Hacker News Reader

> 2. Lowering wages. Restricted immigration actually lowers wages. Why? Because it allows employs to pay undocumented workers less. Poultry farms are an excellent example of this. They pay undocuemnted workers less. If they ever start making noise about wages or conditions, you clear them out by calling in an ICE raid, pay a nominal fine, rinse and repeat.

This only happens because there is no policing of companies exploiting undocumented workers. I've seen wages lowered time and time again in various industries due to the exploitation of undocumented workers. I've seen it in the restaurant industry, construction, trades, cleaning services, etc.

https://chicago.eater.com/2017/11/29/16716666/mcdonalds-bake...

I wish I could find the articles that came out about this at the time- but the bakery was reported by employees, mainly black employees that were losing their jobs to the illegals and experiencing pay cuts. The company complains about losing 21 million- bc they had to start paying fair wages to get actual citizens to work. I understand your sentiment- that if there is no pay gap between undocumented workers and citizens- then the wages should go up- but in reality- you just doubled the labor pool, so wages will not go up. I also agree- we should be blaming the capital owners for this- but my opinion is that capital owners write the laws and that's why enforcement on undocumented labor is non-existent.

> The US is and always has been a country of immigrants.

This is a platitude not an argument about whether hiring tech workers from foreign countries is good for them or for US citizens.

I also don't think the value you're expressing is historically supported.

> Profits tend to fall so they want to suppress costs to maintain profits. That's it.

We have internal emails from major tech companies showing that the CEOs are conscious about how these decisions affect the labor pool and their control of it (as well as competitors). So we already know there is a plurality of motivations going on in backroom discussions.

Why the lack of curiosity?

> Restricted immigration actually lowers wages. Why? Because it allows employs to pay undocumented workers less

You just said it lowers illegal immigrants pay, not the citizens. Also this example is from the bottom of the labor market, not Electrical Engineers.

> This filled an economic need.

Yes, farm businesses would prefer to pay cheaper people without rights or benefits. That's the need it's filling.

> Unions increase non-union wages.

Being pro-union seems incompatible with the rest of your post. you think unionized companies would be with hiring some illegal immigrants on the side who aren't protected by the union?

> The US is and always has been a country of immigrants. Your idea of who is and isn't an immigrant is simply a question of what time window you choose. In 1800, the US had a population of ~2 million. by 1900 it was ~50 million. You want to guess how itt got that way?

Just because we needed and encouraged immigration 200 years ago doesn't mean we have a duty to never adjust policies based on current needs and realities. What was necessary in 1900 may not be desirable anymore. Surprisingly that's a fact that people usually have no problem applying to the 2nd ammendment, but is a big no no when it comes to immigration.

Edit to quote the specific part of the message I am reacting to.

Pretty much every advanced economy is seeing stagnant population growth. Integrating immigrants is one of our most important skills and we need to keep practicing it.

Did I make any comment about the current need for immigration? I was criticizing what I thought was a very weak argument.

Fair enough!

Or we could try and solve the issues that lead to stagnant population growth which mostly stem from lifestyle and financial choices.

The government has much more control over immigration policy than individuals’ lifestyle and financial choices. Also it seems to be a pretty widespread problem, so I’m not sure which country we should steal ideas from.

Look how integration of migrants looks like in western Europe. Worshipers of economic growth don't see all the social issues mass scale immigration brings.

Western Europe hasn't really integrated its migrants well like North America has.

The funny/sad thing is that western Europe didn't even get the promised economic growth.

Or we could give domestic labor stable high paying jobs like our fathers and grandfathers enjoyed and the problem fixes itself.

Most towns in this country outside of coastal cities that do have significant immigration are hollowed out. Look at St. Louis or countless other cities satellite imagery, and tell me its somehow prudent to have every other parcel abandoned and razed as if it were bombed during a war for lack of any population growth for a half century.

Did I make any comment about the current need for immigration? I was criticizing what I thought was a very weak argument.

> I'm a little surprised to see a number of anti-immigraiton comments on this thread

First time in an immigration discussion on HN? They always bring the "America for Americans (who look like me)" types out of the woodwork.

FWIW I'm a foreign-born US citizen and I agree with them. I think immigration is important for highly in-demand fields that can't be fulfilled by US citizens or existing permanent residents within the next 5 years. Nurses and doctors for example. Tech is not one of those fields, so I would 100% support anti-immigration policies (including outsourcing restrictions) in that sector until there is a true need for it.

Nurses and Doctors make the same complaints Engineers do.

And depending on the subfield, it simply cannot be filled in 2-3 years.

There is just an institutional failure in supporting STEM at the undergraduate level in the US.

This is simply untrue. The US graduates far more stem majors than they have ever done. Many fail to fine gainful employment because employers would rather cry about a phony shortage so they can hire cheap labor.

There are also a bunch of recent immigrants on threads like these who have the 'close the door after me' mindset. They also support hard restrictions on immigration, as soon as they get the green card or citizenship.

I'm a little surprised to see a number of anti-immigraiton comments on this thread, some of which you could describe as reactionary.

Threads change pretty fast and prefixing your comment with that kind of goady meta makes it strictly worse and less effective at advancing your arguments.

>> The US is and always has been a country of immigrants

The US has had periods where immigration was relatively unrestricted, and periods where it was heavily restricted.

>> Restricted immigration actually lowers wages

The US passed laws restricting immigration after World War I (Immigration Act of 1917, Immigration Act of 1924). These were in effect until 1965.

Wage growth was slower to non-existent after restrictions on immigration were removed compared to the period when they were in effect. The evidence from US history does not support your assertion. You can deny the law of supply and demand, but you can not repeal it.

> The US is and always has been a country of immigrants

Settlers founding new places are different from immigrants. The US was created by British settlers. Its language, laws, political system, and to a great extent its culture are British. If you look at various statistics, the Anglo countries share strong commonalities, even though people of British descent are now a distinct minority in the US (while being a majority in Britain, Canada, and Australia).

Over time, other people moved in. Those were immigrants. But for a long time it wasn’t immigration as we know it today. Many of them created greenfield communities, settling large swaths of the Midwest, etc. Those communities were pockets of Germans, etc., in a country that was still distinctly British.

“Immigration” since the 20th century looks quite different again. Immigrants aren’t founding new greenfield communities, they are moving into (and changing) existing ones. The place where I grew up is culturally unrecognizable now thanks to immigration (both of foreigners and of people from other parts of the country).

Its language, laws, political system, and to a great extent its culture are British.

This is ahistorical enough to have been inaccurate at the end of the 18th century when Canada and the US were barely in their larval stages. The perceived cultural and systemic distinctions were already invoked for propaganda purposes even then, curiously mirroring US/Canada tropes to this day:

By delivering abundant food with a paternalistic flair, the British sought to strengthen loyalty in Canada. Lord Grenville assured Dorchester that the aid would impress “the minds of His Majesty’s Subjects under your Lordship’s Government with a just sense of His Majesty’s paternal regard for the welfare of all his People.” In 1791 the Crown canceled that debt with a flourish meant to contrast British benevolence with the crass commercialism of the republic. Upon arriving in Canada, the king’s son, Prince Edward, announced: “My father is not a merchant to deal in bread and ask payment for food granted for the relief of his loyal subjects.” By contrast, in the republic, the bread merchants ruled and imprinted their names on their towns. In the Mohawk Valley, the people renamed one town as Paris, not after the French metropolis, but to honor Isaac Paris, a merchant and miller who had loaned them food in 1789. The British promoted a Canadian identity framed in contrast with the republic, understood as an amoral land of greedy competition where demagogues flattered the common folk but exploited the poor among them.

From: The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies, Alan Taylor

> If you look at various statistics, the Anglo countries share strong commonalities, even though people of British descent are now a distinct minority in the US (while being a majority in Britain, Canada, and Australia).

The preferred term for Australia's historical ethnic majority is "Anglo-Celtic" not "British"; calling it "British" can be seen as ignoring Irish-Australians.

One big difference between the Australia and the US - there was a significant minority of Irish Catholics in Australia from the very beginnings of British settlement. Although they did experience some discrimination, it was a lot less than in the US, so they integrated more quickly and easily into the establishment. People thought it was a big deal when a Catholic of Irish descent was elected US President in 1961; Australia had its first Catholic and first Irish-descended Prime Minister over 30 years earlier, and it was an event which attracted far less notice.

> Over time, other people moved in. Those were immigrants. But for a long time it wasn’t immigration as we know it today. Many of them created greenfield communities, settling large swaths of the Midwest, etc. Those communities were pockets of Germans, etc., in a country that was still distinctly British.

You seem to be drawing a "settler"-vs-"immigrant" distinction based on majority-vs-minority ethnicity. From my perspective, that's a rather idiosyncratic usage. To me, an immigrant is an immigrant, regardless of their ethnic background. A "settler" is either an old-fashioned synonym for "immigrant", or else a term for those immigrants who "created greenfield communities".

> Settlers founding new places are different from immigrants. The US was created by British settlers. ... Immigrants aren’t founding new greenfield communities, they are moving into (and changing) existing ones.

Various Native American tribes — estimated population in 1492: 60 million [0] — would like a word.

[0] https://theworld.org/stories/2019-01-31/european-colonizatio...