I think you make an excellent point in regards to NC currently in the midst of an economic boom. To me, I see a lot of similarities between North Carolina in the 90's and 2000's, and California in the 50's and 60's.

It absolutely no accident Latino workers are pouring into NC. If Nebraska or Alabama were experiencing similar economic growth, many of the laborers who are in NC would be in those states instead. Therefore a lot of what is happening in NC cannot be extrapolated to other states.

That being said, it is interesting to see how the pressure of low wages affects the economy. Yes, it does have the potential to hurt native blue-collar workers. On the other hand, the low wages the laborers earn help keep prices low, much as Chinese laborers help keep merchandise cheap at Wal-Mart.

Not being an economist, I can't say when there is too much of an influx of cheap labor. But like many things, I suspect there is some middle ground between everyone getting hyper-expensive salaries, and everyone working in Charles Dickens-like sweatshops.

The most important part of this study, IMHO, is that it once against shows that immigrants don't come here to sit on the couch all day. The lazy guys don't have the will to leave their lives and cross the border in the first place. When given a chance, Latinos (like other immigrant groups) will slave their butts off to make their way in "El Norte." I their children are given educational opportunities, many will move up the ranks in the new information-based economy.

One of the areas where I *frequently* get in trouble with conservatives is that I am utterly unhostile to highly liberal laws on hispanic immigrantion. A lot of conservatives talk a good game on how they want government to leave entrepreneurs alone and not impose a lot of "Big Brother" interference.... but then turn around and want to stick their noses deep into the crotches of any employer who might hire cheap labor from Mexicans who only want to come here to make a living picking crops or cleaning hotel rooms or busing tables or fixing cars.

In other words, they hate the idea of an all-powerful state harassing small businesses *unless* those small businesses might be hiring wetbacks. *Then* they want to call in the power of the state to harass those employers to the maximum possible extent.

Mind you, I can respect *cultural* arguments, those who say we can only absorb so many people who speak a different language and who do not choose to embrace our own culture. But conservatives need to be honest with themselves and the rest of us on that: they are calling for *massive government interference in private business*. They want to harass businesses, partiularly small businessses including restaurants, gas stations, auto repair shops, landscapers, etc., solely so they can make sure these small businesses aren't hiring the wrong people. In other words, they want massive intrusions by government into the free market. Which is perfectly legitimate, if that's what they want. But it blows their "Big Government should leave us alone" arguments out of the water.

My own view is that every immigrant who comes here to work (as opposed to being a welfare client) is a net plus to our economy. People who work are an asset, not a liability. I like Bush's ideas of day-labor work passes and other liberalizations. I think it's fine to oppose those ideas, however. Just be honest about what it is you want: if you oppose such things, what you are really calling for is *massive government intrusions on the private sector*. It's okay if that's what you want, but stop being a hypocrite about it, and admit that this is what you want. It doesn't make you a racist, but it does mean that you want more "Big Government."

Oh, and in case you're wondering about my own attitude:

I think we should have very liberal immigration laws wherein we give practically *any* immigrant an easy green card or work pass or whatever, so long as they are required to *work* to recieve any state benefits or keep their legal status. We should make this easier, not harder.

Requiring prrof of citizenship or legal status is MASSIVE INTERFERENCE? Gimme a break. It's no different than requiring a Social Security number, or requiring someone who wants a job driving to show they have a driver's license. If you want to espouse easy immigration, that's fine, but don't throw up straw men to beat your opponents with.

As a New Yorker, a place where, since the days of Alexander Hamilton, close to half the population has always been recent immigrants, the answer is simple: immigration is good and necessary.

That said, the problem isn't immigration, it's illegal immigration. If we could close the borders today to illegals, we'd have to increase the number of legal immigrants.

These people don't just fill jobs-- they help reinvigorate a society with energy and work-ethic, a spirit that influences at least 3 or 4 generations (hard to bitch about extra hours in the store when your Mom has been cleaning toilets for 12 hours a day-- hard to bitch about studying late at night in a college dorm room when Dad worked the store 84 hours a week)

Eventually that spirit dissipates and we need a new shot in the arm.

The thing is WE should choose who comes, and when, and from where. But we need them to keep comin'.

DSmith, I'm just curious, which way did you want the Federal government to work: to have the power to come in and harass employers and demand the appropriate paperwork, and have the government agents check the paperwork themselves to look for forgeries and falsifications? Or, did you want to mandate that the employers do all the necessary background checks for forgeries and falsifiations, and just have the government agents empowered to barge into the workplace and demand to see proof that the employers have got the right paperwork done AND demand proof that the employers have done all the due diligence work to check for forgeries and falsifiations themslves?

In other words, are you going to legally mandate that the employers do all the background checks themselves, subject to massive fines or imprisonment if the government agents detect that they haven't done the government-mandated checking? Or, did you just want government agents empowered to barge into employers at random, demand the paperwork, and have the agents do the checking themselves?

Did you want a warrant for any of this or did you just want the Feds able to at on their own volition?

DSmith, I'm just curious, which way did you want the Federal government to work: to have the power to come in and harass employers and demand the appropriate paperwork, and have the government agents check the paperwork themselves to look for forgeries and falsifications? Or, did you want to mandate that the employers do all the necessary background checks for forgeries and falsifiations, and just have the government agents empowered to barge into the workplace and demand to see proof that the employers have got the right paperwork done AND demand proof that the employers have done all the due diligence work to check for forgeries and falsifiations themslves?

In other words, are you going to legally mandate that the employers do all the background checks themselves, subject to massive fines or imprisonment if the government agents detect that they haven't done the government-mandated checking? Or, did you just want government agents empowered to barge into employers at random, demand the paperwork, and have the agents do the checking themselves?

Did you want a warrant for any of this or did you just want the Feds able to act on their own volition?

This is not hard. It works the same way as any other required credential rule. Same as providing a taxpayer ID, same as providing driver's license records, same as providing proof of residence and citizenship to vote. Or is that also "massive government intrusion"? . You can't rent a private mailbox service without providing proof of who you are and where you live, nor buy a gun. And yes, those businesses are required to keep those records.

As to your choices, the latter. The government already has the power to have "government agents empowered to barge into employers at random, demand the paperwork, and have the agents do the checking themselves". Ask OSHA. Ask the EPA. Ask the IRS. Heck, ask any business owner. And no, they shouldn't need any warrant. The business owner should be required to keep the records and make them available on demand, same as they already have to do to comply with hundreds of other regulations. If this is all "harassment", then so is EVERY business regulation. Weren't you the guy that was just talking about, to paraphrase, how "fake" corporations are and how they don't really have any rights because they are a legal fiction? Weren't you the one that said the citizens of Maryland could vote to make any legal requirement they wanted of business, even singling out a specific business in the case of Wal-Mart?

I believe we should prosecute business owners who *knowingly* hire illegals, or who fail to make any attempt to avoid hiring illegals. I believe that such businesses should be subject to confiscation under RICO, as they are ongoing criminal conspiracies. They impact every citizen and every business who is trying to make a living within the law. It wouldn't take very many prosecutions under such a law to get the point across, and once illegals stopped having an economic incentive to come, they would stop coming.

To be clear, I have no problem with immigrants. Immigrants are what have made this country great. Let's have lots! But they need to be *legal* immigrants who we have decided to allow in, not just anyone who doesn't give a darn about obeying the law.

Do we need to review and change the legal immigration process? Yes we do. Do we need to revisit the quotas? Yes we do. None of that is any excuse for having porous borders or having people here breaking the law. If you come across the border of my country illegally, you show contempt for my country and it's laws and I don't want you here. If you can't come here legally, don't come at all. Don't like our policies or regulations or quotas? Fine. Stay out. Come here illegally? You're a criminal and should be treated as such. But yeah, I guess enforcing any of our democratically-enacted laws is just "massive government intrusion". Let's have anarchy instead, that'll work. Not.

Dean,

That's a pretty heated little straw man you've built and knocked down. People like me (who are definitely considered conservative) don't think that way at all.

I believe immigration is important to this country.
I believe that if you come to America, you should be required to have a working grasp of English (I come from a Hispanic family and this is where my belief comes from). Without learning our language, you put extra strain on the government to accommodate your needs which puts other Americans at a disadvantage.
I think that if you want to work here, get whatever papers are needed, pay taxes, and only receive the barest minimal support from the gov't. Once you've been here X years with no trouble with the law, take the citizenship test (in English) and then welcome aboard.

And yes, I think those who hire illegal workers should be punished. It artificially lowers the market prices for labor. But in reality, what I'd prefer to see happen is the illegal workers themselves be driven back to where ever they came from, fingerprinted and id'd so that they would have to wait an extra 5 years before they could try to become a citizen again.

So, should a business be required to do due diligence to ensure their employees are legal? Yes. And as long as the government lays out X,Y and Z for the employer, I don't see why that is any more different that the standards employers have to follow to ensure they do not hire based on skin color.

Being a native of Eastern North Carolina I've had the opportunity to watch a great deal of this unfold. The population boom is in full effect, I’ve watched farms that I grew up hunting and ponds I used to fish in have been filled in both paved and turned into subdivisions.

A majority of this growth, and the affordable housing that comes with it, is due to a largely Hispanic workforce. Since I work some weekends with my brother who is a contractor, I’m amazed that only 30% of the workforce is Hispanic. I’d have guessed somewhere around 50% or has high as 60%. Especially when you get into the jobs nobody really wants, paint crews, pouring concrete, framing and roofing are all dominated by Latino workers, mostly non-English speakers, with a foreman or company owner that speaks just enough Spanish to keep his workers going.

This of course has pushed the laborers that had been working these jobs out. Cheaper equally skilled labor that is eager to work will win out every time. Thus there has also been a boom in the number of people “unable to find suitable employment”. Often instead of going to school to learn a new skill they draw unemployment until the benefits run out and then apply for welfare. Thus the level of resentment for the Latino population has grown too. You hear racist propaganda and slurs all the time around here, instead of it being directed the “wetbacks” and “spics”. All because they’re willing to work.

Now I’ve gotten a bit off topic as the original purpose of my comment, which originally was to say that I’m all for immigration and an increased number of work visas so long as the immigrants are working and contributing to the betterment of our society. Yes that makes me a selfish SOB, but y’all knew that already.

From limited time I’ve spent working with the immigrants in our area they’re much better members of society than those who sit on their asses, doing nothing but breeding so they can draw a larger government check. Yep, I’m all for increasing immigration, so long as it’s for the betterment of the community.

Now to deal with illegal immigration, there are only two ways you’re going to prevent the swarms of folks from coming in. The first is to build a protective barrier (such as a wall or moat or pungi pits) and raise the ire of the international community. The second is to start punishing those who habitually hire illegals with jail time and the seizure of property gained by hiring illegals. Very similar to how drug dealers are treated. It’s simple economics; if you take away their ability to earn a living and wean them from the government teat then they’ll go home or take the steps to work legally.

Oh yeah, and Vote for Pedro!

I have to agree with Phin. I too was surprised it was only 30%.

But I think there's more to it than "native" workers being replaced with cheaper Hispanic labor. There are a lot of folks in NC who lost what used to be a good job because the factory, plant, or mill closed down. These folks are competing for those same jobs as well, so there are 2 groups of people who are losing jobs to the influx of willing hispanic workers.

Legal immigration fine, but I really don't see a lot of net-good coming from illegal alien immigration.
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens, and 70% of felony warrants are for illegal aliens. So what's the warrant/capture success rate for LA? I hope LA is better than up here, San Francisco for instance has one of the worst felony (including homicide) capture and conviction rates in the entire country...