Tag Archives: Migrants

As comprehensive immigration reform rockets toward the top of
Washington’s to-do list, a surprising consensus has emerged around
the idea that the United States can and should offer more visas to
highly educated, highly skilled, and highly paid
immigrants. ;
But what about the relatively low-skilled, low-paid migrants who
comprise the vast majority of the people who have actually washed
up on American shores for the past 150 years? What are the
arguments for allowing more low-skilled workers—many of whom have
English skills as thin as their resumes—to either enter legally or
remain in the country?
Nativists often focus particular ire on these would-be
immigrants, accusing them of placing undue strain on the host
country’s resources. But low-skilled immigrants aren’t the only
people whose lives improve by the act of crossing the border. All
Americans benefit when we welcome the tired, poor, huddled masses
yearning to breathe free.
Roughly 13 percent of U.S. citizens are foreign-born, up from
the low of 4.7 percent in 1970, but still below the record 14.8
percent in 1890. As in the past, most immigrants lack high school
degrees. Unlike the immigrants of previous generations—who joined
the ranks of a generally low-skilled populace—modern immigrants
stand out in a country where 87.5 percent of adults have at least a
high school diploma. ;
That mismatch helps explain why there’s still so much anxiety
about low-skilled immigrants in a country that is otherwise far
less xenophobic than a century ago. Natives worry that cheap
labor—especially by illegal workers —will push down wages and limit
employment opportunities. A February 2012 study from the Heldrich
Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers found that 40 percent
of respondents blame illegal immigrants for high levels of
unemployment. ;
There’s no question that unauthorized workers earn less than
legal immigrants and native-born workers. According to the Census
Bureau, in 2010 the average income for Mexican immigrants ($35,254)
was significantly lower than for native born ($50,541) and other
immigrants ($46,224). ;
So why do we want them around? Because they do work that is in
high demand but low supply. These are jobs that the average
American simply doesn’t want; lettuce picking, roofing, painting,
leaf blowing. This remains true even during a recession when
immigration flows—even or especially low-skilled workers—slow down
or reverse. ;
Immigrants don’t just do the jobs Americans won’t do, they also
allow Americans to seek even better work. For instance, economists
have shown that low-skilled immigrants typically are better at
“non-language jobs” that don’t require extensive knowledge of
English. This frees up native English speakers to do less menial
work. While a non-English speaker can clean bedpans or change
sheets in a hotel as well as a native, only a native with good
English can work the front desk or take reservations. Low-skilled
domestic labor also allows women to get out of the house and get
into the white collar labor market, as the economists Patricia
Cortes and Jose Tessada found in a 2012 paper published in the
American Economic Journal. ;
By working for less, low-skilled workers help produce goods and
services at a much lower cost. This means lower prices for
everyone. Another study by Cortes—“The Effect of Low-skilled
Immigration on U.S. Prices,” published in the Journal of
Political Economy in 2008—is the best-known estimate of these
benefits. According to her work, immigrants lower the prices of
products consumed by highly educated consumers by 0.4 percent of
GDP. For less educated consumers, they lower the prices by 0.3
percent of GDP.
One popular argument against low-skilled immigration is that it
displaces or reduces the wages of native-born high school dropouts.
But economists have a hard time finding evidence that this effect
is as harmful as people believe. The largest negative impact
measured comes from the work of Harvard University’s George Borjas
and Lawrence Katz. They find that a long-term impact of Mexican
immigration on the wages of high school dropouts of less than 5
percent. Other economists have found that low-skilled immigration
can have small but positive effects on the wages of native
high school dropouts, up to 0.6 percent. ;
There is one clear cost of low-skilled immigration: the pressure
placed on state and local governments by swelling Medicaid and
public school spending, two types of social spending immigrants
generally receive if eligible. But this is an argument for
reforming the welfare state, not for keeping people out. ;
As Dan Griswold points out in a study published in the Winter
2012 issue of the Cato Journal, the social spending cost
is exaggerated, since it measures the price of educating children
of immigrants—most of whom are American citizens—without accounting
for the future taxes they will pay into the system once they’re
grown and integrated into the workforce. Considering that these
children will likely outperform their parents in educational
achievement and income, only counting immediate costs does not
capture the entire picture. Cato Institute immigration analyst Alex
Nowrasteh tells me that “immigrants are less likely to get
Medicaid—even when they are eligible—and average
expenditures ;per adult immigrant is $1,000 less per year than
similarly poor adult natives. Expenditures ;per
immigrant ;child ;are about 45 percent of the cost for
similarly poor natives.” ;
One of the recurring fears about low-skilled immigrants is that
they are either drawn to the U.S. because of relatively robust
welfare benefits, or their work ethic breaks down once they realize
they can go on the American dole. But there is little evidence to
justify this fear. As Shikha Dalmia notes in a November 2012 Reason
Foundation paper, “the 2010 labor participation rate of foreign men
is 80%—10 points higher than of native men— this rate was even
higher for unauthorized foreign men (94%).” And ever since the 1996
federal welfare reform package, illegal immigrants have been denied
access to all non-emergency room welfare.
As has always been the case, the overwhelming majority of
immigrants are economic refugees who come to America to find work,
not to avoid it.
One of the most compelling arguments for opening immigration to
low-skilled workers is the impact it would have on world poverty.
Think again of the most typical case: A Mexican immigrant moving to
the United States increases his wages two-and-a-half-fold simply by
crossing the border. A 2005 World Bank study estimated that
citizens of poor countries would benefit from a $300 billion
windfall if the governments from the 30 ;OECD ;countries,
some of the richest in the world, agreed to relax their immigration
standards to allow a ;mere 3 percent increase in the size of
their labor forces.
As Dalmia explains, this is $230 billion more than the money
spent by the developed world on foreign aid. While foreign aid
often only serves to enrich corrupt governments, open immigration
would confer benefits directly to those who need it by allowing
them to seek their own fortunes. Better yet, ;according to the
World Bank study, these welcoming countries would gain $51 billion
by boosting returns to capital and reducing the cost of production.
This is a true win-win scenario.
Since the very beginning of the United States, immigration has
been an issue that has inflamed passions and anxieties. Benjamin
Franklin famously feared the influx of Germans into his adopted
home state of Pennsylvania. After decades of heavy immigration from
southern and central Europe, restrictionists in the 1920s openly
invoked fears of racial degeneration if yet more Italians, Jews,
and Poles arrived “direct from the slums of Europe.” ;
Now it’s non-English-speaking migrants from Latin America who
are pushing the panic buttons. This kind of emotional response may
never go away, but the economic case for immigration, both
high-skilled and low-skilled, is stronger than nativists’
fears. ; … Read More