>First of all, so what? Immigrants are people too.
Of course they are. I didn't mean to imply that we don't have to bother with them.
>And second of all,
>the economics of immigration is extremely controversial; one study
>does not a firm conclusion make.
Now this is what I'd like to learn more about.
The thrust of the Forbes article was it is only the infusion of poor immigrants into the country which causes the statistics you see about how the income of the poorest 1/5 has eroded by x% (whatever it is). They were arguing that everyone is doing better, even the immigrants (making $10,000 a yr as opposed to $5 a day back home). But when you add a bunch of people at the bottom of the income scale it leads to greater societal inequality but masks the fact that everyone is gaining economically. And so you see, capitalism really is a rising tide that lifts all boats. Utopia is just around the corner.
I'm not saying I agree with this argument, especially the "capitalism is wonderful" spin. I'm just curious as to whether or not this thesis, the increase in inequality over the last decade or two can be almost entirely explained by immigration, has any merit.
>Wasn't George Borjas, was it?
Nope. I'll try to find the article and get the guy's name.
Brett