What happens when a reporter is clueless?

Letter from Washington: Immigration strains spread into heartland
By Brian Knowlton, International Herald Tribune

This article seemed friendly enough at the outset, but as I read on, I realized that not only is the reporter ignorant about this issue, but he is also a perfect example of how laziness in research leads to errant reporting.

I wonder if we should suspect that a large part of the misinformation about immigration being spread by the MSM is a result of ignorance. For instance, how come the reported numbers of illegal aliens residing in the US is going up so slowly while the reported numbers actually stealing in to our nation has grown exponentially. Plus, based on the stories I’m hearing about large populations of Mexicans cropping up just about everywhere, doesn’t it make more sense for us to err on the side of large-estimate caution? Chances are the 8-11 million figure commonly bandied about is at best a half-reporting.

But I digress; this reporter’s ignorance is at issue here. Let’s take a crack at a couple portions of this “news” story.

"A recent NBC News poll found that nearly half of those surveyed in this nation of immigrants thought that immigration made the country weaker. Yet, studies show immigration is a net economic plus, worth perhaps $10 billion yearly."

Studies? There was one study done in 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences, that was highly contested, that cited that figure. But using an eight-year-old controversy to present another side to this issue is either ignorant, or lazy, or both.

I’m betting on both.

Let’s look at some more of this drivel.

As in Herndon, illegal immigrants are a growing presence nationwide - perhaps 11 million of them, roughly equaling those legally present. The costs of their presence tend to draw more attention than the economic boost their cheap labor provides (they help moderate inflation, says Alan Greenspan). People complain of paying for immigrants' social benefits - although these have been sharply pared - and, increasingly, of crime and insecurity.

I highlighted the tomfoolery. It is critical that one look at the context of the source information. I don’t think this reporter did. Let’s look at what Greenspan actually said before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.

“Despite the improving feasibility of work at older ages, Americans have been retiring at younger and younger ages. Some analysts believe this trend has slowed, although few anticipate a rapid turnaround. But rising pressures on retirement incomes and a growing scarcity of experienced labor could induce greater labor-force participation.

Immigration, if we choose to expand it, could prove an even more potent antidote for slowing growth in the working-age population. As the influx of foreign workers in response to the tight labor markets of the 1990s showed, immigration does respond to labor shortages.

An expansion of labor-force participation by immigrants and the healthy elderly offers some offset to an aging population. However, it is heightened growth of output per worker that presents the greatest potential to boost the growth of gross domestic product. A significant rise in the growth of labor productivity will be necessary if the standard of living of retirees is to be maintained and that of workers is to continue advancing.”

Now, I’m not a rocket scientist, but I don’t think that Greenspan was referring to Mexican mojados with this commentary. Most illegals may well be hard-working, but that’s not the point in his reference to “productivity.” It takes educated hard work for productivity to rise, especially in the manner that Greenspan wishes. I’ll take a broad swipe here and say that “studies show” that Mexican illegal aliens and their offspring do not produce an “educated” workforce even after the first and second generation.

Don’t believe me? Google it.