Where's the part about creating jobs for Americans, by tossing out the illegal aliens?

Great, former Budget director under George W Bush. What could go wrong?

So we have Coburn and the Gang of 6, Ryan agreeing to eliminate tax subsidies, etc. Have any of these geniuses ever heard of "focus" and "getting on the same page"?

No wonder Trump scares these guys. At least someone out there stays on message.

Timbuktu-

There's very little in the way of data to support the idea that illegal immigrants "take American jobs." Sorry. Nor is there data to support the idea that illegal immigrants decrease overall competitiveness. On the contrary, by allowing resources to be more efficiently allocated they act as a major factor in *increasing* overall competitiveness (a term that tends to oversimplify certain aspects of international trade).

Most of the comparisons you see that try to support such claims do so without accounting for a number of confounding variables that kind of undermine the simplistic claims you're jumping on.

More than that, I hate to break it to you but mechanization is already an option. By and large, it's more expensive to further mechanize than the use of cheap labor as evident by the status quo. You can't have it both ways with these options; either you see these "American jobs" being filled or increased mechanization. Your post seems to imply that you can get both; that's not the case.

Either way, you see a definite increase in costs that end up being born directly by American consumers. Things are nowhere near as simple as your post tries to imply.

There are a number of significant and major concerns with illegal immigration in this country today. And they need to be looked at, evaluated, and either solved back for or hedged against. Ignoring them is *not* a strategy that makes sense or should garner much in the way of support from anyone with half a brain. Hell, the security implications alone are enough to scare someone (and rightfully so).

But doubling down on unwarranted claims isn't the right approach.

Bluestrike, let's get real here. The jobs illegal aliens are concentrated in (and you can look at the Pew Center data; they're overwhelmingly concentrated in these industries) are food service, hospitality (read: cleaning hotels), janitorial services, construction, agriculture, and landscaping.

Those are not the jobs that can be done elsewhere. Whereas our country's policy of not being open to skilled and educated immigrants -- computer scientists, engineers, chemists and others who are affected by our de jure policy of family unification over skills and our de facto policy of low-skilled illegal immigration -- does mean jobs go elsewhere, if we were to finally restore the rule of law vis-a-vis low-skilled illegals, those jobs would be done in America.

Now, who would do them? Americans? Legal immigrants? Well, there's not too many other options, so I would say those are our options. It sure does sound like -- as much as the open-borders crowd tries to use sophistry to get around this -- illegal aliens are taking jobs from Americans and legal immigrants. I'd rather that they have those jobs than illegals.

As for mechanization, of course if you mechanize a process, a human won't be doing the same thing. But mechanization does create a need for higher-skill jobs overseeing the machinery on site, as well as actually designing and manufacturing it. All of those positions would require more skills, and create more economic output, than having an underskilled individual doing something by hand. That's sort of how the economy has boomed and jobs have exploded since the computer entered our national worklife in the '80s and '90s.

So, yes, many jobs would be done by legal employees. Others would be mechanized, creating a need for higher-skilled workers to oversee and build the machinery. Sounds good to me.

As for the notion of costs increasing, I think it's highly overblown. Why is it that in many cities (Chicago, New York) and regions (Florida, California), many of the most expensive restaurants use almost exclusively illegal labor while the fast-food joints (Checkers, TGI Friday's, many McDonalds, etc.) that have large labor forces and fear an immigration probe use legal labor and yet still sell the cheapest food you can get?

Why is it that many of the expensive organic farms are relying on illegal labor, while larger, more mechanized farms with less reliance on illegal labor are selling the cheaper produce?

Clearly, you've oversimplified things. The high-end restaurants and organic farms overhire because the cost of any one worker is so low. I have worked in restaurants that hire high-schoolers in the summer, as well as restaurants that hire illegal aliens. The former tend to run a lean operation; the latter are hugely overstaffed. And, in my experience, the latter have been the higher-end establishments charging more for their product.

The Romans learned the hard way that relying on slave labor instead of engineering mechanized solutions kills productivity and increases prices, in addition to destroying work ethic and morale. Let's just hope that we come to that realization before our own Republic is utterly corroded as well.

>"There's very little in the way of data to support the idea that illegal immigrants "take American jobs.""

Some of the work illegals do is work which would not be done at all if the illegals were not here. Some of it is work which would still be done, but would be done elsewhere. (Lettuce could and should be grown in Mexico rather than here) And some of it is work which would be done by Americans if it were not being done by illegals. For instance, there was a cop busted recently for being an illegal alien in Alaska. So let's drop this fiction that illegals take ZERO American jobs.

>"Nor is there data to support the idea that illegal immigrants decrease overall competitiveness. On the contrary, by allowing resources to be more efficiently allocated they act as a major factor in *increasing* overall competitiveness (a term that tends to oversimplify certain aspects of international trade)."

You are assuming the existence of a libertarian market. It does not exist, which is why the theory that the presence of illegal aliens works to increase competitiveness falls apart. In the market we actually have, illegal alien labor acts to transfer tax money from taxpayers in general into the pockets of the employers of illegals.

>"Most of the comparisons you see that try to support such claims do so without accounting for a number of confounding variables that kind of undermine the simplistic claims you're jumping on."

The only simplistic claims I see being made here are being made by you.

>"it's more expensive to further mechanize than the use of cheap labor as evident by the status quo."

That's because cheap (illegal) labor is currently being subsidized by the taxpayer. That particular status quo is easily altered.

Obama Goes Golfing, Dog Bites Man, Bill Cheats On Hillary, and Republicans Propose Tax Cuts for the Rich. Nice. And predictable. And of course it works so well, because Bush slashed taxes on the rich in 2001 and we ended the decade with the best economy ever!

Actually, with growth lower than the higher tax 80s and 90s and with fewer jobs than at the start.

When is the GOP going to follow through on its promises to the middle class? When is it going to make real spending reductions, rather than just promises of such? When is it going to secure the borders? When is it going to end the vast, Byzantine structure of quotas, handouts and racial set-asides? When is it going to enact school vouchers?

Presumably never. The GOP can only be reliably counted on to go to the wall for the rich. That's why it'll cut medicare for the middle class but not $3 billion in aid to Israel. That's why it'll push for amnesty for 15 million illegal aliens who will not, when they become citizens, vote Republican.

I turned 18 and voted in my first election in 1994. It was a great year to be a Republican. I voted GOP religiously my first 5 federal elections, through 2002. In 2004 I held my nose, but still voted for Bush. In 2006 I became a genuine swing voter. In 2008 I adamantly refused to vote for McCain. I'm done with this GOP. Cheap labor, low taxes on the rich, big wars - they can only be counted on to push the policies of big business and the neocons. No more buying on credit. Cash on delivery. That means conservative policies now, before the next election.

WJ: In the 80's, Reagan cut the top tax rate to 25%.

** "WJ: In the 80's, Reagan cut the top tax rate to 25%." **

Income, business, or cap gains? Because the highest cap gains rate - the one that supposedly encourages job creation - was reduced in the 00s to 15% by Bush and Republicans. That rate was all over the place during the 80s and 90s, but it was never lower than 20%, and it was at some points nearly twice as high. Yet we had higher job creation and faster economic growth.

WJ and Kenny, Cutting corporate taxes to 25% is actually a good idea, IF the plan eliminates the exemptions that allow GE and others to pay no corporate taxes. We should prefer a system where businesses pay all of 25% rather than none of 39%. That would actually mean a net tax increase for large corporations.
This would lower taxes for many small businesses which pay the full 39% because they aren't eligible for the exemptions. The reduction would free up their capital for hiring and investment.
Since many of the corporate tax exemptions pertain to overseas activities, this should also encourage GE and others to bring production and jobs back to the US. However, the rate must go down to a level similar to other nations, the 39% rate is much higher than that of other nations.
Our problem continues to be a tax system that creates perverse incentives and disincentives to doing business. Businesses rationally seek the most advantageous climate, we need a tax code that creates that climate.
As for the remainder of small businesses that operate as Subchapter S or sole proprietorships under a personal 1040 we need to consider their strength and hiring ability. It is always such businesses that lead the economy out of a recession, hindering them through a tax code manipulated by lobbyists for the Fortune 500 is insane.