Greenspan Says Illegal Immigration Aids U.S. Economy

[scandal 951]

Isn't Senor Greenspan a (gasp) Republican?

Guess he's just another one of those crafty devils out to hoodwink us all about the evils of immigration reform.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...Rk&refer=us

By Nicholas Johnston

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that illegal immigration makes a “significant” contribution to U.S. economic growth by providing a flexible workforce.

Greenspan, appearing before a Senate subcommittee today, said illegal immigrants provide a “safety valve” as demand for workers rises and falls.

“There is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy,” Greenspan said. An overhaul of U.S. immigration laws is “badly needed” to create legal avenues for skilled and unskilled workers to enter the country legally, he said.

“Our immigration laws must be reformed and brought up to date,” Greenspan told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.

Congress is beginning hearings on an overhaul of U.S. immigration policies, a legislative priority of President Barack Obama. The Senate blocked legislation in 2007 that would have given an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a way to earn legal status and would have created a new guest-worker program, a measure supported by then-President George W. Bush.

Obama again endorsed an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws during a prime-time news conference last night and said he will soon convene working groups with lawmakers “to start looking at a framework of how this legislation might be shaped.”

“No one is happy with our current system,” New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, the subcommittee’s chairman, said as the hearing began. “There is a recognition in America that the status quo is not working.”

A key sticking point during the last immigration debate was how to treat the millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Opponents said giving them a path to legal status rewards people who broke the law. They also argued that low-skilled immigrant workers suppress wages for U.S. workers and burden local governments with demands for services. Greenspan dismissed those concerns.

“Economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs,” he said.

Greenspan also endorsed an expansion of the H-1B visa program for skilled workers that is backed by technology companies such as Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp.

The 2007 legislation would have increased the size of the program to 115,000 annual visas, up from 65,000.

Greenspan said U.S. schools don’t produce enough skilled workers and the gap must be filled with immigrants who have advanced degrees.

“If we are to continue to engage the world and enhance our standards of living, we will have to either markedly improve our elementary and secondary education or lower our barriers to skilled immigrants,” Greenspan said.

Schumer and Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, cautioned that it will remain difficult to reach agreement on the immigration issue. Texas Republican John Cornyn said the Senate devoted 36 days of floor consideration during the last debate to no avail.

“This will be very, very hard to do,” Schumer said. “Make no mistake, this will not be an easy task.”

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That was the silliest hearing I have ever seen. Greenspan is a living fossil.

First appointed Fed chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987, he was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006 after the second-longest tenure in the position.

[mendeleev 69]

It is interesting, though, to hear Greenspan state the obvious.

[scandal 951]

That was the silliest hearing I have ever seen. Greenspan is a living fossil.

First appointed Fed chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987, he was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006 after the second-longest tenure in the position.

Well, if I may ask ...

Generally speaking, conservatives are in favor of free markets, lowering trade barriers and removing protectionist policies, yes?

Whereas liberals are supposedly in favor of protecting domestic jobs - often by criticizing free trade pacts like NAFTA, yes?

So ... as I understand pure economic theory, Adam Smith and all that, in an ideal free unregulated market, we should see frictionless flow of goods, capital and labor to those places where they do the most economic good, all driven by a quest for higher profits.

If China can efficiently export toys and electronics ... good on them.

If the US can export consulting services, software, and Caterpillar tractors ... good on them.

If the UK can export investment banking, M&A, underwriting and lending services... good on them.

So if Mexico can export a commodity in demand (cheap labor) to a society that needs it in spades, why not good on them?

Or .. more to the point.. denying that economic reality would seem to fly in the face of Adam Smith, no?

Meaning - make the law recognize the economic reality of the matter, not the other way around.

Just saying.

My own view is: Law breaking is wrong. It just is. Law breakers should face consequences for breaking the law. There should be a serious deterrent factor to breaking the law. However: when the law is wrong, change the law.

I feel that way about decriminalizing cannabis, about doctor assisted-suicide, and about immigration reform. These are laws that need changing. Until they are changed - people should abide by the laws on the books or face the consequences.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is interesting, though, to hear Greenspan state the obvious.

Yep.

That was the silliest hearing I have ever seen. Greenspan is a living fossil.

First appointed Fed chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987, he was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006 after the second-longest tenure in the position.

Well, if I may ask ...

Generally speaking, conservatives are in favor of free markets, lowering trade barriers and removing protectionist policies, yes?

Whereas liberals are supposedly in favor of protecting domestic jobs - often by criticizing free trade pacts like NAFTA, yes?

So ... as I understand pure economic theory, Adam Smith and all that, in an ideal free unregulated market, we should see frictionless flow of goods, capital and labor to those places where they do the most economic good, all driven by a quest for higher profits.

If China can efficiently export toys and electronics ... good on them.

If the US can export consulting services, software, and Caterpillar tractors ... good on them.

If the UK can export investment banking, M&A, underwriting and lending services... good on them.

So if Mexico can export a commodity in demand (cheap labor) to a society that needs it in spades, why not good on them?

Or .. more to the point.. denying that economic reality would seem to fly in the face of Adam Smith, no?

Meaning - make the law recognize the economic reality of the matter, not the other way around.

Just saying.

My own view is: Law breaking is wrong. It just is. Law breakers should face consequences for breaking the law. There should be a serious deterrent factor to breaking the law. However: when the law is wrong, change the law.

I feel that way about decriminalizing cannabis, about doctor assisted-suicide, and about immigration reform. These are laws that need changing. Until they are changed - people should abide by the laws on the books or face the consequences.

Zing!

[john & jean 37]

yeah right better to help the illegals. tax paying family based do not contribute

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That was the silliest hearing I have ever seen. Greenspan is a living fossil.

First appointed Fed chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987, he was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006 after the second-longest tenure in the position.

Well, if I may ask ...

Generally speaking, conservatives are in favor of free markets, lowering trade barriers and removing protectionist policies, yes?

Whereas liberals are supposedly in favor of protecting domestic jobs - often by criticizing free trade pacts like NAFTA, yes?

So ... as I understand pure economic theory, Adam Smith and all that, in an ideal free unregulated market, we should see frictionless flow of goods, capital and labor to those places where they do the most economic good, all driven by a quest for higher profits.

If China can efficiently export toys and electronics ... good on them.

If the US can export consulting services, software, and Caterpillar tractors ... good on them.

If the UK can export investment banking, M&A, underwriting and lending services... good on them.

So if Mexico can export a commodity in demand (cheap labor) to a society that needs it in spades, why not good on them?

Or .. more to the point.. denying that economic reality would seem to fly in the face of Adam Smith, no?

Meaning - make the law recognize the economic reality of the matter, not the other way around.

Just saying.

My own view is: Law breaking is wrong. It just is. Law breakers should face consequences for breaking the law. There should be a serious deterrent factor to breaking the law. However: when the law is wrong, change the law.

I feel that way about decriminalizing cannabis, about doctor assisted-suicide, and about immigration reform. These are laws that need changing. Until they are changed - people should abide by the laws on the books or face the consequences.

Personally, I believe in equilibriums, and letting things seek their own level. Entropy is reduced, and effort is minimized. So, open the borders. Let them all in, and eventually, that problem would solve itself. Populations will move around until everybody is satisfied.

[fozzie 41]

Unfortunately once they are legal they will demand higher wages.

My view is that they should stay illegal. If they get caught they get shipped back home but if they don't they stay and take low wage jobs with zero benefits. Its their choice. If thats better than where they come from then stay and dodge the INS, if not the can go back home. If the immigration reform goes through and these illegals are given more rights then it will mean an influx of illegals circumventing the system because the economy needs them... or in other words the economy doesn't need me as it makes me jump through hoops to get here.

[scandal 951]

Personally, I believe in equilibriums, and letting things seek their own level. Entropy is reduced, and effort is minimized. So, open the borders. Let them all in, and eventually, that problem would solve itself. Populations will move around until everybody is satisfied.

wow! I'm surprised by that. Honestly. I guess I still haven't figured out everyone's positions here.

I think you mean entropy will increase: I.e. you have two separated populations (Mexico/US) which is a more ordered (lower entropy) state. Once you mix them, you've decreased order, ergo increased entropy. But no matter, I quibble on the thermodynamic analogy. Your economic point is taken.

I tend to concur, my two caveats being (1) that if you simply opened the gates all at once you'd hear this tremendous sucking sound all along the border as the stratified pressure zones are combined. To protect communities and social services (schools, health care, transportation grids, etc.) such a change should be brought on gradually and not all at once. And (2) there is the matter of national security - a nation must stand vigilant and not simply permit anyone to enter sight unseen.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Personally, I believe in equilibriums, and letting things seek their own level. Entropy is reduced, and effort is minimized. So, open the borders. Let them all in, and eventually, that problem would solve itself. Populations will move around until everybody is satisfied.

wow! I'm surprised by that. Honestly. I guess I still haven't figured out everyone's positions here.

I think you mean entropy will increase: I.e. you have two separated populations (Mexico/US) which is a more ordered (lower entropy) state. Once you mix them, you've decreased order, ergo increased entropy. But no matter, I quibble on the thermodynamic analogy. Your economic point is taken.

I tend to concur, my two caveats being (1) that if you simply opened the gates all at once you'd hear this tremendous sucking sound all along the border as the stratified pressure zones are combined. To protect communities and social services (schools, health care, transportation grids, etc.) such a change should be brought on gradually and not all at once. And (2) there is the matter of national security - a nation must stand vigilant and not simply permit anyone to enter sight unseen.

hey quit talking like that or we'll have to go drag consolemaster into this thread.

[peejay 327]

Greenspan. Isn't he that Fed guy that flooded the USA with tons of cheap loose credit that created the bubble that eventually burst creating our present predicament?

And now he is plugging away praising cheap illegal alien labor because it is good for America?

Wow! OK...whatever.

[scandal 951]

hey quit talking like that or we'll have to go drag consolemaster into this thread.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Personally, I believe in equilibriums, and letting things seek their own level. Entropy is reduced, and effort is minimized. So, open the borders. Let them all in, and eventually, that problem would solve itself. Populations will move around until everybody is satisfied.

wow! I'm surprised by that. Honestly. I guess I still haven't figured out everyone's positions here.

I think you mean entropy will increase: I.e. you have two separated populations (Mexico/US) which is a more ordered (lower entropy) state. Once you mix them, you've decreased order, ergo increased entropy. But no matter, I quibble on the thermodynamic analogy. Your economic point is taken.

I tend to concur, my two caveats being (1) that if you simply opened the gates all at once you'd hear this tremendous sucking sound all along the border as the stratified pressure zones are combined. To protect communities and social services (schools, health care, transportation grids, etc.) such a change should be brought on gradually and not all at once. And (2) there is the matter of national security - a nation must stand vigilant and not simply permit anyone to enter sight unseen.

My mistake. It has been years since physics. I meant "enthalpy". I was using the analogy of a chemical equation, and the reduction in potential energy.

[panamania79 2]

Personally, I believe in equilibriums, and letting things seek their own level. Entropy is reduced, and effort is minimized. So, open the borders. Let them all in, and eventually, that problem would solve itself. Populations will move around until everybody is satisfied.

wow! I'm surprised by that. Honestly. I guess I still haven't figured out everyone's positions here.

I think you mean entropy will increase: I.e. you have two separated populations (Mexico/US) which is a more ordered (lower entropy) state. Once you mix them, you've decreased order, ergo increased entropy. But no matter, I quibble on the thermodynamic analogy. Your economic point is taken.

I tend to concur, my two caveats being (1) that if you simply opened the gates all at once you'd hear this tremendous sucking sound all along the border as the stratified pressure zones are combined. To protect communities and social services (schools, health care, transportation grids, etc.) such a change should be brought on gradually and not all at once. And (2) there is the matter of national security - a nation must stand vigilant and not simply permit anyone to enter sight unseen.

hey quit talking like that or we'll have to go drag consolemaster into this thread.

[mendeleev 69]

Personally, I believe in equilibriums, and letting things seek their own level. Entropy is reduced, and effort is minimized. So, open the borders. Let them all in, and eventually, that problem would solve itself. Populations will move around until everybody is satisfied.

wow! I'm surprised by that. Honestly. I guess I still haven't figured out everyone's positions here.

I think you mean entropy will increase: I.e. you have two separated populations (Mexico/US) which is a more ordered (lower entropy) state. Once you mix them, you've decreased order, ergo increased entropy. But no matter, I quibble on the thermodynamic analogy. Your economic point is taken.

I tend to concur, my two caveats being (1) that if you simply opened the gates all at once you'd hear this tremendous sucking sound all along the border as the stratified pressure zones are combined. To protect communities and social services (schools, health care, transportation grids, etc.) such a change should be brought on gradually and not all at once. And (2) there is the matter of national security - a nation must stand vigilant and not simply permit anyone to enter sight unseen.

My mistake. It has been years since physics. I meant "enthalpy". I was using the analogy of a chemical equation, and the reduction in potential energy.

If you reduce enthalpy, you are dumping heat into the environment. Is that kinda like global warming?