Yes, of course immigration creates jobs, but that doesn’t change the fact that immigrants will compete for jobs with some native born.
There was a time when cab drivers were generally native born. That’s changed now. So at some point in time immigrants were displacing citizens as cab drivers.
Did the drivers end up with better jobs, worse jobs, or no jobs? There haven’t been many studies on that topic, but This American Life did a really interesting program on it.
"immigrants will compete for jobs with some native born"
Reality begs to differ:
"Immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs. Instead, Immigrants and U.S.-born workers often complement each other in the labor market, rather than competing for jobs, according to research from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Immigrants bring different skills and specializations to the workforce, which can complement the work of U.S. employees."
I don’t think there was ever a time when you’d ride in a cab and the driver would be Steve Jones, professional cab driver.
It was Italians and Greeks before it was Indians and Pakistani and Nigerians, and even Italians and Greeks who were born in the US weren’t considered “native born” until you stopped seeing them driving your taxi and started seeing them issuing your mortgage.
Republican politicians, and their donors, also largely, if secretly, believe "many immigrants are a vital part of society." If they did not, they would be pressing for the prosecution of the American employers illegally hiring them - an easier and more direct route to forcing undocumented-immigrant labor out of our economy. But they don't want to do that.
For the most part the people doing the hiring are following the law. The Federal I-9 states that if the documents provided—which the employee chooses—appear to be authentic, then that’s all they need. It specifically says on the form that even if you think the person is an illegal immigrant, that for the purpose of hiring they aren’t.
All you need to make an authentic appearing SS card is a color printer and some card stock, so it’s a really low bar.
That's not exactly what I've been told by lawyers, which is that there must be a "good faith" effort to verify the legitimacy of identity documents with SSA and DHS.
Also, "failure to pursue new information and respond appropriately, employers can be held liable not only for actual knowledge of a worker’s undocumented status, but also for 'constructive knowledge,' that is, basically, for having reason to know."
But enforcement is scarce.
In any case, clarifying such rules and closing loopholes would be fairly easy, legislatively. If they wanted to make employers *extremely wary* of illegal hires, they could. But they don't. They are not actually trying to eliminate undocumented workers from the economy. By all the evidence I can see, they're trying to make it *even easier* to exploit them.
I can't help what lawyers might have told you, but here's what the instructions for Form I-9 say:
"You cannot specify which documentation an employee may present from these Lists of Acceptable Documents. A document is acceptable if it reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting it."
Here is what it says in the instructions to the employee:
"Your employer must physically examine the documentation you present to complete Form I-9, or examine them consistent with an alternative procedure authorized by the Secretary of DHS. If your documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to you, your employer must accept the documentation."
There is absolutely no requirement on the I-9 to verify the documents with any third party. So a forged SS card and a fake student ID, assuming they "reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the person presenting it", is all a business needs to see to be on the right side of the law.
Taken together, it seems that the intent of the form I-9 is to provide cover for employers.
Now the sworn statement on the I-9 itself has "Certification: I attest, under penalty of perjury, that (1) I have examined the documentation presented by the above-named employee, (2) the above-listed documentation appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee named, and (3) to the best of my knowledge, the employee is authorized to work in the United States."
So if you know for a fact that a person is illegal, then you can't sign it, but it would be pretty hard to prove that a person /knew/ someone was not legal.
The assumption that business owners should be the enforcement arm of immigration law is one with which I take great issue. I suppose it assumes that all business owners are seeking to take advantage of undocumented workers, a fallacy. Business owners who pay cash under the table, who demand exorbitant work hours without overtime pay, etc. should be prosecuted. Business owners who take workers at their word, file the appropriate documents with the IRS, and take required measures to protect their workers, are hardly where the problem lies.
What about business owners paying (and sometimes not paying) low wages, and skirting environmental and workplace-safety rules, who let employees know that their immigration status will come under scrutiny if they file complaints?
“Taken together, it seems that the intent of the form I-9 is to provide cover for employers.”
Exactly. Don’t you think fixing that - putting teeth in the nominal requirement that employers will hire only legal workers - should be many times easier than trying to chase down the far more numerous, mobile, and re-identifiable individual migrant workers? And, that making American employers wary of exploiting this area of non-enforcement would be the most direct path to protecting these jobs for American workers? If that last were the objective, as many working-class Trump voters say they voted for.
That’s not actually the case. The I-9 form specifies what documents an employee has to provide the employer, and a SS card alone would be insufficient. The employee also must provide one of a list of acceptable official IDs with a photo that establishes their identity. The problem is that many employers either settle for just the SS # and look the other way, banking on the likelihood that won’t be contacted or questioned by the govt.
If i wasn't a fan of AOC before, I sure am now. She is smarter, stronger, and infinitely more brave than every single Republican member of Congress, without question.
And AOC is ‘smarter, stronger, more brave’ than most Democrats also. Therein lies the challenge in fighting the current criminal corrupt Trump/Musk regime.
I ask MAGAts why they personally care about illegal immigrants, and they talk as though they are straight A students of Fox News as opposed to the C students they were in high school.
So true. Here in OH they lowered the legal age of worker’s especially to allow under age mostly Latino or Mexican immigrant children to work in the meat factories the grave yard shifts. They don’t have enough legal status individuals willing to work these awful jobs. Many other states also passed minimum age laws too. This is where the voters should be looking to the owners of the huge factories asking them about their illegal children working for them getting paid minimal wages too.
Yes! Their voices change and pretend sound serious. The only thing I find is that they love the economics affecting them of having immigrants working here, and they know it and we know it
Democrats should lead. Call out the lies. Tell the truth. Immigrants and migrants are NOT CRIMINALS. Egg prices are because of a virus. We were very close to a vaccine, but God knows what Elon did to that effort. Vaccines are good for your kids. The minimum wage is too low to pay rent. Public schools are fine. Taxes are membership dues you pay to live in civilization.
I use them interchangeably. People who must/want to leave where they are. War, violence, flood, fire, poverty, religious persecution. Millions are on the move worldwide. Rich countries should help. In a way, my grandfather was an economic refugee. Came in 1925 b/c general lock-out in Scottish mines. Poor. Raised a family. Gave a son in WWII. Typical story.
Serious question, and I don't mean this in a jerk way: what is the definitional difference between immigrants and migrants as those terms are used today? It seems like people use them interchangeably. Are you discussing different groups?
This basically ignores the economic impact that illegal immigrants have. The huge surge in immigration occurred during the COVID recovery and is one of the main reasons that the USA had such a strong recovery.
You stated that the Biden administration wasn't doing anything about immigration. I thought that VP Harris was working with countries in Central and South America to determine the root causes of the migration crisis and work together to create solutions that created a better quality of life and eliminating the need for migrating to a different country. The Biden administration was trying to tackle the problem a different way And the House almost passed an immigration bill but Trump interfered and didn't want the immigration issue "solved" before the election.
I think AOC is running for President, and I'm fine with that! Obama was once seen as too liberal to be elected. (I might have voted for someone else in the primary for that reason). We live in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in the borderland, and AOC would gain some traction here. My grandfather was an immigrant from Denmark and didn't face the hurdles the immigrants from Central and South America face here, which goes against fundamental fairness.
This is not a bombshell. This theory has been out here for a while and makes a lot of sense given their policies. Charter schools are fronts for federal money grabs. The vouchers are just another tax break for the wealthy. Allowing federal funds to be used for faith based schools is blatantly unconstitutional but it serves them twofold: breaks for the wealthy and another generation of Christofascist single issue voters who will continue to vote for them against the best interests of their own children.
Most of us were immigrants Or decedents of people who immigrated The topic has been weaponized and turned against those of us who still believe in the welcoming words on the statue of liberty 🗽
I don't mean this as a specific criticism of this interview, which was more wide ranging than just immigration. But, as a voter, I wish journalists would ask politicians what they generally believe our immigration policy should be overall (and try to pin 'em down if they give you a generic "people who want freedom....etc").
There's always lots of questions about DACA and the undocumented currently here, etc. But it kinda loses the forest for the trees. I, a voter who pays reasonable attention, literally could not tell you the Democrat or Republican vision for immigration. At least not much beyond Democrats really, really like it and Republicans don't.
Who should be allowed to move here and who should not? Is it a number per year? A country of origin? A specific bad scenario in a home country? Something else? Some combination of the above? I got no clue.
We play all these games talking around that. But you know why there hasn't been much progress, as Ms. Ocasio Cortez says? Because no one knows what the other party will pull for next after resolving an issue (DACA, current undocumented, etc.) And since no one states an actual real vision beyond platitudes no one can be held to account. And I suspect this is why no one states what they believe in the first place.
Anyway, seems like something journalists could help with. My 2cents!
Could you send me some links showing where you have surgically analyzed interviews with Republican leaders, pointing out the nuances in their arguments, highlighting the ways in which they have failed to connect with their voters. Let's keep in mind that fewer than 50% of the voters actually voted for a Republican president, so their message had a significant degree of failure baked in. If you want to do an article about how pols fails to communicate to voters, knowing that each such article plants the seed in the mind of its reader that Dems are failing, please "other side" it as you are wont to do when you are highlighting Republicans.
In saying that AOC’s viewpoint is so far from others you are actually saying you see yourself as above clarifying a question circumscribed by corporate media framing of immigration.
"some voters see downsides for them in immigration, such as a perceived competition for jobs"
Emphasis on "PERCEIVED" being the operative word.
Quite literally ALL scholarship on the issue shows that immigration CREATES jobs.
Yes, of course immigration creates jobs, but that doesn’t change the fact that immigrants will compete for jobs with some native born.
There was a time when cab drivers were generally native born. That’s changed now. So at some point in time immigrants were displacing citizens as cab drivers.
Did the drivers end up with better jobs, worse jobs, or no jobs? There haven’t been many studies on that topic, but This American Life did a really interesting program on it.
The short version is “it’s complicated”
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/632/our-town-part-one
"at some point in time immigrants were displacing citizens"
Again, NO:
Aho, Karen. "Immigrants Do Not Displace US Workers". American Immigration Council. July 9, 2024: https://immigrationimpact.com/2024/07/09/immigrants-do-not-take-americans-jobs-wages/
Listen to the podcast I linked. Or talk to anyone in the construction industry. Literally anyone.
"immigrants will compete for jobs with some native born"
Reality begs to differ:
"Immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs. Instead, Immigrants and U.S.-born workers often complement each other in the labor market, rather than competing for jobs, according to research from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Immigrants bring different skills and specializations to the workforce, which can complement the work of U.S. employees."
- "Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Complementing not Competing". National Immigration Forum: https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Immigrants-Natives-Dont-Compete.pdf
I don’t think there was ever a time when you’d ride in a cab and the driver would be Steve Jones, professional cab driver.
It was Italians and Greeks before it was Indians and Pakistani and Nigerians, and even Italians and Greeks who were born in the US weren’t considered “native born” until you stopped seeing them driving your taxi and started seeing them issuing your mortgage.
This word struck me as journalistically suspect. Can you inject the word "perceived" without it coming across as biased? Not sure.
"I’m glad that Fox News knows where to turn for reliable information!" is such a delightfully Midwestern dig.
Republican politicians, and their donors, also largely, if secretly, believe "many immigrants are a vital part of society." If they did not, they would be pressing for the prosecution of the American employers illegally hiring them - an easier and more direct route to forcing undocumented-immigrant labor out of our economy. But they don't want to do that.
For the most part the people doing the hiring are following the law. The Federal I-9 states that if the documents provided—which the employee chooses—appear to be authentic, then that’s all they need. It specifically says on the form that even if you think the person is an illegal immigrant, that for the purpose of hiring they aren’t.
All you need to make an authentic appearing SS card is a color printer and some card stock, so it’s a really low bar.
That's not exactly what I've been told by lawyers, which is that there must be a "good faith" effort to verify the legitimacy of identity documents with SSA and DHS.
Also, "failure to pursue new information and respond appropriately, employers can be held liable not only for actual knowledge of a worker’s undocumented status, but also for 'constructive knowledge,' that is, basically, for having reason to know."
But enforcement is scarce.
In any case, clarifying such rules and closing loopholes would be fairly easy, legislatively. If they wanted to make employers *extremely wary* of illegal hires, they could. But they don't. They are not actually trying to eliminate undocumented workers from the economy. By all the evidence I can see, they're trying to make it *even easier* to exploit them.
I can't help what lawyers might have told you, but here's what the instructions for Form I-9 say:
"You cannot specify which documentation an employee may present from these Lists of Acceptable Documents. A document is acceptable if it reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting it."
Here is what it says in the instructions to the employee:
"Your employer must physically examine the documentation you present to complete Form I-9, or examine them consistent with an alternative procedure authorized by the Secretary of DHS. If your documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to you, your employer must accept the documentation."
There is absolutely no requirement on the I-9 to verify the documents with any third party. So a forged SS card and a fake student ID, assuming they "reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the person presenting it", is all a business needs to see to be on the right side of the law.
Taken together, it seems that the intent of the form I-9 is to provide cover for employers.
Now the sworn statement on the I-9 itself has "Certification: I attest, under penalty of perjury, that (1) I have examined the documentation presented by the above-named employee, (2) the above-listed documentation appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee named, and (3) to the best of my knowledge, the employee is authorized to work in the United States."
So if you know for a fact that a person is illegal, then you can't sign it, but it would be pretty hard to prove that a person /knew/ someone was not legal.
The assumption that business owners should be the enforcement arm of immigration law is one with which I take great issue. I suppose it assumes that all business owners are seeking to take advantage of undocumented workers, a fallacy. Business owners who pay cash under the table, who demand exorbitant work hours without overtime pay, etc. should be prosecuted. Business owners who take workers at their word, file the appropriate documents with the IRS, and take required measures to protect their workers, are hardly where the problem lies.
What about business owners paying (and sometimes not paying) low wages, and skirting environmental and workplace-safety rules, who let employees know that their immigration status will come under scrutiny if they file complaints?
“Taken together, it seems that the intent of the form I-9 is to provide cover for employers.”
Exactly. Don’t you think fixing that - putting teeth in the nominal requirement that employers will hire only legal workers - should be many times easier than trying to chase down the far more numerous, mobile, and re-identifiable individual migrant workers? And, that making American employers wary of exploiting this area of non-enforcement would be the most direct path to protecting these jobs for American workers? If that last were the objective, as many working-class Trump voters say they voted for.
That’s not actually the case. The I-9 form specifies what documents an employee has to provide the employer, and a SS card alone would be insufficient. The employee also must provide one of a list of acceptable official IDs with a photo that establishes their identity. The problem is that many employers either settle for just the SS # and look the other way, banking on the likelihood that won’t be contacted or questioned by the govt.
If i wasn't a fan of AOC before, I sure am now. She is smarter, stronger, and infinitely more brave than every single Republican member of Congress, without question.
And AOC is ‘smarter, stronger, more brave’ than most Democrats also. Therein lies the challenge in fighting the current criminal corrupt Trump/Musk regime.
I ask MAGAts why they personally care about illegal immigrants, and they talk as though they are straight A students of Fox News as opposed to the C students they were in high school.
So true. Here in OH they lowered the legal age of worker’s especially to allow under age mostly Latino or Mexican immigrant children to work in the meat factories the grave yard shifts. They don’t have enough legal status individuals willing to work these awful jobs. Many other states also passed minimum age laws too. This is where the voters should be looking to the owners of the huge factories asking them about their illegal children working for them getting paid minimal wages too.
👏👏👏 that’s the truth!
Yes! Their voices change and pretend sound serious. The only thing I find is that they love the economics affecting them of having immigrants working here, and they know it and we know it
Democrats should lead. Call out the lies. Tell the truth. Immigrants and migrants are NOT CRIMINALS. Egg prices are because of a virus. We were very close to a vaccine, but God knows what Elon did to that effort. Vaccines are good for your kids. The minimum wage is too low to pay rent. Public schools are fine. Taxes are membership dues you pay to live in civilization.
I use them interchangeably. People who must/want to leave where they are. War, violence, flood, fire, poverty, religious persecution. Millions are on the move worldwide. Rich countries should help. In a way, my grandfather was an economic refugee. Came in 1925 b/c general lock-out in Scottish mines. Poor. Raised a family. Gave a son in WWII. Typical story.
Serious question, and I don't mean this in a jerk way: what is the definitional difference between immigrants and migrants as those terms are used today? It seems like people use them interchangeably. Are you discussing different groups?
I love NPR but ties to the Heritage Foundation need to END!
This basically ignores the economic impact that illegal immigrants have. The huge surge in immigration occurred during the COVID recovery and is one of the main reasons that the USA had such a strong recovery.
You stated that the Biden administration wasn't doing anything about immigration. I thought that VP Harris was working with countries in Central and South America to determine the root causes of the migration crisis and work together to create solutions that created a better quality of life and eliminating the need for migrating to a different country. The Biden administration was trying to tackle the problem a different way And the House almost passed an immigration bill but Trump interfered and didn't want the immigration issue "solved" before the election.
I think AOC is running for President, and I'm fine with that! Obama was once seen as too liberal to be elected. (I might have voted for someone else in the primary for that reason). We live in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in the borderland, and AOC would gain some traction here. My grandfather was an immigrant from Denmark and didn't face the hurdles the immigrants from Central and South America face here, which goes against fundamental fairness.
This is not a bombshell. This theory has been out here for a while and makes a lot of sense given their policies. Charter schools are fronts for federal money grabs. The vouchers are just another tax break for the wealthy. Allowing federal funds to be used for faith based schools is blatantly unconstitutional but it serves them twofold: breaks for the wealthy and another generation of Christofascist single issue voters who will continue to vote for them against the best interests of their own children.
Most of us were immigrants Or decedents of people who immigrated The topic has been weaponized and turned against those of us who still believe in the welcoming words on the statue of liberty 🗽
I don't mean this as a specific criticism of this interview, which was more wide ranging than just immigration. But, as a voter, I wish journalists would ask politicians what they generally believe our immigration policy should be overall (and try to pin 'em down if they give you a generic "people who want freedom....etc").
There's always lots of questions about DACA and the undocumented currently here, etc. But it kinda loses the forest for the trees. I, a voter who pays reasonable attention, literally could not tell you the Democrat or Republican vision for immigration. At least not much beyond Democrats really, really like it and Republicans don't.
Who should be allowed to move here and who should not? Is it a number per year? A country of origin? A specific bad scenario in a home country? Something else? Some combination of the above? I got no clue.
We play all these games talking around that. But you know why there hasn't been much progress, as Ms. Ocasio Cortez says? Because no one knows what the other party will pull for next after resolving an issue (DACA, current undocumented, etc.) And since no one states an actual real vision beyond platitudes no one can be held to account. And I suspect this is why no one states what they believe in the first place.
Anyway, seems like something journalists could help with. My 2cents!
Could you send me some links showing where you have surgically analyzed interviews with Republican leaders, pointing out the nuances in their arguments, highlighting the ways in which they have failed to connect with their voters. Let's keep in mind that fewer than 50% of the voters actually voted for a Republican president, so their message had a significant degree of failure baked in. If you want to do an article about how pols fails to communicate to voters, knowing that each such article plants the seed in the mind of its reader that Dems are failing, please "other side" it as you are wont to do when you are highlighting Republicans.
I knew it was Inskeep before reading the content….he is always trying to both sides it and to use disingenuous wordings to trip people up….
I gave up on him years ago. NPR would be improved by his departure.
In saying that AOC’s viewpoint is so far from others you are actually saying you see yourself as above clarifying a question circumscribed by corporate media framing of immigration.