CBO: IMMIGRATION BILL WOULD DRIVE DOWN AMERICAN WORKERS’ WAGES
June 18, 2013
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) report on the Senate’s immigration bill predicts that the legislation would drive down the wages of American workers and make it difficult for Americans to find jobs in an already-damaged economy.
On page seven of the analysis, the CBO and JCT conclude that the “Gang of Eight” bill would drive down American workers’ wages. “Taking into account all of those flows of new immigrants, CBO and JCT expect that a greater number of immigrants with lower skills than with higher skills would be added to the workforce, slightly pushing down the average wage for the labor force as a whole, other things being equal,” the report reads.
On the same page, the CBO and JCT analysis found that illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty, or legalized status, would see a spike in their income while Americans’ incomes dropped. “However, CBO and JCT expect that currently unauthorized workers who would obtain legal status under S. 744 would see an increase in their average wages,” it reads.
Similarly, a bullet point on page nine shows that CBO and JCT believe that demand for workers would “dampen,” meaning it would be harder for Americans to find jobs if the bill passed. “Although the average wage would be lower than under current law over the first dozen years, the minimum wage would keep the wages of some less skilled workers from falling, dampening businesses’ demand for those workers,” the analysis states.
These revelations in the report contradict a statement Gang of Eight member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made celebrating the analysis’s top-line numbers. “The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers,” Rubio said in that statement.
In contrast, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, has argued the bill would depress American wages, as have several members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
“In light of recent debates on comprehensive immigration reform, we are writing to address a rarely-discussed effect of granting legal status or effective amnesty to illegal immigrants,” three Civil Rights Commission members wrote to members of Congress in April, arguing that the Gang of Eight bill would negatively impact America’s black communities. “Such grant of legal status will likely disproportionately harm lower-skilled African-Americans by making it more difficult for them to obtain employment and depressing their wages when they do obtain employment.”
Questions to think about:
1. WHY haven’t the unions been screaming about this? Hoping to unionize low level workers? What about current union members that are having difficulty getting/keeping jobs while those made legal will take any available jobs?
2. WHY won’t Legislators/Senators refuse to pass bill and just work to ENFORCE immigration laws already on the books?
3. WHY has the immigration bill ballooned so largesse? WHAT is actually IN THIS BILL?
4. WHY is the immigration bill ONLY focused on Mexicans? It is known that there are “other than Mexicans” already here illegally. Snuck across Mexico’s lax border (Chinese, Vietnamese, Hezbollah, etc.) and those that have simply just overstayed their Visa’s. Besides the OTM’s there are drug cartels, gangs such as MS13 that have infiltrated our country. What will become of them; will they become legal US citizens?
5. With our economy already strapped with a 7.6% unemployment rate (probably higher since some have just given up looking for work) and those that are working are being cut hours due to the regulations in Obamacare, HOW will our economy be able to handle those that will be granted amnesty style entitlements?
We the People are watching the Cloward-Piven Strategy unfold before our very eyes.
Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.
The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the pooronto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces for major economic reform at the national level.”
Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act. This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.