Archives: 11/2012

I’m Still Not Over the Obamacare Ruling

That’s the title of an op-ed I had in the Daily Caller last week.  Here’s how it begins:

Four months have passed since Chief Justice John Roberts made Obamacare’s individual mandate a tax and thereby let stand one of the two laws most responsible for our sluggish economy (the other being the Dodd-Frank financial “reform”). I was in the courtroom that fateful June day and my emotions quickly cycled through shock, denial, anger, and later depression — why had I dedicated myself to the law when the most important case of my lifetime turned out in this illegitimate way? — before settling into the “bargaining” stage of grieving.

I’m still there. I just cannot get over that blow against not only sound jurisprudence and the rule of law — bad enough — but against the legitimacy of our government altogether. By recognizing that Obamacare was unconstitutional but shying away from striking it down, John Roberts fundamentally shook my faith in our system of justice.

Read the whole thing and also consider the words of Randy Barnett – who more than anyone is responsible for the Obamacare litigation – from the first panel of Cato’s Constitution Day conference in September:

Now we will have an election to decide the ultimate fate of Obamacare. But this election will also be about who gets selected to serve on the Supreme Court. Should Republican presidents continue to nominate judicial conservatives who are enthralled with New Dealers’ mantra of judicial restraint, or should Republican presidents nominate constitutional conservatives who believe that it is not activism for judges to be engaged in enforcing the whole Constitution. All future nominees should be vetted not only for their views on the meaning of the Constitution, but for their willingness to enforce that meaning. For over two years, our nation was given a great lesson on constitutional law — that the enumerated powers are limits Congress cannot exceed. In June, the electorate was given a different lesson in judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in enforcing those limits is no virtue. In November and beyond, we will see just how well those lessons were learned.

Obamacare delenda est.

Shades of Nixon

Reason magazine has a characteristically excellent video about the gas shortages in New York and New Jersey. Which is to say, the video is really about the insane responses of officials in those states to the scarcity of gas. Reason’s Jim Epstein writes: “Govs. Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo…threatened to prosecute any station owners caught raising prices, thus removing any incentive to truck more gas in from other parts of the country.” Here’s the video:

The Washington Post reports Christie responded with an age-old government-rationing scheme:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ordered…drivers with even-numbered license plates being allowed to fill up on even-numbered dates and odd-numbered cars on the other days. But several motorists said they hadn’t heard the news because they had no power at home, and gas station managers said they didn’t bother to look at the plates.

“I don’t have any time to check plates,” David Singh said as he pumped gas into a car at the Delta station he manages on McCarter Highway in Newark.

So not everyone heard about the government’s rationing scheme, and even fewer people cared. You know what conveys information a lot better than tired government edicts? Market prices.

Fortunately, market prices are still breaking through:

Shauron Sears, 37, a waitress, said she spent 12 hours vainly waiting for gas on Friday and another hour waiting Saturday at a Sunoco station on McCarter Highway. Just as she got to the front of the line, a manager started waving his arms and shouting, “No more gas!”

Sears said…since her house flooded she and her family have been camping at her sister’s house in Orange, N.J. Nine people are in the house, including a baby, and Sears is eager to return to her own home. But her first priority is to get gas.

“There are people who are buying gas and selling it for $8 a gallon,” she said. “Maybe I can buy some from them.”

The entrepreneurs selling gas at illegal mark-ups might affect Sears in a manner the government’s price controls won’t. By helping her.

Obama Lags House Republicans on Data Transparency

For the last two years, we have been working on the question of data transparency. In a paper last fall called Publication Practices for Transparent Government, we examined what it takes to foster transparency. And we started informally grading the quality of data put out by Congress and the administration. First, it was legislative data, which, as I reported here, needs improvement. (Also see our Capitol Hill briefing.) Then it was budget, appropriations, and spending data. In that area, “needs improvement” is an understatement. (And another Capitol Hill briefing.)

Now we are in a position to formally grade the quality of data coming out of the government. And the interesting finding, to be formally released on Monday, is that President Obama lags House Republicans in transparent data publication. The paper is called “Grading the Government’s Data Publication Practices.”

Obama is the president who ran in 2008 on strong promises of transparent government. Within minutes of his taking office on January 20, 2009, the website declared: “President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history.”

His first presidential memorandum, issued the next day, was entitled “Transparency and Open Government,” and it declared:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

That hasn’t really happened.

President Obama’s Sunlight Before Signing campaign promise— his pledge to post laws to the White House website for five days of public comment before he signed them—was his first broken promise. It went virtually ignored in the first year of his administration.

But it wasn’t a lack of energy and creativity that derailed the transparency project.

It was a subtle “shift in vocabulary” in the open government effort. Instead of data about the core of government that made Obama’s campaign claims so attractive, data about the government’s deliberations, management, and results, the administration delivered data the government collects and warehouses about everything under the sun.

There is still no machine-readable organization chart for the federal government. The agencies, bureaus, programs, and projects of government—its basic building blocks—don’t have identifiers people could use to track the government with the aid of their computers. That is why, as you can see above, the administration gets very poor grades on its data publication practices.

Meanwhile, the Congress has plodded forward with data publication reforms that, although minor, represent progress. The House leadership, for example, produced, at which it makes available the bills coming to the House floor in a format that can be automatically read and disseminated.

A follow-on,, will eventually replace the THOMAS Web site. THOMAS was revolutionary for its time, but ideally a basic web interface and bulk data access will make for a robust legislative information environment.

Congress’s grades are better than the administration’s, though nobody can argue that the job is done.

The report summarizes things this way:

Between the Obama administration and House Republicans, the former, starting from a low transparency baseline, made extravagant promises and put significant effort into the project of government transparency. It has not been a success. House Republicans, who manage a far smaller segment of the government, started from a higher transparency baseline, made modest promises, and have taken limited steps to execute those promises.

Cut State Debt; End the Muni-Bond Exemption

Big government programs and special tax-code carve-outs often lead to corrupting ties between government officials and private interests. The Washington Post today discusses the municipal bond industry:

In just about every election, local governments put measures on their ballots asking voters to allow the sale of bonds so that municipalities can finance roads, schools or other projects. Interested parties often form campaigns to help pass or crush these initiatives.

And sometimes the investment banks that donate to those campaigns get hired to sell the bonds to investors after an initiative passes, raising the possibility that they got a leg up in the selection process because of their monetary support for the ballot bond measure — not because they offered taxpayers the best deal.

…[A] review by the Bond Buyer publication … found “a nearly perfect correlation between broker-dealer contributions to California school bond efforts in 2010 and their underwriting subsequent bond sales.”

…Jay Goldstone, [the] Municipal Securities Ruling Board’s chairman, said he’s concerned about the pattern. “There seems to be a strong relationship between contributions and underwriting business.”

The article discusses solving these problems with greater disclosure and transparency. But the real solution is to eliminate the underlying government preference that creates the influence peddling in the first place.

In this case, the federal income tax exemption for state and local bond interest should be repealed. That could be matched with a reduction in general tax rates on capital income.

As I argue here, state and local governments should dramatically scale back bond issuance. Bonds are just sneaky tax increases. State and local capital investments should be financed “pay-as-you-go,” which would cut out the costly middlemen in the finance industry.

The chart below shows that state and local bond debt has soared to more than $3 trillion. That not only represents a huge deferred tax increase, but it has also created a large playing field for special-interest cronyism. (For chart info, see here).


GOP Vows to Keep Fighting IRS’s Illegal ObamaCare Taxes if Obama Wins

Roll Call reports that if President Obama wins re-election, House and Senate Republicans will hold votes on rescinding his illegal IRS rule that unlawfully taxes employers and individuals in the 30 or so states that do not create their own health insurance exchanges:

House Republicans are opening a new front in their drive to derail the 2010 health care overhaul, using an expedited legislative procedure to upend targeted parts of the law…

Republican leaders are preparing to launch the effort during the post-election session that begins Nov. 13.

The resolution backed by Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who heads the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Scott DesJarlais, a Tennessee Republican and the measure’s chief sponsor, is meant to nullify the upcoming IRS rule authorizing the distribution of subsidies through tax credits in every state, even the 35 that have not yet established state health care exchanges…

House leaders plan to bring the resolution to a vote during the lame-duck session if Obama wins re-election but will lay the groundwork for using the budget reconciliation process to strike parts of the law instead if former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wins, Republican aides said.

The resolution aimed at the IRS rule is the first in a series of Republican initiatives intended to block parts of heath care law if Obama is given a second term, a senior Senate Republican aide said.

“If Obama wins, you will see more of them. If Romney wins, you will see fewer,” said the Senate Republican aide, who added that even if such resolutions ultimately fail, they could require Democrats to cast votes that could pose re-election problems in 2014.

I don’t see why they wouldn’t hold the vote regardless of the outcome of the election. President RomneyCare would probably need some reminding that his own party is serious about repealing ObamaCare.

Jonathan Adler and I first called attention to the IRS’s ploy here, and we’ve been hammering away at it herehereherehere, here, and here. If you really want to nerd out, read our forthcoming Health Matrix article, ”Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA.” Oklahoma’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit challenging the IRS’s illegal ObamaCare taxes.

John Goodman says stopping the IRS’s illegal ObamaCare taxes could deal “a fatal blow to ObamaCare.”

Secretary of Business: Trade Subsidies and the Socialization of Opportunity

On Monday, President Obama said in an interview with MSNBC that one “bipartisan” thing he would like to do in his next term is reduce government waste by consolidating a variety of existing agencies involved in helping American businesses.  The idea, said the president, is to streamline the bureaucracy and create a “one-stop shop” under “one secretary of business.”  Bureaucratic reform is definitely a good idea, but this proposal is pretty weak.  Moreover, the impetus behind the move and the rhetoric to support it are particularly troubling.

Conservative commentators have spent the week criticizing the plan for various reasons, and now the Romney campaign has picked up on the issue with a new ad and some fresh lines in the stump speech.  The most common retorts have been that we already have a secretary of commerce, that adding a bureaucrat in Washington won’t help business, and that Obama now wants to add even more regulation.

Despite the recent attention, the president’s proposal is not new.  Reorganizing the federal bureaucracy was a topic in his 2011 State of the Union Address , and he proposed a more detailed plan (the one he alluded to on Monday) in January of 2012.  That plan involves reshuffling various agencies handling international trade matters into a single department.

The agencies included in the plan are the Department of Commerce, the Export–Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the United State Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), and the United States Trade Representative (USTR).  While the plan isn’t new, this is the first I’ve heard of possibly naming it the Department of Business.  I suspect it would eventually have some other, even more obfuscating name, but “secretary of business” gets the idea across well enough during campaign season.

In January, a White House press release described the plan like this:

The President is proposing to consolidate those six departments and agencies into one Department with one website, one phone number and one mission—helping American businesses succeed.

One Department: there will be one Department where entrepreneurs can go from the day they come up with an idea and need a patent, to the day they start building a product and need a warehouse, to the day they are ready to export and need help breaking into new markets overseas.

The new Department will lead the development and implementation of an integrated, strategic, government-wide trade effort and have a focused capacity to help businesses grow and thrive.

This is not something to get too riled up about.  Utopian visions of government intervention notwithstanding, the reshuffling would most likely amount to little more than a harmless distraction.  Without proposing any substantive changes in the way these agencies operate, it’s difficult to see how a reshuffling would actually make any real difference.  The whole idea seems like a waste of time designed to look like progress.

But there are also some potential downsides worth addressing.

First, the plan is not very specific and leaves open a lot of questions.  For example, which portions of the Department of Commerce are at stake?  Commerce is a very large cabinet department that includes the Census Bureau, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (that tracks hurricanes), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (a gigantic science laboratory), and the Patent and Trademark office.  When Rick Perry advocated abolishing the Department of Commerce, I doubt he had all these agencies in mind.

I don’t think the president wants to include them in his umbrella trade agency either, but he hasn’t specified what he would include.  The proposal did single out the “Department of Commerce’s core business and trade functions.”  I would not have thought that the Patent Office fit into that group, but the description of the new department’s activities mentions help getting a patent.

The reshuffle would almost certainly include the International Trade Administration, the bureau within the Commerce Department that handles antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.  Indeed, trade “enforcement” has been a prominent part of the president’s trade agenda (as well as both candidates’ campaigns in the 2012 election) and that certainly includes trade remedies.  But the other agency that administers those laws, the independent International Trade Commission, has not been included in any reorganization discussions.

This omission raises a lot of questions, and it is quite unclear how the reshuffle would affect the administration of America’s very contentious trade remedy laws.  Other omissions are equally confusing.  Why is the Customs office not included?  What about the Bureau of Industry and Security, which administers export controls—a function it shares with the State and Treasury departments?

Second, many trade policy experts are wary of any effort to downgrade the status of the U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position with international ambassadorial status.  Under the president’s reshuffle scheme, the USTR would become a sub-agency within a larger trade bureaucracy.  The most important function of the USTR is to negotiate trade agreements and represent the United States at the World Trade Organization; it has no significant domestic function.

Organizational independence for the USTR is worth maintaining.  On the one hand, placing the USTR within this new trade agency suggests that the president sees its role as being primarily one of “enforcement” of existing agreements rather than as an engine for further liberalization of global trading rules.  On the other hand, in the USTR’s negotiating capacity, the office is already too cozy with export-oriented industries looking for preferential market access abroad.  The USTR can and should be dedicated to advancing trade liberalization by working within the global trading system.  It can best do that by being fully independent of the protectionist bureaucracies that administer U.S. trade policy.

Third, the bulk of the agencies intended for inclusion in the plan are involved in corporate welfare of one form or another, and it is clear that the new department’s primary purpose would be to hand out subsidies.  When the president talks of a one-stop shop, he seems to be saying that the secretary of business would be #1 on the speed-dial for every American company’s man in Washington.  It is this function that prompted David Harsanyi at Human Events to label the proposed agency the Department of Cronyism.  K Street can handle multiple phone numbers, but the benefit of having your former CEO be the subsidy czar is incalculable.

These agencies should not be consolidated; they should be abolished.  A government agency whose sole purpose is the promotion of business embodies the ideology so prevalent in Washington today that economic growth depends on forward-thinking government management of capital.  When the president told business owners, “you didn’t build that,” he may have been talking about roads and schools, but he painted a vision of society in which government is responsible for guiding us toward economic opportunity and deserves the credit for individual success.  I have no doubt the secretary of business will see it that way too.


Immigrants Did Not Take Your Job

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and author of the book The New Case Against Immigration: Both Illegal and Legal, criticized a remark I made to Washington Times reporter Stephen Dinan about a new CIS memo.

The memo, which can be found here, claims that immigrants are taking most of the jobs created since President Obama took office.  I told the Washington Times that the memo “makes a mountain out of a molehill” because it ignores key economic explanations that have nothing to do with demonizing immigrants.  Steven Camarota, one of the authors of the memo, even agreed that one factor I mentioned could explain his findings.

In response, Mr. Krikorian wrote that I should, “Tell that to the 23 million Americans who are unemployed, forced to settle for part-time work, or gave up looking for work altogether.”

My response is that the CIS memo is so flawed it should not be taken seriously.

Location, Location, Location

The memo looks at native and immigrant concentrations in different sectors of the U.S. economy.  It points out that immigrants have made gains in some sectors where there is are high native-born unemployment rates.  But the memo fails to take into account one very important factor when studying labor markets: labor mobility.  This issue is so important that Harvard economist George Borjas, the most respected economists who is skeptical of the gains from immigration, called it “the core of modern labor economics” and criticized his fellow scholars for overlooking its importance.[1]  The authors did not heed Professor Borjas’ criticism.

The labor market is a giant churn.  Jobs are constantly created and destroyed, but there is also a geographic element to this process.  Jobs are often created in places where there are not many unemployed workers with the particular skills demanded to fill those openings.  In an efficient labor market, workers would rapidly move to job opportunities.  To the extent that vacancies and wage differences for the same jobs persist in different parts of the United States, economic inefficiencies persist.  Immigration increases worker mobility, thus greasing the wheels of the U.S. economy and increasing economic efficiency through wage convergence.

Newly arrived immigrants are self-selected for mobility.  They chose to bear the high costs of frequent movement to take advantage of changing wage rates in different parts of the United States. Immigrants engage in labor arbitrage far faster than natives who have higher movement costs.  New immigrants immigrate directly to higher wage and lower unemployment areas.  Settled immigrants are also more likely to move toward such areas.

Government labor market regulations restrict immigrant mobility, but immigrant characteristics partly compensate for bad policy.  Immigrants are typically younger than natives, fewer of them are tied down by mortgages, and they are willing to make sacrifices for labor market opportunities that many Americans are simply unwilling to make.  From moving to the Gulf Coast building sector in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, to the technology industry, immigrants are more mobile and respond quicker to labor market opportunities.

Immigrant responsiveness to regional wage differences reduces economic inefficiencies and explains why they have been so successful at finding employment during the economic recovery.

The anecdote of Darin Wedel shows why mobility would be a crucial part of any serious study of U.S. labor markets.  Wedel was an electrical engineer until he was laid off in 2009 from Texas Instruments. Wedel’s wife, Jennifer, famously complained to President Obama that her husband cannot find work, so the president should stop highly skilled temporary foreign workers from entering the country.

She forgot to include in her complaint that there were numerous job opportunities for her husband in other parts of the country, like Silicon Valley. Darin, however, limited his job search to areas around the Dallas-Fort Worth area where Jennifer held a job, they owned their home outright, and Darin’s children from a previous marriage lived.  The couple chose to remain where it was more difficult for Darin to find an electrical engineering job.  Wedel’s decision to remain immobile, not immigration, is why he did not find a job more quickly.  Immigration had nothing to do with his precarious job situation.

Darin’s lack of mobility is not unique.  As economists have noted, Americans are becoming less mobile.  Underwater mortgages, age, two-earner households that ameliorate the negative effects of unemployment, generous unemployment insurance, interregional information asymmetries, and other factors partly explain this lack of native mobility in the face of regional wage and employment divergence.  Americans are not moving to job openings as quickly as they once did.

Regional variations in job growth and unemployment rates, like the 6.8 percent unemployment rate in Texas versus the 10.2 percent rate in California, show that employers in different parts of the nation have different trends of hiring and firing.  CIS’s method of counting up the number of jobs and the nativity of those hired on a national level ignores the “core of modern labor economics” and, as a result, offers little insight.

Labor Markets

The CIS memo attempts to blame the dismal native unemployment figures on immigrant employment by citing a few papers that show immigrants displace natives from the labor market.  The first paper they cite is a severely flawed CIS memo from 2010, called “A Drought of Summer Jobs: Immigration and the Long-Term Decline in Employment Among U.S.-Born Teenagers,” that I critiqued here.  CIS’s 2010 memo concluded that low-skilled immigrants force native-born teenagers out of the labor market.  But that conclusion was only supported by sloppy research, data misrepresentations, a poor grasp of the scholarly literature on immigration and its effects on the labor market, arbitrarily chosen start and end dates for comparison, and ignoring teenage opportunity cost.

Most academic papers conclude that immigrants and natives are not substitutes.  Immigrants have a negligible impact on native wages and employment and, in many cases, are actually complements, meaning that immigrants boost wages and employment options for natives.[2] Some debate over immigrant-native substitutability is over whether to include 17- and 18-year-old workers, indicating how small these effects really are.

Immigrants mostly occupy the low and high ends of the labor market.  Most Americans have skills in the middle, meaning that there is little crossover or competition between natives and immigrants.  The most pessimistic estimation in the scholarly literature is that the wages for native-born high school dropouts fell about 8.9 percent from competition with low-skilled immigrants.  Long-run estimates of Borjas’ findings compiled by George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan halve the negative estimate for high school dropouts.  For other educational groups, which make up about 90 percent of all Americans over age 25, the wage effects were close to zero or positive.

On the low end of the labor market, natives and immigrants are not substitutes because of their different language abilities.  As I wrote in my recent policy analysis for the Cato Institute, natives have a comparative advantage in jobs that require communication, while low-skilled immigrants have a comparative advantage in jobs that require brawn because of their poorer language skills.  The resulting specialization by fluency moves natives into higher-paid positions and creates more employment opportunities.

On the high end of the labor market, Borjas claims that lawful, skilled immigrants are a boon to economic, wage, and employment growth.  Very few scholarly studies contest this claim.

The CIS memo ignores the mass of scholarly evidence that immigrants and natives rarely compete and often complement each other in the labor market.

Zero-Sum Thinking

The CIS memo implicitly relies upon zero-sum thinking, the notion that there is a fixed amount of resources or jobs.  Why else would it blame the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), which began accepting applications in August of 2012, for being one cause of native unemployment from January 2009 onward?  In a zero-sum world, more people—whether through immigration, procreation, or life extension—would diminish the standard of living for others.  The late economist Julian Simon argued that human beings are the ultimate resource because they create, build, and innovate.  Immigration restrictions increase scarcity of that resource, an essential factor of production, reducing wealth creation.

The CIS memo also does not attempt to measure the million of employment opportunities created by immigrants or how removing millions of people from the United States would affect native employment.  Since immigrants, like all people, demand goods, services, and real estate they stimulate the production of those items, creating employment opportunities.  That does not even include the numerous firms created by immigrant entrepreneurs that create employment opportunities directly or through up- and down-stream exchanges.

CIS Data Do Not Support Their Conclusion

CIS tries hard to imply that immigrant gains in the labor market slow or reverse native gains, yet the memo is incapable of showing any sort of correlation.  The net gains in employment for natives and immigrants move in the same direction, except possibly in the first few months of 2009.  When natives gain, immigrants gain.  When natives lose, immigrants lose.  If immigrant gains to employment meant a loss for natives, then immigrant net employment and native net employment would move in opposite directions.  Natives and immigrants work in the same labor market.

The CIS memo’s conclusion states that “it would be a mistake to think that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by [a] native.”  And the memo continues by asserting, “it would also be a mistake to think that dramatically increasing the supply of workers has no impact on the employment prospects of natives.”  The memo fails to show a correlation, let alone causation, between immigration and native unemployment.

Missing the Forest for the Trees Weeds

This discussion of immigration’s small impact on native wages and employment misses the forest for the weeds.  The real question is whether immigration would increase wealth. The answer is a resounding yes.

Michael Clemens, economist at the Center for Global Development, estimates that the economic gains from eliminating migration barriers for peaceful and healthy people are vastly greater than any losses to native wages or income.  He estimates that removing restrictions on labor mobility would increase global GDP by 50 percent to 150 percent.  Other economists estimate that a similar policy could increase global GDP by 67 to 147 percent.[3]

That situation would increase the wealth and income for almost all Americans.  U.S. natives with complementary skills, who own property, capital, and businesses, would see their incomes increase.  Some U.S. natives who have similar skills as immigrants might face more labor market competition, but if the scholarly work on task specialization and immigrant-native linguistic complementarities is right, the losses could be more negligible than even Clemens estimates.  Immigrants, the new Americans, and sojourners would gain tremendously.

In such a policy regime, immigrant movement to more productive economies—like the United States—that have relatively freer markets, better protections for private property, better laws, and better security, would increase immigrant productivity.  If institutions were the same across countries but a policy of free trade was embraced, immigration barriers would not be as devastating as they are today because people could simply produce in their home countries and trade for other goods.  Unfortunately, since institutions range from the relative freedom in Hong Kong to the totalitarian in North Korea, with the United States and other immigrant destinations near the top of the list, the institutions under which people labor explains much of their productivity.

The CIS memo misses the main and interesting points of the modern debate over immigrant impact on native employment opportunities and income.


[1] Borjas, George J. “Does Immigration Grease the Wheels of the Labor Market?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2001.

[2] Hotchkiss, Julie, Myruam Quispe-Agnoli and Fernando Rios-Avila. “The Wage Impact of Undocumented Workers.” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper Series. March 2012.

Peri, Gionvanni and Chad Sparber. “Task Specialization, Immigration and Wages.” American Economic Journal. Vol. 1, No.3. July 2009.

Ottaviano, Gianmarco I.P. and Giovanni Peri. “Rethinking the Effects of Immigration on Wages.” NBER Working Paper No. 12497, August 2006.

Ottaviano, Gianmarco I.P. and Giovanni Peri. “Rethinking the Gains from Immigration: Theory and Evidence from the U.S.” NBER Working Paper No. 11672., October 2005.

Borjas, George. “The Labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. October 2003.

Card, David. “The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, January 1990.

Peri, Giovanni. “The Impact of Immigration on Native Poverty Through Labor Market Competition.” NBER Working Paper No. 17570, November 2011.

Levine, Linda. “Immigration: The Effects on Low-Skilled and High-Skilled Native-Born Workers.” Congressional Research Service. April 2010.

Borjas, George J., Jeffrey Grogger and Gordon H. Hanson. “Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men.”  Economica. January 2009.

Ottaviano, Gianmarco  and Giovanni Peri. “Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the Theory and the Empirics Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the Theory and the Empirics.” NBER Working Paper No. 14188. July 2008.

Lewis, Ethan G. “Immigrants-Native Substitutability: The Role of Language Ability.”  NBER Working Paper No. 17609, November 2011.

Card, David. “Immigrant Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Market Impacts of Higher Immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics. January 2001.

Peri, Giovanni and Chad Sparber. “Highly-Educated Immigrants and Native Occupational Choice.” Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration Discussion Paper Series. No. 13. November 2008.

Zavodny, Madeleine. “Federal Reserve: The H-1B Program and Its Effects on Information Technology Workers.” Economic Review. Vol. 88, No. 3., Third Quarter, 2003.

Aaronson, Daniel, Kyung-Hong Park, and Daniel Sullivan. “Explaining the Decline in Teen Labor Force Participation.” Chicago Fed Letter No. 234. January 2007.

Peri, Giovanni. “The Effect of Immigration on Productivity:  Evidence from the US States.” NBER Working Paper No. 15507, November 2009.

Peri, Giovanni. “The Effects of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter. August 2010.

Card, David and John DiNardo. “Do Immigrant Inflows Lead to Native Outflows?” American Economic Review. Vol. 90, No. 2. May 2000.

[3] P. 85.