Posted by Kromey at 1:39pm Jan 25 '10that "studies" such as these aren't looking at anything real-world, but instead are using models that rely very heavily on guesses and predictions to, in turn, make their own predictions. As a result, for every such study that favors legalizing immigration (what a bizarre phrase, considering that there already is a process for legal immigration that is taken advantage of by large numbers of foreign nationals every year), another study shows the opposite effects and thus favors clamping down further on illegal immigration.
I don't know if you read the (24-page) paper, or just the executive summary you copy/pasted from, but there are some serious methodological flaws that I'm seeing, and I'm only on page 4 (at the time of writing this sentence - I'll probably be further by the end of the post). For one, the authors seem to ignore (or be ignorant of) the fact that we already have a program for work visas, and as a result already have a lot of what they term "guest workers" in this country. As further evidence of this, they talk about the fees and taxes on the work visas they tout so heavily with no consideration for the fact that it would still remain cheaper to hire illegals, and thus the illegal immigration racket would still have customers and still remain strong. To say nothing of the fact that such a work visa program would most likely trend toward the skilled labor that already takes advantage of the current work visa program, leaving the unskilled illegal immigrants still without work visas and still in the "illegal immigrant" category, not the "guest worker" category.
Their assumptions and predictions just don't seem to add up to me. Very little in this study's basic assumptions and assertions rings true to me, and coupled with the apparent ignorance of the fact that we already have what they suggest we adopt - I just can't accept this study's conclusions. Probably made a good student thesis paper though.
I don't know if you read the (24-page) paper, or just the executive summary you copy/pasted from, but there are some serious methodological flaws that I'm seeing, and I'm only on page 4 (at the time of writing this sentence - I'll probably be further by the end of the post). For one, the authors seem to ignore (or be ignorant of) the fact that we already have a program for work visas, and as a result already have a lot of what they term "guest workers" in this country. As further evidence of this, they talk about the fees and taxes on the work visas they tout so heavily with no consideration for the fact that it would still remain cheaper to hire illegals, and thus the illegal immigration racket would still have customers and still remain strong. To say nothing of the fact that such a work visa program would most likely trend toward the skilled labor that already takes advantage of the current work visa program, leaving the unskilled illegal immigrants still without work visas and still in the "illegal immigrant" category, not the "guest worker" category.
Their assumptions and predictions just don't seem to add up to me. Very little in this study's basic assumptions and assertions rings true to me, and coupled with the apparent ignorance of the fact that we already have what they suggest we adopt - I just can't accept this study's conclusions. Probably made a good student thesis paper though.
Four, you have to realize - Kromey