposes) and examples of limits or exceptions for legal immigrants’ licenses.
Twelve states and the District of Columbia enacted laws to allow unauthorized immigrants to obtain a driver’s licenses. These states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont and Washington—issue a license if an applicant provides certain documentation, such as a foreign birth certificate, a foreign passport, or a consular card and evidence of current residency in the state. Eight of these states extended driving privileges in 2013. In 2015, Delaware and Hawaii enacted legislation to give unauthorized immigrants driving privileges.
In 2013, Oregon enacted S833 that provided driver’s licenses for unauthorized immigrants. In 2014, voters approved ballot Measure 88 and suspended the law by 67 to 33 percent.
Cities like Baltimore that have deliberately created a stagnant economy and high unemployment to force the working-class and poor from the city-----which is largely black citizens are doing so at the same time they are shouting for immigrant citizens to grow the cities. Everyone can see this desire to grow at the same time forcing current citizens out has ulterior motives.
Black citizens have been largely pushed to that black market economy I posted earlier just to create the pipeline to prison cheap labor and as Jim Crow----getting a majority black out of the cities and making a minority of them. The idea that people of color join forces----Hispanics, Black, and Asian against white repression we know rarely happens. Warring factions happen. Middle-class Americans in cities are going to be killed by the rich wanting all citizens at poverty and getting caught in these battles for jobs and resources as we see in Baltimore. Over 500,000 citizens in Baltimore are at poverty or unemployed with a growing immigrant population that will create the same gang violence as is seen in LA and Chicago.
NO ONE WINS WITH THIS EXCEPT THE RICH----STOP ALLOWING WALL STREET AND JOHNS HOPKINS TO PLAY YOU!
Below you see where 2/3 of the corporations being started are foreign born----as if having global corporations creating jobs and not US citizens is a boon.
Why American Cities Are Fighting to Attract Immigrants
Many metro areas with large foreign-born populations have thriving local economies. And now local governments all over the U.S. are trying to replicate their successes.
Shannon Stapleton / Reuters
- Ted Hesson
- Jul 21, 2015
You’ve probably heard all of these arguments, especially with the country recovering from a financial disaster. Indeed, they’ve been heard for a century or two, as successive waves of immigrants to this nation of immigrants have first been vilified, then grudgingly tolerated, and ultimately venerated for their contributions.
This time, too, there is ample evidence that immigrants are creating businesses and revitalizing the U.S. workforce. From 2006 to 2012, more than two-fifths of the start-up tech companies in Silicon Valley had at least one foreign-born founder, according to the Kauffman Foundation. A report by the Partnership for a New American Economy, which advocates for immigrants in the U.S. workforce, found that they accounted for 28 percent of all new small businesses in 2011.
Immigrants also hold a third of the internationally valid patents issued to U.S. residents, according to University of California (Davis) economist Giovanni Peri. In a 2012 article published by the Cato Institute, the libertarian (and pro-immigration) think tank, Peri concluded that immigrants boost economic productivity and don’t have a notable impact—either positive or negative—on net job growth for U.S.-born workers. One reason: Immigrants and native-born workers gravitate toward different jobs.
Immigration isn’t without its negative effects, especially on Americans who lack a high school diploma, according to George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. In a 2013 report published by the immigration-restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies, Borjas calculated that immigrants might have depressed the wages of native-born high school dropouts by 6 percent between 1990 and 2010, mainly due to foreigners who’d arrived illegally.
But immigration, on the whole, bolsters the workforce and adds to the nation’s overall economic activity. Look at the impact on cities that attract the most foreign-born residents. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston are all major immigrant destinations and also economic powerhouses, accounting for roughly one-fifth of the country’s gross domestic product. In New York, immigrants made up 44 percent of the city's workforce in 2011; in and around Los Angeles, they accounted for a third of the economic output in 2007.
Immigrants tend to contribute more to the economy once they’ve learned English and become citizens. A few cities—notably, New York—have a long history of ushering immigrants into the mainstream society and economy. Other parts of the country have less experience with newcomers but are learning to adapt.
Take Nashville, for instance. As recently as 2009, immigrants living in the Tennessee capital had reason to worry. A conservative city council member proposed amending the municipality’s charter to require that all government business be conducted in English, allegedly to save money. This raised hackles. “Would the health department be allowed to speak Arabic to a patient?” or so The Tennessean, Nashville's leading newspaper, wondered. “Could a city-contracted counselor offer services in Spanish?”
The voters apparently wondered, too, for they soundly defeated the English-only amendment, which had earned the enmity of businesses, religious organizations, and advocacy groups. “A significant moment in the city’s history when it comes to immigration,” recalls Nashville’s mayor, Karl Dean, a Democrat who had recently taken office. “Since that moment, the city really hasn’t looked back.”
The foreign-born population in the Nashville metropolitan area has more than doubled since 2000; immigrants accounted for three-fifths of the city’s population growth between 2000 and 2012, and now constitute an eighth of all Nashville residents. When President Obama delivered a speech on immigration last December, he did it in Nashville. The city famed as the nation’s country music capital now boasts the largest U.S. enclave of Kurds, along with increasing numbers of immigrants from Myanmar and Somalia.
They’ve been drawn to Nashville’s booming economy, which has ranked among the fastest-growing in the nation in recent years. But they’re not only benefiting from the local prosperity—they’re contributing to it. Immigrants are twice as likely as native-born Nashville residents to start their own small businesses, according to data compiled by the Partnership for a New American Economy. They also play an outsized role in important local industries, including construction, health care, and hotels.
Nashville has welcomed these immigrants with open arms, in ways that other municipalities around the country are trying to emulate. In the forefront is a nonprofit organization called Welcoming Tennessee, started in 2005 to highlight immigrants’ contributions and potential role in Nashville’s future. It put up billboards around Nashville—“Welcome the immigrant you once were,” and the like—in hopes of defanging the political debate. The current race to elect a new mayor next month has drawn questions at campaign forums indicative of the new political tone, about how candidates would handle a diverse school system and assure that city services are available to all immigrants, legal or otherwise.
The “welcoming” movement that started in Tennessee has evolved into “Welcoming America,” a national network of organizations that preach the economic upside of immigration and help people adjust to life in the United States. Since 2009, 57 cities and counties, from San Francisco and Philadelphia to Dodge City, Kansas, have taken “welcoming” pledges, meaning that the local governments committed themselves to a plan to help immigrants assimilate.
The private sector, too, has shown an interest in bringing immigrants into the mainstream of American life. Citigroup is promoting citizenship efforts in Maryland, while another big bank, BB&T, has been holding educational forums across the Southeast to explain a federal program that issues work permits to young undocumented immigrants. Retailers such as American Apparel go out of their way to help foreign-born employees learn English and apply for citizenship. Beyond motives of altruism lay considerations of the bottom line. Foreign-born residents now make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, a not-to-be-ignored share of the consumer market. The next generation is more lucrative still: One in four American residents younger than 18 has an immigrant parent.
Local governments, mindful of their pressing economic needs, have taken the lead. Many cities have created offices devoted to serving “new Americans” locally. Dayton, Ohio, has intensified its efforts to redevelop a neighborhood with a growing Turkish community. Nashville runs a program called MyCity Academy, which teaches leaders from immigrant communities about local government.
Not every community that dubs itself a “welcoming city” will be able to replicate Nashville’s success. But Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, suggests some guidelines. Teaching immigrants how to speak English is “sort of foundational,” she says, “but it's helpful if the conversation doesn't stop there,” by also including how immigrants can thrive economically and gain access to health care. Muñoz endorses programs to connect ethnic leaders with local movers and shakers, to show the public that helping immigrants assimilate is “about all of us, as opposed to an ‘us and them’ kind of thing.”
The biggest obstacle to welcoming immigrants may be the usual one: a lack of resources. “Every area, you could probably be putting money into,” says Nashville Mayor Dean. Even so, he’s pleased that another potential obstacle—community opposition—has faded. “I'm sure there’s people who are concerned,” he says, “but they’re quiet about it.”
He adds, with more than a trace of civic pride: “I call it the happy moment here, how well the city has adjusted to being more diverse… It’s a good story, and you’ve got to be encouraged by it.”
The article above makes you believe that all that immigrant migration----whether low wage workers for cheapened wages or foreign corporations being built makes for a thriving economy BUT THAT IS A LIE. Texas is ground zero for this global market economic zone and has the highest immigrant population and as the article below states----IT HAS THE LOWEST QUALITY OF LIFE. That is because it is third world. Everyone is being fleeced except a few of the richest. It is no coincidence that the number one recruitment of new citizens to Baltimore are from Texas-----the most neo-conservative state in the nation.
When an article says this economic model expands an economy they are speaking of the global economy and we know jobs and products sold are overseas. So, it is not expanding or improving the domestic economy----it is soaking its citizens with taxes, fees, and fines to subsidize global corporations as does Baltimore City. All but a few immigrants are hurt by these policies and the few made rich are simply used to fleece and repress the other immigrants.
STOP ALLOWING CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS AND BUSH NEO-CONS AND THEIR POLS LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL.
Texas, like it's neo-conservative twin Baltimore City are fast becoming that third world nation with unfettered naked capitalism killing quality of life. Now we are hearing that Texas is moving to Clinton territory to try to keep neo-liberals in control of the Democratic Party. Baltimore City is moving as hard as it can to that economic zone model with citizens all working at big complexes like FOXCONN corporations that Houston has had for decades and now sees as bad policy. Baltimore pretends it is working on transportation problems but it defunds even its basic bus services. As with Houston---the tax base is gone----no taxes, no public services or programs.
No laughing matter: Houston trending in wrong direction with quality of life eroding, report says
By Clifford Pugh 2.27.13 | 3:28 pm Share3 Tweet1 EMail Pin Houston's explosive growth presents its own set of problems. NeighborhoodCity.com 75 percent of Houston residents drive to work alone in private vehicles. Texas A&M Transportation Institute More than two-thirds of Houstonians live within a quarter-mile of a bus stop but trips are long because neighborhoods are separated from work and school.
Photo courtesy of RideMETRO.org A few years ago, our Montrose neighborhood group was fighting a street closure and our councilman, Jew Don Boney, wasn't very supportive. "This is a 'happy problem'," he said, although it didn't seem side-splitting to those of us who were battling to keep access to our neighborhood intact.
I thought of that encounter when a new report about Houston's future landed in my inbox. A report by Rice University's Shell Center for Sustainability warns that Houston's quality of life is eroding and will continue to get worse if tough choices aren't made now.
"We really need to take a more comprehensive look at development in the city," says Lester King, author of the report and a sustainability fellow at the Shell Center. "It just makes sense."
"If we don't perform closely with New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, something is wrong," King says. "We need to to look at those cities and see what they are doing right."
Issues concerning explosive growth and the lack of planning for the future may be considered "happy problems" because it proves that Houston is not Detroit. Nevertheless, Houston is trending in the wrong direction, King says, particularly when compared to the nation's top cities.
"If we don't perform closely with New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, something is wrong," King says. "We need to to look at those cities and see what they are doing right."
Selling planning in a city with a history of nearly unfettered regulation is going to be hard. But with such explosive growth — Houston has grown by one-third since 1990 and is projected to top 2.7 million by 2020 — King is not the only one who believes it's time to address issues where Houston and Harris County lag.
In his annual "State of the County" speech to the Greater Houston Partnership on Tuesday, County Judge Ed Emmett said that for the area to continue to prosper, solutions to such issues as transportation, indigent health care and aid for the mentally ill must be found.
According to the Shell Center for Sustainability study, Houston housing prices may be lower than the national average, but so are salaries. Thirty percent of Houston households spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing in 2010, up from 20 percent in 2000.
And Houstonians are now spending a larger percentage of their income on housing and transportation than residents in other comparable cities.
Houstonians are now spending a larger percentage of their income on housing and transportation than residents in other comparable cities.
In 2010, 46 percent of income in the average Houston household went to housing and transportation, a higher percentage than New York (37 percent) and Chicago (42 percent.)
Because Houston is a car-dependent city, we spend more on transportation that almost any other major city. In 2010, Houston led the nation in auto sales; 75 percent of residents drive to work alone in private vehicles — in part because they have to.
Almost 57 percent of all jobs in Houston are located in 17 business centers, yet only about 22 percent of residents live within a quarter-mile of those centers. (In Los Angeles, 90 percent of residents live within a quarter-mile of a business center.)
And we are increasingly spending more time in our cars. Have you driven around the Galleria area, lately?
Traffic is a nightmare and will only get worse, as two new high-rises and a big mixed-use center near completion with the construction of more high-rises on the way within a half-mile of the gigantic shopping mall. With no light rail planned in the area during my lifetime and a bus lane in the early stages, I envision a time in the not-too-distant future when total gridlock develops along Post Oak and Westheimer.
And we are increasingly spending more time in our cars. Have you driven around the Galleria area, lately?
And that's just one part of the city.
Other causes for concern: Nearly a third of Houstonians do not have health insurance. And funding for mental health care is so abysmal that many mentally-ill people end up in jail as a last-resort place
“The Harris County Jail should not be the largest mental health facility in the state,” Emmett said in his "State of the County" speech.
In an issue not many talk about publicly, Anglos have left the city — and Harris County — in record numbers, which is more than a sign of changing demographics, King says.
"It's a sign of a decline in the quality of life or the fact that Houston can't compete with other cities with a higher quality of life."
King says the exhaustive study points to better overall planning and coordination between agencies as one solution to Houston's growth problems. "We have many planning agencies working at odds with each other," he says.
For example, the city housing authority should be concerned with the development of entire neighborhoods and not just individual housing developments.
"Houston has always been an open place to improve quality of life. We just have to do it."
To address transportation issues, the bus system needs to be more efficient and light rail should be expanded to compete with comparable cities (Chicago has more than 400 rail stations, Houston currently has 16). And incentives to locate housing closer to jobs would decrease road traffic and increase air quality.
The study suggests that more comprehensive and sustainable development doesn't have to reply on heavy zoning. Instead ways to encourage development close to business centers with new codes and cash incentives could achieve the same results, according to the study.
What it takes is Houston ingenuity, King says.
"Houston is definitely at a crossroads. People are interested in making a better quality of life. They are funding HISD, building parks, we still have three new rail lines (under construction or in development). Houston has always been an open place to improve quality of life. We just have to do it."
If that happens, you'll see a smile on my face.