2 votes

Ann Coulter Immigration to blame for low wages


Ann Coulter's new column blames the low minimum wage on our lax immigration policies over the last fifty years. Her assertion is that the U.S. should pass strict immigration policies that limit low skilled workers that suppress the wages, while allowing only immigrants that are educated and skilled. I think it would be difficult to deport the illegals we currently have, along with swaying the public's opinion on this. What are your thoughts folks?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Federalist Society.

Anne started a chapter at the University of Michigan Law School.

A bunch of the Supreme Court justices are also Federalists, that is followers of Alexander Hamilton.

I agree she hasn't a clue about liberty or economics.

Free includes debt-free!

It's a tragedy also what has happenned to 'federalist'

Are you the "word nazi"? If so I approve.

The way tbg (the bad guys) have twisted words.. the 'federalists' today believe in states whose powers, as decided by the feds, are respected, unless the feds deem it expedient not to.

The 'federalist' society, if it even supports the posit supra, couches it in terms of utility.

They have framed 'federalism' as the mortal antagonist to statism. It's beautiful in an evil way.

Supply and Demand

Of course adding more labor decreases wages. If we already have high unemployment especially among the unskilled, bringing or allowing in more unskilled labor to compete with this already high unemployment group will drive down wages. Why else would there be a demand for illegal aliens? What happened when illegal aliens were brought in to meat packing plants? Not that it does them much good but poor people vote for Democrats.

The solution is two fold. Imprison or impose extremely high fines on cheating employers who lay off Americans to profit by hiring illegal aliens. I don't see any Tyson executives in prison. Impose import taxes like the founding fathers did on import corporations and offset these taxes by reducing Wilson's income tax to the extent possible.

If the supply of labor goes down, innovation, automation, and robotization occur. Workers could demand higher wages which would decrease the need for social benefits and armies of bureaucrats who administer those benefits could be culled. Real fiscal conservatives should love this government trim. Notice that I didn't even suggest roundups of illegal aliens. Once enough Tyson and Marriot executives are imprisoned for their economic treason, hiring Americans and purchasing automation equipment will begin looking good to other employers. Most illegal aliens will probably drift off and find their own way home.

What distinguishes between a "legal" or "illegal"?

The "illegal" individual has no papers.

A legal citizen is branded with a social security account, pledges to donate and accept their share of the national debt (over $14 trillion about 30 ounces of gold each in 2014).

The US Bond holders finance government to loot people to pay interest on bonds, and it needs more people to loot.

The Constitution gave Congress the authority to borrow and loot. Hamilton called it the American System.

Free includes debt-free!

Why not go after the real culprit,

government subsidies? The real criminal is the government, supporting illegal aliens so they can charge less for their labor. This seems scamish on its face. ;)

Just open the box and see

Actually, a business near me

Actually, a business near me got hit with a $1 million fine last year for hiring illegals over US citizens. Needless to say, they dont do it anymore and actually have problems finding people to fill positions. They werent paying minimum wage either, something like $10 an hour for loading dock worker starting.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Old Story

Its an old story. Get more for less $.

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

Are you in that story?

I thought only government paid more $ for less.

Free includes debt-free!


and yes.

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

Problem is they are beating us on our home field.

So Anne pouts says bury them in red tape.

Free includes debt-free!

Let them come

and make this their "home field"

God, I miss The New Colossus!

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

There is some truth

to the idea that immigrants lower wages. That is a good thing. When new entries into a market can provide a good or service for less, it lowers the cost. This is good for everyone. It lowers the cost of the goods, provides work for those who might not otherwise have it, and increases overall the purchasing power of the money system. As goods and services become cheaper to produce, they also become cheaper to buy, and everyone is richer. Hooray for immigrants!

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

Why are their jobs for illegals?

They don't cause trouble.

No minimum wage

They don't increase paperwork or
legal liability like a normal employer.

They're beating us on our home field. Even at the same wage the the home team has a disadvantage.

A player is further disadvantaged by income tax, FICA and FUDA. And working to fill out the 1040 and end up paying for the privilege.

Show up for work, get a job, get paid and go home.

First remove the disadvantage placed on American Workers and businesses.

Free includes debt-free!

Very true

If the corruption and bureaucracy were removed, we would all be better off and would be happy to have immigrants working near us. In fact, I argue that, on the sum total, we are still better off with immigrant workers, despite the unfair application of "law".

It's really too bad that there is such a stigma against those perceived as outsiders.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

lowering cost

That isn't always the case, especially in the construction trades. The savings is pocketed by the small business owner and not passed onto the customer. There's been a huge increase in Hispanic roofers yet the price of roofing doesn't go down.

The small business owner pocketing more money per job is OK I guess but it's tough on the guys out here trying to compete on the labor end. I've been very fortunate and have found a niche in the market. Many of my acquaintances in the business haven't fared too well.

Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio

A bubble

You can see just how much it would have helped the end consumer, as well as the immigrant, if there weren't a giant bureaucratic mess making it difficult for immigrants to shop around for a fair-priced employer. In a free market, the availability of more skilled labor (and yes, I wholeheartedly consider my Hispanic friends in industry highly skilled) would lower the cost of that labor to the consumer. Unfortunately, we have a corrupt system that makes it scary for someone to shop around for the best pay, when he is afraid to lose his job and home altogether.

The overall wealth increase is truly there, and in the examples you cite, it is intercepted by greedy people who know how to game the system.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

Ahhh, the "trickle-down" theory.

That one works very well in economics laboratory vacuums.
Meanwhile, in the real world, as the immigrant flood continues,
employment rates continue to decline...

Chilly down there Che'

I'll run interference for you and argue that you should not be yelled at.

But you need to argue in good faith. Also you are talking rather unlike what you have before.

Don't matter. So today, you've read das cap for the first time and you are ready to rumble. And you are, strangely, convinced that people at the dp, just love bankers, corporations, foreign invasions, all that good 'capitalist' stuff.

Ok doke, make your case.


As Jean Baptiste Say would say, only supply can create demand. If you're looking for a name for the theory, I guess "trickle-around" would make more sense than "trickle-down".

Consider this proof of concept. As the population of our planet has continued to increase exponentially, more human beings have been born to become new mouths to feed. They are a new "demand". In general, they can't feed their mouths unless they offer some of their own skills and wealth in exchanges with others. Keynesians would argue that an exponentially increasing population would dramatically reduce our standard of living. Say's law would suggest the opposite, that more producers means more means to demand product. As we can see, in direct inverse proportion to the incredible growth of population of our planet, lives are extended, personal comforts are more ubiquitous, disease and infant mortality are reduced, many subjective "happiness scales" are improved, and the number of people living in what used to be dictionary definition levels of "poverty" have decreased in proportion to the world population. We're better off with more people. I would like to call these new humans "immigrants". Some come from the womb and stay in their original geography, and others travel around a bit. I don't see any real difference.

Unfortunately, in my example, I used the planet earth, which exists in a vacuum.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.


You are funny. I'll give you that.

I don't know whether global poverty has actually been reduced. I've seen claims going either way, depending on whose analysis one reads and which quantitative factors and biases are observed or ignored.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the immigrant flood continues, employment rates continue to decline and poverty rates in the United States are increasing. If poverty is decreasing in northern Mexico, should I ignore the fact that it increases in Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma?

Poverty is not increasing in Texas.

And it is right on the border.

That's one perspective. Here is another:

Report: 47 Percent Increase In Texas Child Poverty Rate

"There was a 47 percent increase in the rate of Texas children living in poverty from 2000 to 2011, according to the Kids Count report by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank that advocates for low-income Texans. That was faster than the 18 percent growth rate in the child population in Texas during the same period.

Twenty-seven percent of Texas children were living in poverty in 2011, a rate that put the Lone Star State among the nine worst states.

The Kids Count report said that the child poverty rate in Texas in 2011 ranged from 9.1 percent in Dallas-area Rockwall County to 48.1 percent in Brooks County in South Texas. Counties with high child poverty rates also included Cameron and Hidalgo in the Rio Grande Valley."

Deportation isn't necessary.

At least not for those who are here legally.
Stemming the flow wouldn't be a bad idea to give our economy time to absorb the ones who are currently here. As has been demonstrated in posts on this forum, some people are already voluntarily leaving the U.S. due to a perception of oppression and increasing lack of opportunity.
At any rate, people tend to sort these things out among themselves when conditions of life become unbearable. Unfortunately, when conditions reach the point that people are starving, they have historically resorted to violent solutions.

The problem is not too low

The problem is not too low wages, it is the depreciation of the dollar destroying even the reason for going to work that is the problem.
Immigration is unsettling because it is a change, but immigration is good. The US's past fairly open immigration policy may be our saving grace. Everywhere in the world, no matter how horrible the foreign policy, people living there have cousins, brothers, sisters, children, nephews & nieces who live in the United States. They generally hear back good things about this country. They are our true ambassadors to the world. If we can get rid of the welfare, very open borders will be totally positive for the economy.

Come on people

It's not immigration or technology or outsourcing or any of that Keynesian nonsense.

It's restricting people from becoming employers themselves which drives down wages. Stop people from becoming employers and you make more people who need to be employees, and allow existing business to reap monopsony profits.

Yes over the short term an influx of immigration or an opening of a foreign labor market will push down wages. But they will rise again as some of those people inevitably earn enough capital and see that wages are so low that they can hire someone and profit from doing so.
So long as there is profit to be made from hiring, wages will be bid up.

Or they would in a free market.

In our fascist market you have to pay off the government and cronies to become an employer. EOC, OSHA, FDA, EPA, IRS, etc, etc. There's an army of people with their hand out to prevent you from going into business.

This is what keeps wages low.


Our market is not fascist. It's capitalist; and those who have the most capital make the rules. That means cronyism. Do you think any one-percenter cares about your well-being? If you disappear, they will simply import a replacement.

Your solution would require a middle class revolt against international finance and industry...kinda like what the Germans did, back in the 1920's and '30's. Of course, the international private central bankers, speculators, and war profiteers probably won't like your plan, but it's worth a shot.

No we have a fascist market.

In a capitalist market we'd have private ownership and control of capital.

In a socialist market we'd have public ownership and control of capital.

We have neither of those.

In our fascist market we have private ownership, but public control of capital.

These aren't my definitions, these are the definitions of socialists and fascists. I take them at their word. And they also make sense and fit historical evidence.

But I don't much care to argue definitions, just concepts.

If you call our market 'capitalist' then please provide a term we can use for the system where there is no state power for the rich to buy to oppress the poor?

That's the 'system' I favor.

That's the system where transitory gains in capital cannot be used to buy state power to make those gains perpetual.

That's the system where exogenous windfalls cannot be maintained unless they provide a benefit to society, as the people in the society decide.

The public does not control the capital.

The "one percent" in private central banks controls the capital.

Fascism implies elements of nationalism (i.e.,"the people" or "public"), which are nonexistent among the international Capitalists, who control our closed economic system and couldn't care less about the people.

In a fascist political system, business controls resources and politics in the interest of the nation, the People.

In our system of international capitalist control, resources are managed to maintain their finiteness, ensuring competition and profits for the Capitalists, who have positioned themselves, and their buddies, to be at the top of the profit pyramid, extracting their capital gains from the masses through speculation, usury, currency manipulation and other methods.

A national socialist system would prevent predatory capitalism by nationalizing and managing essential industries and finite resources, to maintain abundance for the benefit of the people, the Middle Class, while providing necessary welfare services and encouraging small businesses, farms, etc. to grow by providing, essential infrastructure such as warehouses and equipment at affordable rates to those who are productive. Now, guess why oligarchs and plutocrats vehemently hate the National Socialist, i.e., Nazi. Oh, there's a naughty word! But, hey, I'm not judging, if that's what you want, go for it.

I should add. It will

I should add. It will surprise few here but I agree, deeply and sincerely with what I will assume are your goals. So that you don't accuse me of straw man I will state my assumptions.

You do not like human predation. You do not like people who find strength at some point in time, by birth or happenstance, to use that initial strength to maintain, and worse expand, that position of power.

If that is what you find unjust, welcome brother.

We have been working on this problem for some time. You might be interested in some of our ideas. If you disagree eventually that's fine, but stick around first.

No one here, especially here, wants to protect any capitalist ever.

We have many capitalists here. They are the good guys. They are the ones prevented from employing people by government power, and by such prevention driving down wages.

Stick around. Argue. Agree. Hug. But stick around.

Cyril's picture

True ! I am a capitalist !

True ! I am a capitalist !

Of the saving, stacking, enslaved kind ! ;)

And you're spot on, also, I don't NEED any protection. I don't WANT any protection. Nor help.

But I'd just REALLY appreciate that the plunder coming from the government and other rotten capitalists sleeping in the same bed...

... TO STOP, if it's not too much to ask !

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius