Matt Ortega

1. gordo

   There’s a lot to like about that article. He properly notes that wages have been stagnant because of anti-labor policies, not because of immigration. And he points out that the way to blunt the effects of illegal immigration without disrupting the job market is not to deport them, but to put them on a path to legalization.

   But I have to wonder what he’s talking about when he says that immigration has aggravated a “tight labor market.” We do have a tight labor market. A tight labor market is one in which jobs are plentiful and workers are relatively scarce. It’s hard to see how immigrants are aggravating that situation.

   I also don’t think he makes a good case for free trade being a cause of job losses and stagnant wages. Since the beginning of the Free Trade Era, the US has experienced low unemployment and low inflation. Clinton expanded trade more than any president in history, and his administration was marked by economic expansion and modest wage gains.

   Now, it’s true that wages should have risen over the past 20 years more than they did, but their failure to do so obviously has more to do with the dismantling of labor protections, not immigration or free trade. After all, if immigration and free trade caused unemployment and low wages, then rising immigration and rapid expansion of trade would have sent the economy into a long depression. Instead, we got the longest peacetime expansion in our nation’s history.

   November 13, 2007

2. Matt Ortega

   It is no secret that free trade policies like NAFTA decimated Latin American economies, putting small, local businesses out of work, and in turn, pulls money out of the economy and redirects it to the multinational corporation’s headquarters in the U.S., or more specifically their “headquarters” in the Cayman Islands to avoid taxation.

   November 13, 2007

3. gordo

   Matt–

   Actually, trade has been very good for Latin America’s economies. The economic renaissance that the Mercosur countries are now experiencing is, to a large degree, due to rapid growth in trade with the US, India, and China. And Migra Matters’ point was that the American economy, specifically the “tight job market”, has been harmed by free trade and illegal immigration. That’s simply not the case.

   November 14, 2007

4. duke1676

   Gordo,

   you say:

   “But I have to wonder what he’s talking about when he says that immigration has aggravated a “tight labor market.”

   “Now, it’s true that wages should have risen over the past 20 years more than they did, but their failure to do so obviously has more to do with the dismantling of labor protections, not immigration or free trade. After all, if immigration and free trade caused unemployment and low wages,..”

   I think you missed a key point here. I didn’t claim that immigration caused wage stagnation, unemployment, or put stress on a tight job market…I actually said that “many believe” these things… and then went on to explain how those in Washington who have crafted the failed economic polices that have led to these condition have attempted (and to some extent succeeded) to convince the American people that all these ills are the cause of immigrants.

   BTW I explicitly discuss the dismantling of labor protections and union busting as key elements in the conservative war on working people.

   As to free trade: The failures of NAFTA to deliver on it’s promise both in the US and in Mexico and Canada is well documented. In one recent study from the Economic Policy Institute it was noted that:

   “As a former foreign minister of Mexico once remarked, NAFTA was “an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies.” It should, therefore, be no surprise that NAFTA rules protect the interests of large corporate investors while undercutting workers’ rights, environmental protections, and democratic accountability. Hence, NAFTA should be seen not as a stand-alone treaty, but as part of a long-term campaign by the conservative business interests in all three countries to rip up their respective domestic social contract.” http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp173

   November 17, 2007

Reply to “A Progressive Plan for Immigration Reform”