SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (36809)9/9/2009 9:32:12 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
There was another interesting take away. The figure lovers of the government takeover of health care love to use. They claim there are 47 million people in America that are uninsured. That figure included 12.7 million illegal immigrants. This report mentions that there are 2 million fewer illegals thus there are two million fewer uninsured.



To: KLP who wrote (36809)11/30/2009 12:22:18 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Germany Scores an Own Goal on Immigration
Migration helps us build a more integrated, dynamic Continental economy.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009, 10:02 A.M. ET.

By KLAUS F. ZIMMERMANN
Until just a few years ago, the German Bundesliga used to be quite a boring affair. But recently, the excitement factor – and reputation – of the football league has risen significantly, largely thanks to an impressive number of foreign players from Central and Eastern Europe manning the teams these days.

It's a clear indication to Germans how beneficial open migration can be in the modern world. Unfortunately, when faced with the choice of allowing open migration from the populations of the eight countries that joined the European Union in 2004, the German government, was not so open-minded. Along with neighboring Austria, Germany has chose not to open its labor market to immigrants from those countries.

This of course has not stopped the flow of foreign workers into Germany. All the restrictions have done is to cap and erode the skill level of these immigrants – after all, engineers don't tend to sneak across borders, nurses are not the types to falsify papers, and schools rarely hire black market teachers.

Five years after the 2004 round of EU expansion, enough evidence is in conclude the policy rationales – and fears – that underpinned the German decision at the time have meant German government did not get what it bargained for – and even ended up shooting an own goal in the process.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Polish footballer Jakub Blaszczykowski is one of the few “skilled laborers” allowed into Germany.
.While a touchy subject politically, immigration is an essential ingredient of Europe's history. In that sense, the EU expansion in 2004 represented a return to the old norm.

With real migration between Europe's east and west interrupted for decades by the Iron Curtain, wage levels between Eastern Europe and Western Europe were literally worlds apart. Once the eastern transformation from planned economies to market economies got underway, so were employment levels.

Between 1960 and 1973, Western Europe saw its share of foreign workers doubling to 6% from 3% of the workforce, driven by labor demand. But this freewheeling traffic ground to a near-halt in 1973 with the onset of the oil crisis. Germany was no exception, and until the 2004 EU expansion, legal immigrants to Germany were either rufugees, asylum seekers, reuniting families or ethnic Germans.

The 2004 expansion was meant to crumble the remaining walls between east and west, and allow Europeans to move freely about the continent.

Faced with so much change, worries actually abounded on both sides of the old divide. While Western Europeans feared downward pressures on wages and, more generally, a hollowing out of their welfare states, Eastern Europeans were concerned about brain drain.

In the real world, many of these worries proved to be either unfounded, exaggerated or counterbalanced by significant positive effects. There is no denying, for example, that the new EU members suffer from some brain drain. At the same time though, increased mobility of skilled employees is contributing to a better continent-wide matching of skills and available jobs, thus improving the EU's overall economic efficiency. This also helps rebalance existing demographic pressures.

Specifically with regard to Germany, despite the government's "closed shop" approach to immigration from new EU, there has been a steady inflow from Central and Eastern Europe – recently leveling in at about 50,000 immigrants per year.

That compares to an annual inflow of about 254,000 people into the 15 "old" EU member states since 2004, mostly to Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Those migrants who made it to Germany after 2004 are relatively older and less well-educated than the ones who came to Germany prior to that date. That is not exactly an outcome a modern competitive economy such as Germany should aim for.

In contrast, the more liberal-minded EU countries found their open labor market policies rewarded with an actual reduction in low-skills immigrants from new EU member compared arrivals in the pre-2004 time frame.

Furthermore, in Germany's case, those immigrants – primarily young men from Poland and the Baltic countries – were 23.1% less likely to be employed than their German-born counterparts This is almost double the pre-2004 level, when immigrants from these countries were only 12.7% less likely to be employed than Germans themselves. Again, not the trend one would wish for.

Again, this contrasts with the development in those EU countries that had the courage to opt for open labor markets. Their rate of employment for the post-2004 immigrants is actually higher than for the group of pre-2004 arrivals.

However one chooses to look at the data and trends, Germany's approach to dealing with immigrants from the new EU member states makes no sense in light of Germany's unquestioned need to attract expert professionals.

Open borders among EU member states do not lead, as often feared, to a deteriorated labor market. And since these immigrants do not have a higher propensity to receive welfare than the domestic population, neither do they further intensify the pressures already squeezing European social security systems.

Instead, this migration helps us Europeans build a more integrated, more dynamic continental economy. That is a record we should build on with great determination, if we want to secure future sources of prosperity.

Based on the available empirical evidence, Germany's so-far restrictive policy must be judged a complete failure. That may sound harsh, but how else can one describe a policy that fails to attract the required highly skilled workforce, while continuing to draw an influx of low-skilled immigrants? If that can't be considered a painful own goal, what would?

The new-found vitality in the German Bundesliga could show German policymakers the way forward to a brighter, more inclusive future. A move earlier this year allowing university graduates from all parts of the world to enter the German labor market suggests they are beginning to learn these lessons.

Mr. Zimmermann is the director of IZA, the Institute for the Study of Labor in Bonn, Germany, and co-editor of "EU Labor Markets After Post-Englargment Migration," published this year.

online.wsj.com



To: KLP who wrote (36809)2/11/2010 6:44:21 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Obama’s Border Enforcement Deceit
by Jim Robb

02/09/2010

In his State of the Union speech two weeks ago, President Obama claimed that he would strengthen border security. Oh really? I might not be as wise as Mr. Obama, but I’m not sure how removing $319 million in border security funding increases our nation’s security. Indeed, I’m pretty certain that decreasing our border security funding by nearly one-third of a billion dollars in one year will make the United States less secure.

While Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano enjoys boasting of how her agency is securing our nation’s border with Mexico, the truth of the matter is that it remains porous and inadequately defended. How do we know? We at NumbersUSA have many friends in the Border Patrol. We inspect the U.S.-Mexican border on fact-finding trips. We talk to the agents. The Border Patrol needs more resources, not less.

What good can come from downplaying the security of our southern border while terrorist, drug, and human trafficking continues to plague the border? Only one reason comes to mind: to make it easier to pass a massive amnesty for 12 – 20 million illegal aliens in 2010. I know, I know -- nobody can be so sick and twisted as to put the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans in jeopardy just to legalize 12 million illegal aliens. Unfortunately, it seems such individuals are running rampant in the Obama administration’s immigration policy division.

Had enough? Ready to DO something about the weakoning of border security? Send a FREE FAX directly to Obama protesting the border budget cuts!

During the amnesty battle of 2007, the American people made their opinion loud and clear: “No amnesties for illegal aliens while our borders are unsecured!” The so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act failed to gain Congressional support, even though it had the support of President Bush and a large swathe of Congressional Democrats and Republicans.

Even attempts to pass smaller, but still damaging, amnesties have been shot down as inadequate solutions of addressing our continuing problems with immigration, simply because they didn’t go far enough to keep illegal aliens from crossing our borders.
So how does the Obama administration address this problem? By falsely claiming that our borders are now secure and that the decrease in crossings by illegal aliens is proof of this.

“[A]pprehensions of illegal aliens at the border have dropped to their lowest levels in decades, signaling reduced traffic flows and fewer attempts to illegally enter the United States.”

--Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 9, 2009

Sadly, a great deal of evidence points in the opposite direction. It’s true that arrests of illegal aliens along our southern border have decreased. America’s lousy job market deters illegal aliens more than DHS’s border enforcement.

In 2009, when Secretary Napolitano spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she sounded satisfied and even boastful:
“Our efforts are achieving their desired results at the border. . . . In short, the security of our southwest border has been transformed.”

--Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 9, 2009

Really? The Department of Homeland Security only claims to have “effective control” of 697 of 1,969 miles of our southern border with Mexico. Only 35% of this border is “effectively controlled” and maintained by the government agency charged with protecting the nation. Yet, for some reason, the very person in charge of the Department seems to think this 35% control is good enough and that her job is done and dusted. I think Miss Napolitano may want to reevaluate the targets she has set for DHS, because in my book, 35% is not a passing grade.

Obviously, this doesn’t come close to being good enough. And it doesn’t even take into account our northern border with Canada, which is nearly 4 times longer than our border with Mexico. All told, only 894 miles of our land and sea borders are “effectively” secured. The United States has 8,607 miles of land and sea borders, meaning that DHS only controls about one out of every ten miles. And, apparently, President Obama and Secretary Napolitano believe DHS needs less money.

For the upcoming fiscal year, Secretary Napolitano asked Congress for $11.6 million less in funding for “border security between ports of entry” and for $225.8 million less in funding for “border fencing, infrastructure, and technology.” And the President himself is not free from blame. The president’s newly proposed 2011 budget would reduce the number of Border Patrol agents along the southern border by 180, and cut funding for the virtual fenc -- a system of cameras, radar and sensors placed on towers -- by $226 million.

The President and his administration constantly claim that our immigration system is broken and in need of fixing. If they want to get a head start on correcting the problem, they should forget about granting massive amnesties to illegal aliens and take the necessary measures needed to fix our broken borders instead.

Had enough? Ready to DO something about the weakoning of border security? Send a FREE FAX directly to Obama protesting the border budget cuts!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Robb is the Vice President of Operations for NumbersUSA. Mr. Robb opposes efforts to use federal immigration policies to force mass U.S. population growth and to depress wages of vulnerable workers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
humanevents.com