I urge discerning readers here to draw their own conclusions about the sources: compare the Public Policy Institute of California to the Federation of American Immigration Reform, or the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy to NumbersUSA, or even the Immigration Policy Center to the Center for Immigration Studies. Look at the breadth of interests, the statistical and methodological approaches, and which organizations open up their methodology and sources for scrutiny, and which just rattle off figures from gawd-knows-where.

There’s a lesson or two in these about the generalizations we all hear about migrants, who’s putting them out, and how the myths we think we know–those “common sense” ideas Mr. Dearborn relies on–shape up against facts. And about who has the shrillest media campaign.

The PPIC study, in particular, is a genuine myth-buster. It summarizes, “Native workers benefit because they are able to specialize in more productive work. The results are consistent with other national-level research showing that immigrants have little if any effect on the wages of low-skilled natives and benefit high-skilled natives.” The real economics of (undeniably undervalued) migrant labor in this is well worth the read.

Notably, Mr. Dearborn doesn’t challenge my conclusion and remedy, legalization, for which I thank him.

Before I leave this discussion with Mr. Dearborn, let me add that Mr. Dearborn’s remark “In no way shape or form were my comments racist,” is a distraction: no one has said he is a racist. He might be, maybe he isn’t, but no one has said so yet. I have argued the economics with him; Mr. Santos has taken up the history and culture. Mr. Dearborn demands the discussion be about economics, but offers only one new and very weak argument–legal absolutism–and nothing more about economics. He refuses to discuss history and culture. And now he’s telling you that someone has said he is racist. I don’t see how continuing down this path will advance the debate.

To address the “facts” from the “studies” cited by rebuttle number one. I can only say consider the source. Every souce quoted has an agenda and a bais. For every study you offer from a “pro” immigration group I can counter with one from an “anti” immigration group. But simply put common sense (as well as many studies) make it difficult to believe that hiring labor at miminum and below the prevaling wage somehow increases real wages. The reason illegal workers are employeed is in fact because they are cheaper.

Regarding response number 2; quite simply I do not respond to racist attacks. In no way shape or form were my comments racist. The entire point of my comments were that race is NOT the primary issue. Simple economics is. And Juan anyone who comes to America illegally is in fact as a point of law a criminal. It has nothing to do with being of a specific race, creed, color or religion.

Here is a different set of premises, premises grounded in historical, cultural and economic reality.

1. Virtually all migrants from south of the US border are of indigenous descent. They are neither “illegal” nor “aliens.” To the contrary, they are, by definitions Native to this hemisphere. The only “aliens” here are the white colonial settlers and their descendants. The majority of Mexicans are of Uto -Aztecan descent, an umbrella that includes the Hopi, Comanche, Ute, Paiute, Yaqui, Tarahumara, (Rara’muri) Huichol, and other groups from what are, for now, Mexico and the USA. The Uto-Aztecans originated in an area near what is now the Arizona / New Mexico border, within the current boundaries of the US, and spread outward from there, into a range extending from Nicaragua into Idaho.

2. Who you calling “Illegal Alien, Pilgrim?

3. The State Daniel Dearborn upholds is an illegitimate white colonial settler regime founded on genocide, land theft, slavery and broken treaties. It is an “Illegal” State, a rogue imperial oppressor state. The US, as such, has no right to exist, much less to enforce its laws on the Native people of these lands or their descendants, any more than white South Africans had any right o exclude or oppress Africans under Apartheid.

4. The impoverishment of the Third World is made in the USA. Like all other so-called “Americans,” Daniel Dearborn materially profits from the impoverishment of “Latin” America. They starve so that he may eat well.

The penetration of Third World economies by US capital povides the US with super-profits that drive the main gears of the US economy, dramatically raising the living standards for all who live here. Daniel Dearborn wants to be free to enjoy the fruits of this exploitation and never have to lay eyes on those, in their millions, who are displaced by it. Just like any other oppressor.

I suggest also reviewing the 2007 Immigration Policy Center’s “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates Among Native and Foreign-Born Men” (http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdf), which concludes “incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated.”

And most germane to Mr. Dearborn’s argument, there’s the Public Policy Institute of California’s 2007 study, “How Immigrants Affect California Employment and Wages” (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_207GPCC.pdf) which states unequivocally, “the influx of immigrants increased the average real wages of native workers in California by 4 percent.”

As to his conclusion, the answer is clear: legalization. When these workers can openly compete for wages, unionize, and demand health and safety protections, the corporation will no longer be profiting by blackmailing those kept in “their place” by phrases like “illegal alien.”

The problem of illegal aliens (criminals under US law) has been intentionally clouded by the race card by those on both sides of the issue. Ultimately the American worker is caught in the middle. This is of course by design. The motive is corporate profits and focusing US worker discontent on anyone other than the perpetrators. From my perspective the pro corporate perpetrators are way ahead.