USA Today, CNN Push Bogus Talking Point That Stimulus Will Give Jobs To 300,000 Illegal Immigrants

[babylonsister]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/usa-today-cnn-push-shaky-talking-point-that-stimulus-will-give-jobs-to-300000-illegal-immigrants/

USA Today, CNN Push Bogus Talking Point That Stimulus Will Give Jobs To 300,000 Illegal Immigrants


There’s a new talking point making the rounds among some big news orgs and some critics on the right: The stimulus package will give construction jobs to 300,000 illegal immigrants.

Mainstream news outlets such as USA Today and CNN have pushed this line, citing “experts” who happen to work at a think tank that promotes anti-immigration materials. But a quick look at the facts shows that this assertion is built on shaky to non-existent evidence.

The whole thing got started when USA Today reported that “experts” say that thanks to the stimulus package, “immigrants in the United States illegally could take 300,000 construction jobs.” CNN”s Jack Cafferty jumped on the report, asking ironically: “What’s wrong with giving a few hundred thousand jobs away to people who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place? This is your government at work.”

Newsmax and other conservative outlets grabbed the talking point and pushed it to the max, also citing the study USA Today used.

But who are the experts USA Today cited? Well, the chief expert turns out to be the Center for Immigration Studies, which has harshly criticized Homeland Security Sec Janet Napolitano as insufficiently concerned about terrorism and is promoting a book called “The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal.”

The group’s study on the 300,000 jobs is here. In a nutshell, the group is saying that the stim package will create construction jobs for roughly 2 million workers over the next few years. The group then claims that it “has estimated” that about 15% of workers currently employed in construction in America are illegal. It then applies that 15% rate to the 2 million — and gets the 300,000.

But here’s the trouble. The study says that its estimate of how many construction jobs the stim will create is based on a Federal formula that measures the rate that Federal spending creates “construction related jobs.” Dems point out that such jobs are often higher skilled ones that illegal aliens wouldn’t qualify for anyway. So applying this figure to the current debate makes no sense.

What’s more, the study itself says that the 15% rate is based on data whose last year was 2005 — way before the economic crisis caused massive construction job losses. Dems argue persuasively that this, too, renders the 300,000 stat bogus.

It’s of course conceivable that the 300,000 jobs figure could prove right. But that would be pure coincidence. This “evidence” seems like an awfully shaky foundation for big news orgs to base such a lurid and controversial claim upon.

[yourout]

1. CNN=Fox Lite....but trying for CNN=Fox.

I refuse to watch the BS they are shoveling.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Had some DUers beating down immigrants with this right wing crap a few days ago

Some seemingly intelligent DUers too.

I couldn't believe my eyes.

Don

[babylonsister]

4. Yes. That's why I wanted to post this. I do notice

how silent they are now.

[Kansas Wyatt]

50. Do you work in construction?

NO? Then how do you know what exactly has gone on for the last decade in the construction industry?

Sure, some of us must not believe our 'lying eyes,' or we will face an onslaught from DU Chic Agenda Firing Squad.

Over the last few years, I've seen a lot of construction workers posting on the DU, but that eventually changed. Why? Because they would be attacked and called racist for telling their story about what they used to have and WHO and what took it all away. Now we must re-write history to explain what happened to those people, or face the DU Chic Agenda Firing Squad.

Tell you what... When the DEMOCRATIC PARTY pushes the American Worker aside to turn over their jobs to illegals, just like the Republicans did. Ask yourself why the working people decided to vote against their 'best interests' again in coming elections. LOL! The Republicans thought they would have it all for years to come too.

Now, to all you other little shits, who are forming the firing squad now... Go fuck yourselves! Keep your shit up, and I will CANCEL my PAC contributions from my union job, which goes to & helps the Democratic Party, I will never again vote for a candidate who supports your actions and will vote for their opponent, and I will advocate being against the "liberal dems," instead of always pushing people to trust the Democratic Party. SEE WHAT YOUR BULLSHIT DOES? Your agenda pushes people away from the Democratic Party. I am just one, but there are millions more just like me.*

*By the way, I'm engaged to the daughter of someone who legally immigrated here. I talked the family into giving the Democrats a chance before the last election, instead of continuing to vote for the Republicans, and they all voted Democratic in a state that flipped to the Democrats. Score one for the DU Chic Agenda Firing Squad! Doh!

[babylonsister]

61. Go pick a fight with someone else-I'm not that interested. I was

interested in the sourcing for this rumor, which is all it is.

[Kansas Wyatt]

71. Then I apologize for assuming your were a part of the DU Chic Agenda Firing Squad.

I actually witnessed the end result of advancing illegal immigration into the construction industry, that once supported families.

Yes it is a rumor that the jobs used in the figure are highly technical jobs that illegals cannot do. Hmm... Sure, everyone knows you have to have a Bachelor's Degree to be a construction worker and they would never just throw a illegal worker in there to get it done for a small fraction of the cost.

[EFerrari]

38. There's a parallel story about how Obama is going to fix mortgages

for millions of "illegal aliens". I think they were just waiting to see which story would float better.

[zbdent]

3. but wait ... that would mean that McCain's "Hell, NO! Don't BUY AMERICAN!"

policy would prevail, right?

[BuyingThyme]

5. 15% is a fair estimate.

The problem is not in the size of the estimate, but in that people want this issue to be ignored. But those people constitute a tiny minority of Americans. That's why this angle will be effective.

[Beetwasher]

7. Well Then, I Guess The Answer Is We Shouldn't Create Any Jobs Then

Because god forbid some of them should be given to "illegals". :eyes:

This idioitc talking point is a non-sequitor. There are already laws on the books against hiring illegal aliens. If you create a large amount of jobs some of them will be given to people who aren't citizens. Big fucking deal. If companies do this and break the law they should be punished. It's irrelevant to the stimulus. The stimulus is doing NOTHING to encourage hiring illegals, it's merely creating jobs and some idiots will break the law and hire "illegals". And they should be punished.

It's an idiotic point that has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion except to whip up the racist scumbags into a frenzy.

[pnutbutr]

8. the problem is

that some of the companies pay them under the table so no taxes are paid. It's not about race, it's about breaking the law.

[Beetwasher]

10. Yeah, So What?

So those companies are breaking the law and should be punished accordingly. WTF does that have to do w/ the stimulus? So I guess we shouldn't create ANY jobs then right? Because then some people might break the law and hire "illegals"?

They would do that regardless of the stimulus.

[EFerrari]

76. It is about race as the Republicans do it. When was the last time

they frothed at the mouth about illegal white workers? When was the last time a group of white Canadians were rounded up by ICE? And so on.

Anyone who works here pays all kinds of taxes when ever they buy anything, including telephone service and heat. The small amount of income taxes some don't pay on their substandard wages stays in the economy. :shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

11. Hey, you created a non-sequitur in the interest of promoting anti-non-sequiturism.

[Beetwasher]

13. No, Jeenyus, I'm Showing How Stoopid This Idiotic Talking Point Is

n/t

[BuyingThyme]

16. What talking point?

[Beetwasher]

18. Do You Know What Thread You're Posting In?

How about reading the title of the OP?

[BuyingThyme]

22. I've read it. The estimate is perfectly reasonable.

Why do you want to pretend it's nothing more than a talking point?

[Beetwasher]

29. It's Irrelevant Bullshit

Illegal immigrants will get jobs regardless of how those jobs are created.

[BuyingThyme]

33. And...?

What, it's just the 15% estimate that bothers you?

[Beetwasher]

39. LOL!

Yeah, that's it. :eyes:

How stupid. Stimulus=bad becauase illegals will get jobs. Or do you deny that's the intent of this supreme idiocy?

Yeah, I know you and your ilk would love to get bogged down in a debate about the number, because that's the type of idiotic shit that floats your boat.

I got news, Chester. Illegals will always get jobs regardless of how their created. There's nothing special about the stimulus.

[BuyingThyme]

42. You seem to have non-sequitur's disorder.

[Beetwasher]

44. The Whole Idiotic Thing Is A Non-Sequitor And You Do Your Best To Propogate It

I'm keeping it on point.

The intent, and you know it, is to demonize the stimulus by tying it to illegal immigration and get racist scumbags riled up.

That's the intent. Period.

The number is irrelevant. The talking point is irrelevant.

[BuyingThyme]

46. There are racists who have a problem with illegal immigration,

but the vast majority of people who have a problem with illegal immigration are those who believe their financial situation has been damaged by decreasing wages and less opportunities.

Is this new to you?

[Beetwasher]

47. And That's Related To The Stimulus Exactly How?

So, that's the stimulus' fault? :shrug:

Fucking stupid beyond belief.

Booga Booga!!! Be scared!! The stimulus is going to give jobs to illegal aliens!!!

[BuyingThyme]

49. As I said, it will be an effective strategy.

To pretend that it's ridiculous is dishonest - - thus the necessity for all of your silly non-sequiturs in your phony effort to promote anti-non-sequiturism.

[Beetwasher]

52. Effective On Racist Idiots

That's about it.

Let's see how effective it is jeenyus. Get back to me w/ your evidence that it's effective. I'll wait w/ baited breath for the data. :eyes:

Who's pretending it's ridiculous? It IS ridiculous. But you keep pretending that it's somehow relevant. I see it's had it's effect on you. :rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

55. Boy, look what you've become.

[Beetwasher]

58. LOL!

Ooohhh!! That hurt. I'm so upset you don't like me. I must be doing something right. :rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

59. From projective non-sequiturism, to rofl, to race card, back to rofl.

Very impressive indeed.

[Beetwasher]

65. Don't Underestimate Yourself, You Always Make Me Laugh

I love clowns. I'm very consistently laughing at you.

[BuyingThyme]

67. Bring in the "clowns." Rofls aren't enough for this one.

[Beetwasher]

68. Heh?

Wooooot! :shrug:

Booga booga! Fear the brown man!

Racist.

[geardaddy]

64. +1

Well said.

[EFerrari]

70. I don't think people want this to be ignored but that the focus

is ridiculously on the wrong parties. Even if we deported or ate every single undocumented worker today, by tomorrow morning, more would be here because the people with real power want them to be here.

And, the purpose of these stories isn't to point out that American workers are getting beat up but to score points for Republicans and very cynically, too, because Republicans bewail undocumented workers on teevee and then vote against consequences for their employers. Republicans don't want this fixed. What would they talk about?!

[pnutbutr]

6. so illegal immigrants will still get some of the jobs

just not the 300,000 claimed?

[Beetwasher]

9. So?

So then I guess we shouldn't create ANY new jobs then, right? Because god forbid some of them might not go to citizens.

There are laws on the books about hiring "illegals". WTF does that have to do w/ the stimulus?

Whenever jobs are created, regardless of how those jobs are created, there's always the chance that some of those jobs will go to people who aren't citizens and there are laws that deal w/ that.

WTF does it have to do w/ the stimulus plan?

[pnutbutr]

15. I was just clarifying

the situation to see if the outrage was over illegal immigrants getting jobs or the 300k number itself.

[Beetwasher]

17. The Outrage Is Phony Bullshit Put Forward By Racist Rightwing Think Tanks

To whip up the racist scumbags.

[pnutbutr]

21. outrage here on DU

is what I meant. Those right wing think tanks are apparently correct in that illegal immigrants will be getting some of the jobs but incorrect about the number of jobs. The outrage here on DU is over the number, not that illegals will get some of the jobs which has apparently been accepted as fact.

[Beetwasher]

24. Wrong, The Outrage Is About The Fact That The Talking Point Is Irrelevant Garbage

Illegal immigrants will always get some jobs, regardless of how the jobs are created.

[pnutbutr]

30. that doesn't make any sense

Being pissed about someone saying the stimulus will pay for illegal jobs when illegal jobs will exist anyways.

[Beetwasher]

31. No, It's Stupid To Spuriously Tie The Stimulus W/ Somehow Being Responsible

For illegal jobs. Illegal jobs were a problem before the stimulus and are irrelevant to it.

Let's just stop creating jobs at all then, in any way, shape or form because we don't want any illegals getting them. That's the idiotic extreme of this stupid talking point. Stimulus=bad because illegals will get some of the jobs. Well, then creating jobs is bad because illegals will ALWAYS get some of the jobs.

It has NOTHING to do w/ the stimulus.

[pnutbutr]

That's not what was suggested

anywhere but by you. Everyone knows illegals have jobs now and all that was said is that the stimulus would be paying for illegal jobs.

[Beetwasher]

35. No, That's What's Idiots Who Repeat This Talking Point Are Suggesting

Like you. Somehow the stimulus is "special" in creating jobs for illegals.

It's irrelevant.

[pnutbutr]

37. huh?

Drugs....are you on them?

[Beetwasher]

40. Meh?

Got anything relevant to add, jeenyus?

[Greyhound]

12. If there is any validity to this argument at all, the solution is simple...

crack down hard on illegal employment.

[Beetwasher]

14. Right

All of a sudden it's the stimulus plans fault that companies hire "illegals"???

[pnutbutr]

19. I don't think

that's what he was implying. Simply enforce the current laws and illegal immigrants getting these jobs wouldn't be an issue.

[Beetwasher]

20. And I'm Agreeing W/ Him

n/t

[pnutbutr]

25. so

you want to see current laws against illegal immigrants working in the US enforced so that none can get jobs paid for by the stimulus bill?

[Beetwasher]

28. I'd Like To See As Many Jobs Created By The Stimulus Bill As Possible

Period. And I'd like to see the law enforced. It's two separate issues.

[pnutbutr]

32. separate issues

until one of them pays for the other to be violated.

[Beetwasher]

34. Then Don't Creat Any Jobs, Einstein

That's the idiotic result of your stupid position.

[Greyhound]

60. No, nothing sudden about this. We've seen all of the emphasis on this issue

focused on the people that come here for jobs and the businesses that hire them are the beneficiaries of this.

We round up an insignificant percentage of these people and ship them out, or they stay here living in a very vulnerable position as perfect targets for all sorts of unscrupulous assholes to prey upon. But the employers that provide the motivation for them to come only profit with virtually no chance of suffering any negative consequences for their theft.

Make it painful to employ them and remove the motivation for them to come.

[EFerrari]

36. The "studies" are out of The Heritage Foundation and

The Center for Immigration Studies, a sewer founded by a white supremacist. The talking point is a natural for the Republicans: gov spending + "illegal aliens" = Democrats are Satan!

[Greyhound]

62. Exactly right. My position is, and has been for my whole life, that the emphasis

on "illegal aliens" is just a smokescreen to cover the war on the American worker.

The problem is illegal employers, focus on them, not the people just trying to live.

[BuyingThyme]

41. Oops! You've fallen into the Republican trap.

[Greyhound]

75. How so? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

79. They want to put illegal employment crack-downs into

stimulus legislation.

[Greyhound]

80. OK, can you be more specific? I'm going back and forth between this and packing up for our move

so I'm not up to date on the details.

Generally though, I do favor punishing the employers for hiring illegal immigrants. I've seen the suppression of working class wages happening for over 20 years, especially in the construction industry, which appears to be one of the largest, and probably most effective, parts of the stimulus. We desperately need to repair, rebuild, and improve our national infrastructure and the work done should be well-paid.

The economy works from the bottom up and every dollar that goes into the lower half of the social hierarchy generates further economy.

[BuyingThyme]

81. They want (wanted) to include some kind of "E-verify" requirement

on the Senate side I think that's the genesis of this discussion.

[Greyhound]

82. I see. Amazing how well they can ruin what should be good things with

their poison pills. The whole verification thing is just so damn simple to fix without any huge expensive new programs, further erosion of what we laughingly call privacy, etc.

[Joe Fields]

45. congress will not pass E-Verify, so no real way to keep

illegals from getting a good portion of stimulus jobs.

[Greyhound]

66. Wrong emphasis. Illegal immigrants are not the problem, they are the symptom.

Nail the employers, they are the drain, they are the ones hurting American workers by suppressing wages.

[Joe Fields]

87. agreed, but e-verify is an important piece of the puzzle.

without it, any punitive measured toward employers is meaningless, and any immigration enforcement in the workplace would just be hit and miss and not solve anything.

[EFerrari]

77. A lot of people started heading south months ago. The number

of folks who will get jobs is probably a lot lower than it would have been in, say, 2005.

[Supersedeas]

23. straight off the KKKarl Rove facs machine -- straight to the CNN Anchor promptor

[GreenTea]

26. Fucking republicans pushing lies again - Say it enough times & the media will pounded it in as fact

[spanone]

27. 'experts' 'some say' ....the bullshit media

[Progressive_In_NC]

43. If the rest of the country were like North Carolina then it'd be 1.7 million undocumented

Because there are maybe 15% of the US Citizenry left in the construction industry in this state. I know it is spread out in other states though.

Really, who cares who gets the jobs as long as folks who are living here are working. The only think I hate is how the business uses the person's status to drive down the wages. 12 years ago you could get a job framing houses for 21 an hour, now in NC it's 10.50-11.0.

Eveyone I know has gotten completely out of the business thanks to what the businesses have done to the workers wages..

[BuyingThyme]

51. Americans don't want those jobs.

Don't you know anything?

[anigbrowl]

48. In fairness USA Today was open about the identity and position of these sources

I read the article when it first came out, and it was explicitly stated that the claim came from CIS, that CIS is an opponent of illegal immigration, and that their data was based on estimates. I have no time for CIS, but USA Today didn't mislead their readers about who the claim was coming from. To me this is no different from reporting on a claim made by a group such as the ACLUE or whoever; in fact, USA Today also included opposing views from a more immigration-friendly organization. The blog post cited in the OP is a lot more misleading than the original newspaper article was.

[EFerrari]

53. And that's because, as usual, the strategy is to get someone to print it

so it can be spun. The story was all over the far right wing blogs on Monday or so.

[anigbrowl]

73. Well yeah, but everyone does that, left or right

I don't expect the media to only report thing with which I agree. Meantime, the right wing are always complaining about the 'liberal media' for reporting things they would rather not hear about, eg stuff put out by GreenPeace or Human Rights Watch or whoever.

[EFerrari]

74. Oh, I agree with that. But the Heritage Foundation is an assembly line

of inflammatory cr@p. You don't see Podesta's outfit, for example, manufacturing this kind of outrage so cynically. We're not mirror images of each other in that way.

[anigbrowl]

83. Oh, quite.

I'm just not particularly ruffled by mainstream media sources referring to the story. I don't think all that much of the US media, but to my (European) eye it's relatively centrist, and I figure it's probably a good sign that partisans of both left and right are convinced its in the tank for the other side. when they start agreeing about it being all left or all right, then something is out of balance.

[EFerrari]

84. The only thing that really bothers me is that the so called "Center for

Immigration Studies" isn't a center for immigration studies but more akin to a hate group that gets the weight a real think tank might get by virtue of being quoted in print. It's one of those Orwellian names the Republicans use. Otherwise, this story is just one of the right's Top Ten.

[BuyingThyme]

54. ...and the Plum Line was not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. This is DU. I'm confused, is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

Or a good thing that we should be outraged about because it's being portrayed as a bad thing?

If the headline is lurid, then perhaps stimulus should be implemented in such a way that the "controversial" outcome is avoided.

15% seems eminently plausible to me.

[geardaddy]

57. Lou Dobbs, is that you?

:puke:

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

63. I work for a construction company as a consultant

My job is to hire all construction workers and ensure compliance with federal and state laws, including all immigration-related laws, with particular attention to the I-9 (document to show eligibility to work in the U.S. legally) which means I also check the original documents submitted by workers.

We don't have many hispanics in our crew, but not for lack of applicants. The problem is that we've had to turn away people who were qualified and had the experience we needed but they carried false documents (including a badly faked social security card where the word "America" was spelled as "Amercia") such as social security cards and green cards.

With this being said, there are plenty of mom-and-pop contractors in the construction industry right where I live (so I know first-hand) who will hire any one who will require the least amount of money. This means, generally speaking, that they will hire people who are not legally eligible to work in the U.S.

Now, whose fault is it if construction workers are hired for projects perhaps funded by our money? It's the EMPLOYER's fault, not the U.S. government or the immigrant. The laws are in place; there are substantial ways to ensure one can only employ eligible workers. The government simply does not have the manpower to enforce the rules (among which is a $10,000 fine for each illegible worker who is employed illegally). So the blame is solely the employer's to bear.

[BuyingThyme]

69. How do you feel about the proposed verification provision

that the Pukes tried to add to the (to a) stimulus bill?

[EFerrari]

86. It would be interesting to see the details -- to see if it was real

or just some unworkable half-@ssed requirement that they could point back to when they need to alarm their base.

[NNN0LHI]

78. If all the construction sites had to pay union scale to their employees there would be no problem

Because then there would not be any financial advantage for anyone to hire undocumented immigrants who might work cheaper.

Don

[EFerrari]

85. Bingo. n/t

[ReliantJ]

72. Why did I read all the comments smh