100% of US Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants"

[Rikurzhen]

Anyone who takes the OP study seriously should seek mental help. The statistical analysis is absolutely horrible and completely unsound. For example, the study says the number of working age natives holding a job decreased by about 127,000 from 2000 to 2014. That decrease could be caused equally by the size of the native-born force decreasing, or many in the native-born labor force not working due to pursuing a college education.

You're my favorite type of commenter, the one whose mouth loves writing checks that your ass can't cash.

So let me understand your strategy. People who take the OP seriously need mental help but you rebut the OP by appealing to imaginary facts like the " the size of the native-born force decreasing, or many in the native-born labor force not working due to pursuing a college education."

Freaking priceless. You're delusional and your counseling people who read a statistical analysis and understand it that they are the ones who need mental help. Why don't you lay yourself down on the analyst's couch and we can commence with your electroshock therapy.

And that is EXACTLY what has happened over the past decade. The U.S. labor force has been shrinking, so of course the number of people in the labor force with jobs will be less--the labor force is smaller to begin with! If not for young immigrants, there would be even fewer people in the labor force, the median age in the U.S. would be higher, and we would be facing an aging crisis more similar to Japan.

The labor force has been shrinking? Who says? The native born working age population has increased over time. These people are the labor force. In 2000 there were 41 million native born citizens in the labor force population who were not working. By 2013 there were 58 million native born citizens in the labor force who were not working. How is an increase of 17 million native born citizens seen as a decrease?

Likewise, more native-born Americans are attending college than ever before, thus being a working age native-born but deciding not to be employed. They shouldn't be working--they are getting an education that will allow them to get better paying jobs that most immigrants are either under or overqualified for.

Oh, is that what's happening. Hang on, the nurse has to give you another electroshock. While she's doing that I'm going to go and fetch a graph to help you understand why the doctor has strapped you into restraints:

While the native-born working age population increased by 17 million, total university enrollment (native+immigrant+foreign) increased by 5.8 million.

Have you recovered enough from your electroshock to do some basic math? If we grant that all of the increase in university enrollment was from native born working age citizens, all 5.8 million, then how many working age citizens from the 17 million added to the labor force population are not in school and not in a job. Come on think.

The disparity you see in the study means that (1) native born Americans are retiring, leaving the labor force, whereas immigrants are younger and thus entering it, filling the massive gap in productivity we would otherwise face with the Baby Boomers all retiring. It also demonstrates that (2) more native-born individuals are pursuing higher education, thus not entering the work force.

You see, here you are having your delusion again, invoking imaginary data to explain your imaginary population dynamics. You're cute, and you tried to assure me in another thread that you had personally reviewed the research on the educational outcomes of homosexual children. Yeah right, like I believe that.

Now that your electroshock therapy has finished for this session, let me give you some advice. When you talk big and bluff you had better be prepared for someone to call your bluff. Telling people that they need mental help if they accept the findings of a report is you just asking for a slapdown and then to spin a fantastic story based on what the voices in your head tell you represents the real world is you doubling down on the call for a slap down.

Write more judiciously and you won't be so publicly embarrassed by your critics.

 

[waltky]

Hispanic work-related death rates...

BLS: Foreign-Born Latino Dies of Work-Related Injury Every 17 Hours
September 11, 2014 -- On average, one foreign-born Hispanic or Latino worker dies from a work-related injury in the United States every 17 hours, according data released Thursday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hispanic and Latino workers in the United States also had a higher rate of fatal work injuries in 2013 than the national rate, according to BLS.

The BLS survey on work-related injuries does not address the immigration status of foreign-born workers, who can include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, foreign nationals on work visas, and illegal aliens. “Fatal work injuries among Hispanic or Latino workers were higher in 2013, rising 7 percent,” said BLS. ”The 797 Hispanic or Latino worker deaths in 2013 constituted the highest total since 2008. Fatal work injuries were lower among all other major racial/ethnic groups.” “The fatal injury rate for Hispanic or Latino workers was 3.8 per 100,000 FTE [full-time equivalent] workers, which was higher than the national rate of 3.2 per 100,000 FTE workers,” said BLS.

Of the 797 Hispanic or Latino workers who died from work injuries in 2013, 527—or 66 percent--were foreign born. “Overall,” said BLS, “there were 845 fatal work injuries involving foreign-born workers in 2013, of which the greatest share (352 or 42 percent) was born in Mexico.”

According to Matt Gunter, an BLS economist, the legal statuses of foreign-born workers killed are not determined by the Bureau and are not included in the report. "We don't check immigration status as part of our notational process," Gunter said, adding the data in the report is compiled from a variety of government and non-government records that usually don't specify a worker's immigration status.

There were 365 days in 2013 and 8760 hours. The 527 foreign-born Latino workers who died from work injuries in 2013 amounted to one every 16.6 hours. Of the 797 Hispanic or Latino workers who died from work injuries in 2013, 8 percent died from homicides, 14 percent died after being struck by an object or equipment, 17 percent died as the result of a traffic incident, and 22 percent died from falling, slipping or tripping.

BLS Foreign-Born Latino Dies of Work-Related Injury Every 17 Hours CNS News

 

[Oldglory1]

No matter how you twist the numbers it's not possible for every new job to have gone to everyone but someone born here.

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.

Does that make sense? If not, just to go to the source:

The 16- to 65-Year-Old Population.

Comparing the number of immigrants working (ages 16 to 65) in the first quarter of 2000 to the number working in the first quarter of 2014 shows an increase of 5.7 million. In contrast, the number of working-age (16 to 65) natives holding a job was 127,000 fewer in the first quarter of 2000 than in the same quarter of 2014, even though the number of working-age natives overall increased by more than 16.8 million. This 16.8 million represented 66 percent of the overall growth in the working-age population. (See Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1). Since the number of working-age natives grew, but the number working did not, the share of working-age natives holding a job declined significantly. The decline in the employment rate of natives began before the 2007 recession, falling from 73.7 percent in 2000 to 71 percent at the peak of last expansion in the first quarter of 2007. Or, put a different way, the employment rate for natives never returned to the 2000 level after the country went into recession in 2001. In the first quarter of this year the rate was an abysmal 66.4 percent (See Figure 6 and Table 1).

Of course, not all of the 58 million non-institutionalized working-age natives without a job want to work or even can work. But this has always been the case. It is for this reason that it is necessary to look for a trend over time. There is simply no question that the general decline in the employment
rate of natives is both long-term and large. If the employment rate of natives (16 to 65) in the first quarter of this year were what it had been in 2000 (73.7 percent), 12.5 million more natives would have been working. If the share working were what it had been in the first quarter of 2007 (71 percent), 7.9 million more natives would have a job today.Among immigrants, if their employment in the first quarter of this year were what it was in the first quarter of 2000, then 471,000 more immigrants would be working. Both the situation in 2007 before the recession and the situation today represent a significant deterioration from what had been theemployment rate of natives as recently as 2000.​

Until every able bodied American is employed then we need to curtail legal immigration and pull out all the stops to end illegal immigration and deport illegal aliens either voluntarily or involuntarily. It's what our laws state!

 

[ShackledNation]

Anyone who takes the OP study seriously should seek mental help. The statistical analysis is absolutely horrible and completely unsound. For example, the study says the number of working age natives holding a job decreased by about 127,000 from 2000 to 2014. That decrease could be caused equally by the size of the native-born force decreasing, or many in the native-born labor force not working due to pursuing a college education.

You're my favorite type of commenter, the one whose mouth loves writing checks that your ass can't cash.

So let me understand your strategy. People who take the OP seriously need mental help but you rebut the OP by appealing to imaginary facts like the " the size of the native-born force decreasing, or many in the native-born labor force not working due to pursuing a college education."

Freaking priceless. You're delusional and your counseling people who read a statistical analysis and understand it that they are the ones who need mental help. Why don't you lay yourself down on the analyst's couch and we can commence with your electroshock therapy.

And that is EXACTLY what has happened over the past decade. The U.S. labor force has been shrinking, so of course the number of people in the labor force with jobs will be less--the labor force is smaller to begin with! If not for young immigrants, there would be even fewer people in the labor force, the median age in the U.S. would be higher, and we would be facing an aging crisis more similar to Japan.

The labor force has been shrinking? Who says? The native born working age population has increased over time. These people are the labor force. In 2000 there were 41 million native born citizens in the labor force population who were not working. By 2013 there were 58 million native born citizens in the labor force who were not working. How is an increase of 17 million native born citizens seen as a decrease?

Likewise, more native-born Americans are attending college than ever before, thus being a working age native-born but deciding not to be employed. They shouldn't be working--they are getting an education that will allow them to get better paying jobs that most immigrants are either under or overqualified for.

Oh, is that what's happening. Hang on, the nurse has to give you another electroshock. While she's doing that I'm going to go and fetch a graph to help you understand why the doctor has strapped you into restraints:

While the native-born working age population increased by 17 million, total university enrollment (native+immigrant+foreign) increased by 5.8 million.

Have you recovered enough from your electroshock to do some basic math? If we grant that all of the increase in university enrollment was from native born working age citizens, all 5.8 million, then how many working age citizens from the 17 million added to the labor force population are not in school and not in a job. Come on think.

The disparity you see in the study means that (1) native born Americans are retiring, leaving the labor force, whereas immigrants are younger and thus entering it, filling the massive gap in productivity we would otherwise face with the Baby Boomers all retiring. It also demonstrates that (2) more native-born individuals are pursuing higher education, thus not entering the work force.

You see, here you are having your delusion again, invoking imaginary data to explain your imaginary population dynamics. You're cute, and you tried to assure me in another thread that you had personally reviewed the research on the educational outcomes of homosexual children. Yeah right, like I believe that.

Now that your electroshock therapy has finished for this session, let me give you some advice. When you talk big and bluff you had better be prepared for someone to call your bluff. Telling people that they need mental help if they accept the findings of a report is you just asking for a slapdown and then to spin a fantastic story based on what the voices in your head tell you represents the real world is you doubling down on the call for a slap down.

Write more judiciously and you won't be so publicly embarrassed by your critics.

I could go line by line debunking your post, but there is really no reason. You ignored the most important part of my post, which irrefutably refutes the claim of the OP. Remember, the claim is that 100% of all job growth has gone to immigrants. This is clearly not true.

The Unemployment rate for native-borns has decreased. If the unemployment rate for native-born Americans is decreasing, that means that at least some job growth is going to native born Americans. In other words, your claim that 100% is going to immigrants is necessarily false.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I could go line by line debunking your post, but there is really no reason. You ignored the most important part of my post, which irrefutably refutes the claim of the OP. Remember, the claim is that 100% of all job growth has gone to immigrants. This is clearly not true.

The Unemployment rate for native-borns has decreased. If the unemployment rate for native-born Americans is decreasing, that means that at least some job growth is going to native born Americans. In other words, your claim that 100% is going to immigrants is necessarily false.

Please go and debunk my post line by line. Think of the satisfaction you would get from publicly humiliating me. Here, let me bare my neck and put it on the chopping block for you.

What do you think you gain by talking big, full of bravado, and then not backing it up. You'd have been better served to take the honorable route of saying "thanks, I guess my gut feeling missed the mark." People can respect that kind of approach, but doubling down on a bluff gone bad just makes you look stupid.

Now to the particulars, what part of the explanation below did you not understand?

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.​

 

[ShackledNation]

I could go line by line debunking your post, but there is really no reason. You ignored the most important part of my post, which irrefutably refutes the claim of the OP. Remember, the claim is that 100% of all job growth has gone to immigrants. This is clearly not true.

The Unemployment rate for native-borns has decreased. If the unemployment rate for native-born Americans is decreasing, that means that at least some job growth is going to native born Americans. In other words, your claim that 100% is going to immigrants is necessarily false.

Please go and debunk my post line by line. Think of the satisfaction you would get from publicly humiliating me. Here, let me bare my neck and put it on the chopping block for you.

What do you think you gain by talking big, full of bravado, and then not backing it up. You'd have been better served to take the honorable route of saying "thanks, I guess my gut feeling missed the mark." People can respect that kind of approach, but doubling down on a bluff gone bad just makes you look stupid.

Now to the particulars, what part of the explanation below did you not understand?

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.​

If the economy creates a NET increase in jobs, and the unemployment rate for native-born Americans decreases, then it is logically necessary for some of the job growth to have benefited native-borns. Otherwise, the unemployment rate would have remained unchanged. This is very easy logic to follow.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If the economy creates a NET increase in jobs, and the unemployment rate for native-born Americans decreases, then it is logically necessary for some of the job growth to have benefited native-borns. Otherwise, the unemployment rate would have remained unchanged. This is very easy logic to follow.

Address these facts and reconcile them with your fantasy:

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.
​

Explain to us all how any NET job increase could be filled by Americans if the actual number of Americans in the labor force decreased over time?

Think of it in different terms, dogs, cats and pets. If you have 4 pets in your home in the year 2000, all dogs, and in 2013 you still have 4 dogs but the number of pets has increased to 8, how can you simultaneously have 4 dogs and 8 dogs. Obviously you have 4 dogs and 4 cats. All the increase in pets came from cats.

Understand now?

 

[ShackledNation]

If the economy creates a NET increase in jobs, and the unemployment rate for native-born Americans decreases, then it is logically necessary for some of the job growth to have benefited native-borns. Otherwise, the unemployment rate would have remained unchanged. This is very easy logic to follow.

Address these facts and reconcile them with your fantasy:

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.
​

Making the same refuted statement bigger doesn't make it true.​

Explain to us all how any NET job increase could be filled by Americans if the actual number of Americans in the labor force decreased over time?

Easy. If the unemployment rate for Americans decreases, which it has.

Say there is an American labor force of 1000 and the unemployment rate is 10%. That means 900 Americans are employed. Now say the labor force is 990 with an unemployment rate of 5%. Now 940 Americans are employed. There you have a net job increase, with jobs filled by Americans, despite the number of Americans in the labor force decreasing.

And here is an even more hilarious gem. According to the very study in the OP, "There are 2.6 million more natives of all ages working in 2014 than in 2000."

Don't believe me? Read the actual study.
http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/CIS Report On Employment Gains And Losses.pdf

Of course, this was an end note not mentioned in the main paper. What a joke the CIS is.

 

[ShackledNation]

Also, this completely nonsensical CIS study pointed out that there are 100,000 less native borns working in 2014 than 2000. Now let us ignore the obvious fact that here in 2014 we are still recovering from a recession (another huge error of the study) and that had we not been in recession that number would be totally different.

That 100,000 decrease can still easily be attributed to more native-borns choosing not to work and going to college instead. If just 100,001 and one people who are out of work because they are in school worked instead, the whole CIS study would be bunk. And there are millions of people not working for that reason. Factor in the number of 16-18 year olds out of work because of high school, and that 100,000 number becomes even easier to account for.

In fact, the growth in immigrants working (5.7 million) is almost identical to the growth in student enrollment (5.8 million). This is pretty logical. Unskilled Americans go to college to become higher skilled, but there is still a demand for unskilled labor. Many immigrants are unskilled, helping to prevent what could have been a shortage of unskilled labor due to Americans become more highly skilled.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If the economy creates a NET increase in jobs, and the unemployment rate for native-born Americans decreases, then it is logically necessary for some of the job growth to have benefited native-borns. Otherwise, the unemployment rate would have remained unchanged. This is very easy logic to follow.

Address these facts and reconcile them with your fantasy:

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.
​

Making the same refuted statement bigger doesn't make it true.​

​

It's true no matter how small the print. I enlarged the print because I thought you had trouble reading it or were skipping it. It was to draw your attention to REAL NUMBERS, not your made up scenarios.

​

Explain to us all how any NET job increase could be filled by Americans if the actual number of Americans in the labor force decreased over time?

Easy. If the unemployment rate for Americans decreases, which it has.

Rates are DERIVED from COUNTS. I gave you the number of native born Americans in the workforce in 2000 and in 2013. A rate doesn't change the significance of the raw numbers.

And here is an even more hilarious gem. According to the very study in the OP, "There are 2.6 million more natives of all ages working in 2014 than in 2000."

You are stone bold stupid. Or you're a liar. Pick one. Here's the actual quote.

However, looking at all workers 16-plus shows that natives over age 65 did make employment gains. As a result, there are 2.6 million more natives of all ages working in 2014 than in 2000.​

When they note that there are 2.6 million more natives working, that's a different statement than saying that there are 2.6 million more natives of WORKING AGE in the labor force.

You win by default, I've done my good deed of trying to help you understand reality.

 

[ShackledNation]

Explain to us all how any NET job increase could be filled by Americans if the actual number of Americans in the labor force decreased over time?

Easy. If the unemployment rate for Americans decreases, which it has.

Rates are DERIVED from COUNTS. I gave you the number of native born Americans in the workforce in 2000 and in 2013. A rate doesn't change the significance of the raw numbers.

Yes, and the unemployment rate is derived from the count of employed workers in the labor force divided by the total labor force. And I showed you specifically how the labor force could decrease in size while there are more jobs created at the same time. Let me remind you:

Say there is an American labor force of 1000 and the unemployment rate is 10%. That means 900 Americans are employed. Now say the labor force is 990 with an unemployment rate of 5%. Now 940 Americans are employed. There you have a net job increase, with jobs filled by Americans, despite the number of Americans in the labor force decreasing.

Feel free to point out where I went wrong with my math in the above.

And here is an even more hilarious gem. According to the very study in the OP, "There are 2.6 million more natives of all ages working in 2014 than in 2000."

You are stone bold stupid. Or you're a liar. Pick one. Here's the actual quote.

However, looking at all workers 16-plus shows that natives over age 65 did make employment gains. As a result, there are 2.6 million more natives of all ages working in 2014 than in 2000.[/quote]
Very good. You found the same quote. Too bad the implications went over your head.​

When they note that there are 2.6 million more natives working, that's a different statement than saying that there are 2.6 million more natives of WORKING AGE in the labor force.

Duh. But the title of this topic, and the title of the study, is that

"100% of US Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants"

The 2.6 million native-born over the age of 65 are not immigrants. Thus it is completely false that 100% of US employment growth since 2000 went to immigrants. Was that really hard to understand?

To reiterate, the claim was that all employment growth went to immigrants. In fact, even your pathetic study admits that 2.6 million jobs of employment growth went to american-born workers over the age of 65.

The study is a joke.

 

[Politico]

No matter how you twist the numbers it's not possible for every new job to have gone to everyone but someone born here.

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.

Does that make sense? If not, just to go to the source:

The 16- to 65-Year-Old Population.

Comparing the number of immigrants working (ages 16 to 65) in the first quarter of 2000 to the number working in the first quarter of 2014 shows an increase of 5.7 million. In contrast, the number of working-age (16 to 65) natives holding a job was 127,000 fewer in the first quarter of 2000 than in the same quarter of 2014, even though the number of working-age natives overall increased by more than 16.8 million. This 16.8 million represented 66 percent of the overall growth in the working-age population. (See Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1). Since the number of working-age natives grew, but the number working did not, the share of working-age natives holding a job declined significantly. The decline in the employment rate of natives began before the 2007 recession, falling from 73.7 percent in 2000 to 71 percent at the peak of last expansion in the first quarter of 2007. Or, put a different way, the employment rate for natives never returned to the 2000 level after the country went into recession in 2001. In the first quarter of this year the rate was an abysmal 66.4 percent (See Figure 6 and Table 1).

Of course, not all of the 58 million non-institutionalized working-age natives without a job want to work or even can work. But this has always been the case. It is for this reason that it is necessary to look for a trend over time. There is simply no question that the general decline in the employment
rate of natives is both long-term and large. If the employment rate of natives (16 to 65) in the first quarter of this year were what it had been in 2000 (73.7 percent), 12.5 million more natives would have been working. If the share working were what it had been in the first quarter of 2007 (71 percent), 7.9 million more natives would have a job today.Among immigrants, if their employment in the first quarter of this year were what it was in the first quarter of 2000, then 471,000 more immigrants would be working. Both the situation in 2007 before the recession and the situation today represent a significant deterioration from what had been theemployment rate of natives as recently as 2000.​

As I predicted no matter how much you twist the numbers there is no way every job since 2000 has been filled by an immigrant. Back away from your keyboard and let it go.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No matter how you twist the numbers it's not possible for every new job to have gone to everyone but someone born here.

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.

Does that make sense? If not, just to go to the source:

The 16- to 65-Year-Old Population.

Comparing the number of immigrants working (ages 16 to 65) in the first quarter of 2000 to the number working in the first quarter of 2014 shows an increase of 5.7 million. In contrast, the number of working-age (16 to 65) natives holding a job was 127,000 fewer in the first quarter of 2000 than in the same quarter of 2014, even though the number of working-age natives overall increased by more than 16.8 million. This 16.8 million represented 66 percent of the overall growth in the working-age population. (See Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1). Since the number of working-age natives grew, but the number working did not, the share of working-age natives holding a job declined significantly. The decline in the employment rate of natives began before the 2007 recession, falling from 73.7 percent in 2000 to 71 percent at the peak of last expansion in the first quarter of 2007. Or, put a different way, the employment rate for natives never returned to the 2000 level after the country went into recession in 2001. In the first quarter of this year the rate was an abysmal 66.4 percent (See Figure 6 and Table 1).

Of course, not all of the 58 million non-institutionalized working-age natives without a job want to work or even can work. But this has always been the case. It is for this reason that it is necessary to look for a trend over time. There is simply no question that the general decline in the employment
rate of natives is both long-term and large. If the employment rate of natives (16 to 65) in the first quarter of this year were what it had been in 2000 (73.7 percent), 12.5 million more natives would have been working. If the share working were what it had been in the first quarter of 2007 (71 percent), 7.9 million more natives would have a job today.Among immigrants, if their employment in the first quarter of this year were what it was in the first quarter of 2000, then 471,000 more immigrants would be working. Both the situation in 2007 before the recession and the situation today represent a significant deterioration from what had been theemployment rate of natives as recently as 2000.​

As I predicted no matter how much you twist the numbers there is no way every job since 2000 has been filled by an immigrant. Back away from your keyboard and let it go.

Work on your reading comprehension skills, they're really not that sharp if this is the message your took in from reading what I wrote.

 

[Oldglory1]

Also, this completely nonsensical CIS study pointed out that there are 100,000 less native borns working in 2014 than 2000. Now let us ignore the obvious fact that here in 2014 we are still recovering from a recession (another huge error of the study) and that had we not been in recession that number would be totally different.

That 100,000 decrease can still easily be attributed to more native-borns choosing not to work and going to college instead. If just 100,001 and one people who are out of work because they are in school worked instead, the whole CIS study would be bunk. And there are millions of people not working for that reason. Factor in the number of 16-18 year olds out of work because of high school, and that 100,000 number becomes even easier to account for.

In fact, the growth in immigrants working (5.7 million) is almost identical to the growth in student enrollment (5.8 million). This is pretty logical. Unskilled Americans go to college to become higher skilled, but there is still a demand for unskilled labor. Many immigrants are unskilled, helping to prevent what could have been a shortage of unskilled labor due to Americans become more highly skilled.

Since the lines keep being blurred between illegal aliens and "immigrants" I will say that it mostly the former that are taking blue collared jobs from Americans. The construction and landscaping industries are a good example of that. They aren't exactly unskilled jobs. Illegals work for less and that is the reason they are working those jobs. Americans have not moved on to other jobs. They still enjoy doing them for a fair wage.

 

[Politico]

No matter how you twist the numbers it's not possible for every new job to have gone to everyone but someone born here.

It's very simple. In 2000 there were 114.8 million Americans in the labor force. In 2013 there were 114.7 million Americans in the labor force. The number of Americans decreased over 13 years. The number of immigrants in the labor force increased by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2013.

Of all the new NET jobs created between 2000 and 2013, immigrants took 100% of them.

Does that make sense? If not, just to go to the source:

The 16- to 65-Year-Old Population.

Comparing the number of immigrants working (ages 16 to 65) in the first quarter of 2000 to the number working in the first quarter of 2014 shows an increase of 5.7 million. In contrast, the number of working-age (16 to 65) natives holding a job was 127,000 fewer in the first quarter of 2000 than in the same quarter of 2014, even though the number of working-age natives overall increased by more than 16.8 million. This 16.8 million represented 66 percent of the overall growth in the working-age population. (See Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1). Since the number of working-age natives grew, but the number working did not, the share of working-age natives holding a job declined significantly. The decline in the employment rate of natives began before the 2007 recession, falling from 73.7 percent in 2000 to 71 percent at the peak of last expansion in the first quarter of 2007. Or, put a different way, the employment rate for natives never returned to the 2000 level after the country went into recession in 2001. In the first quarter of this year the rate was an abysmal 66.4 percent (See Figure 6 and Table 1).

Of course, not all of the 58 million non-institutionalized working-age natives without a job want to work or even can work. But this has always been the case. It is for this reason that it is necessary to look for a trend over time. There is simply no question that the general decline in the employment
rate of natives is both long-term and large. If the employment rate of natives (16 to 65) in the first quarter of this year were what it had been in 2000 (73.7 percent), 12.5 million more natives would have been working. If the share working were what it had been in the first quarter of 2007 (71 percent), 7.9 million more natives would have a job today.Among immigrants, if their employment in the first quarter of this year were what it was in the first quarter of 2000, then 471,000 more immigrants would be working. Both the situation in 2007 before the recession and the situation today represent a significant deterioration from what had been theemployment rate of natives as recently as 2000.​

As I predicted no matter how much you twist the numbers there is no way every job since 2000 has been filled by an immigrant. Back away from your keyboard and let it go.

Work on your reading comprehension skills, they're really not that sharp if this is the message your took in from reading what I wrote.

No amount of comprehension can understand stupid.