Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:

1. The Jobs Americans Won't Do
2. Strange Bedfellows

Listen
Subscribe
Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes

The Jobs Americans Won't Do

Immigration reform is in the news. This is one of those hot-button issues that tend to shake up the major parties, dividing formerly united groups, and bringing together former enemies. Republican who consider themselves national security hawks advocate securing the borders with walls and increasing the penalties for immigrants and those who hire them, while Republican business leaders want an abundant and cheap source of labor. Some Demcrats see a horde of likely voters who favor the Democratic social programs like health care and education. Others Democrats want to limit immigration to improve the wages of low paid American workers, especially those of union workers. Each side reaches out to xenophobics who want to pull up the ladder now that they have successfully immigrated. It is interesting to hear where people stand on each of the different issues being debated today. For a good summary of President Bush's position, listen to this clip of the President attempting to walk the fine line among these groups at a naturalization hearing earlier in the week. Thank's to C-SPAN for the video.

Play clip.

One of the arguments for increasing the flow of immigrants is that they only take jobs that Americans won't. Listen to the President stress that point in this clip.

Play clip.

Just to show how divisive, and uniting, this idea is, look what Tyler Cohen found, as blogged on Marginal Revolution:

Paul Krugman on immigration:

I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -- especially immigration from Mexico.... George Borjas and Lawrence Katz... estimate that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays -- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants....

... I would also stress the benefits of a relatively free and prosperous Mexico on our southern border. The path is not without further bumps, but Mexico has turned the corner. Without high immigration, remittances (second biggest "export," I believe), and the spread of liberal democratic ideas, Mexico probably would have been much worse off. In the long run this will prove hugely beneficial to the United States, and of course to the rest of Latin America as well.

I have never agreed with Paul Krugman on anything in the past, but he is right on this point. As a businessman myself, I want my future potential customers in Mexico, China, India, and the rest of the world to be rich enough to afford my products. If I have to pay a bit more for labor, or more likely automate and mechanize a few more processes to reduce my costs of production, so be it. But this argument that immigrants do jobs that Americans won't do is just hogwash. Raise the pay, and you will find either more Americans working, or more factories automating formerly manual processes.

For examples, look to the immigration debate in the 1960's. Michelle Malkin points to an essay by Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post for help in understanding history.

We Don't Need 'Guest Workers'

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, March 22, 2006; A21

Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's "bracero" program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964 Congress killed the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's tomato output has risen fivefold.

It's a story worth remembering, because we're being warned again that we need huge numbers of "guest workers" -- meaning unskilled laborers from Mexico and Central America -- to relieve U.S. "labor shortages." Indeed, the shortages will supposedly worsen as baby boomers retire. President Bush wants an open-ended program. Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) advocate initially admitting 400,000 guest workers annually. The Senate is considering these and other plans.

Gosh, they're all bad ideas.

Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: We'd be importing poverty.

Strange Bedfellows

One of my least favorite news personalities is Lou Dobbs. He is a protectionist, who has in the past advocating tarrifs to protect domestic industries at the expense of American consumers and the perpetuation of the poverty of foreign workers. But listening to him on immigration, I had to agree with most of his arguments. Especially when he was attacked as a racists by a pro-immigration guest on his show. Great political theater. Thanks to Expose the Left for the video. (he may have to rename his blog if he keeps favorably posting Dobbs).

Play clip.

"I don't neccesarily think that Mr. Dobbs is a racist." Right. The last bastion of a poor debater is name calling. The second to last is to cite polls without explaining the type of questions, caveats, and attribution. Salinas attempted to change the discussion to airport security, and then to racism.

Listen now to her talk about the demonstrations, and the desire not to be criminalized. Dobbs goes batshit. Great stuff.

Play clip.

That's it for now Podcatchers!