“responds” to my post by changing the subject pretty dramatically. Originally she claimed that illegal immigration was a “feminist issue” because it helped women of all classes. She offered pretty weak evidence for this claim, and she doesn’t try to offer any more now. Instead she argues that free trade in labor can be expected to provide aggregate economic gains. Fine: I’ve never disputed that. But that hardly shows that women would pay a disproportionate share of the cost of limiting that free trade, which is what she claimed, without good evidence.

She says it’s “somewhat disingenuous” for me ”to refer to opening up a market as ‘cutting pay.’” She should go back and read her own article. One of her key premises is that the benefit of illegal immigration for “women” is that women will have to pay less for child care. But since her whole strategy is to pretend we’re arguing about something that we’re not, I suppose going back to the original article wouldn’t help her out.