Immigration

The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine Leviticus 19:33-34

Immigration

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”

Vol. VI, Issue XXVI – Q-4 October| November| December 2020

Immigration “Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19102

| 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Atlanta, GA 30303

John C Johnson III, Esq. Founder & CEO

(878) 222-0450 Voice | Fax | SMS

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

Page 2 of 55

Page 3 of 55

Biblical Authority ______

Leviticus 19:33-34 (NIV) 33

―‗When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.

34

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Page 4 of 55

Page 5 of 55

Table of Contents Immigration

______

Biblical Authority I.

Introduction

II.

The Immigration & Naturalization Service

III.

Economic Impacts

IV.

Social Impacts

V.

Political Ramifications

VI.

Immigrant Crime in The United States

VII. Legal Issues

Attachments A. Biblical References to Refugees B. Ten Economic Facts About Immigration C. The Economic Impact of Immigration

Copyright Š 2014 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Page 6 of 55

Page 7 of 55

Introduction Immigration

is the movement of people into another country or region to which they are not native in order to settle there, especially as permanent residents or

future citizens.

Immigrants are motivated to leave their countries for a variety of reasons, including a desire for economic prosperity, political issues, family re-unification, escaping conflict or natural disaster, or simply the wish to change one's surroundings. ______

As of 2005, the United Nations reported that there were nearly 191 million international migrants worldwide, about 3 percent of the world population. This represented a rise of 26 million since 1990. 60 percent of these immigrants were now in developed countries, an increase on 1990. Those in less developed countries stagnated, mainly because of a fall in refugees. Contrast that to the average rate of globalization (the proportion of cross-border trade in all trade), which exceeds 20 percent.

The numbers of people living outside their country of birth is expected to rise in the future.

The Midwestern United States, some parts of Europe, some small areas of Southwest Asia, and a few spots in the East Indies have the highest percentages of immigrant population recorded by the UN Census 2005. The reliability of immigrant censuses is low due to the concealed character of undocumented labor migration.

A 2012 survey by Gallup found that given the opportunity, 640 million adults would migrate to another country.

Nearly a quarter (23%) of the respondents (more than 150 million adults worldwide) named the United

States as their desired future residence, while 7% of respondents, representing 45 million people, would choose the United Kingdom. The other top desired destination countries (those where an estimated 25 million or more adults would like to go) were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Germany and Spain.

Economic Immigrants The term economic migrant refers to someone who has travelled from one region to another region for the purposes of seeking employment or an improved financial position.

An economic migrant is distinct from someone who is a refugee fleeing persecution.

Many countries have immigration and visa restrictions that prohibit a person entering the country for the purposes of gaining work without a valid work visa.

As a violation of a State's immigration laws a person who is declared to be an economic migrant can be refused entry into a country.

The process of allowing immigrants into a particular country is believed to have

Page 8 of 55

effects on wages and employment. In particular lower skilled workers are thought to be directly affected by economic migrants, but evidence suggests that this is due to adjustments within industries.

The World Bank estimates that remittances totaled $420 billion in 2009, of which $317 billion went to developing countries.

Refugees A Refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons or because they are fleeing a war. Such a person may be called an 'Asylum Seeker ' until recognized by the state where they make a claim.

The Refugee Act of 1980, annual admissions figures have ranged from a high of 207,116 in 1980 to a low of 27,100 in 2002.

Currently, nine national voluntary agencies resettle refugees nationwide on behalf of the U.S. government: Church World Service, Ethiopian Community Development Council, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and World Relief.

In 2013 Afghanistan was the biggest source country of refugees, (a position it has held for 32 years) with one out of every four refugees in the world being an Afghan and 95% of them living in Pakistan and Iran. The country hosting the largest number of refugees is now Syria, with 2.47 million refugees. Pakistan is second, hosting 1.6 million refugees.

Jesuit Refugee Service/USA (JRS/USA) has worked to help resettle Bhutanese refugees in the United States. The mission of JRS/USA is to accompany, serve and defend the rights of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons.

JRS/USA is one of 10 geographic regions of Jesuit Refugee Service, an international Catholic organization sponsored by the Society of Jesus. In coordination with JRS‘s International Office in Rome, JRS/USA provides advocacy, financial and human resources for JRS regions throughout the world.

During the Vietnam War, many U.S. citizens who were conscientious objectors and wished to avoid the draft sought political asylum in Canada.

President Jimmy Carter issued an amnesty. Since 1975, the U.S. has resettled approximately 2.6 million refugees, with nearly 77% being either Indochinese or citizens of the former Soviet Union. Since the enactment of

The U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funds a number of organizations that provide technical assistance to voluntary agencies and local refugee resettlement organizations.

RefugeeWorks, headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, is ORR's training and technical assistance arm for employment and self-sufficiency activities, for example.

Page 9 of 55

This nonprofit organization assists refugee service providers in their efforts to help refugees achieve selfsufficiency. RefugeeWorks publishes white papers, newsletters and reports on refugee employment topics.

In 2005, as a result of hurricane Katrina, New Orleans citizens were referred to the media as "refugees". Many New Orleanians consider the term refugee to be an insult. Resident Joseph Melancon explains, “And they had the nerve to call us refugees!

When I heard they called us refugees,I couldn’t do nothing but drop my head cause I said I’m a United States citizen!”

Actor Wendell Pierce says, “Damn, when the storm came it blew away our citizenship too?”

Such narratives regarding the loss of citizenship are used to illustrate the trauma endured and the degradation citizens inflicted during the storm and they are also to show the federal government failing to uphold some contractual responsibility.

In Sanctuary: African Americans and Empire, Waligora Davis remarks that, “The problem of the refugee, the stateless, the semi-colonial that DuBois names the black American, is a problem of the refugees relationship to the law and the state.

Collectively, such persons signify a community outside the precincts of laws, they remain marginalized as a result of their loss of withheld citizenship.”

Yet, these narratives and WaligoraDavis‘ definition does not fully engage the ways in which ‗refugee‘ can be deployed as a diasporic trope for

empowerment, similar to how The Fugees utilize the term in the diaspora.

Opposition to Immigration In the United States, opposition to immigration has a long history, starting in the late 1790s, in reaction to an influx of political refugees from France and Ireland. After passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, opposition receded.

Nativism first gained a name and affected politics in mid-19th century United States because of the large inflows of immigrants from cultures that were markedly different from the existing White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. Nativists objected primarily to Roman Catholics, especially Irish Americans.

Nativist movements included the American Party of the mid19th Century (formed by members of the Know-Nothing Movement), the Immigration Restriction League of the early 20th Century, and the anti-Asian movements in the west, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act and the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement" aimed at the Japanese. Immigration became a major issue again from the 1990s, with burgeoning illegal immigration, particularly in the Southwest The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 provided an amnesty described as the amnesty to end amnesties was passed in 1986 but had no lasting impact on the flow of illegal immigrants.

Opposition to immigration exists in most nation-states with immigration, and has become a significant political issue in many countries. Immigration in the modern sense refers to movement of people from one nation-state to another,

Page 10 of 55

where they are not citizens. The issue is complicated by the fact that there are various forms of immigration, and as such opposition to some forms of immigration does not always imply opposition to immigration as a whole. It is also important to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration in considering opposition to immigration.

Illegal immigration is immigration in contravention of a nation's immigration laws.

as the United States, opposition to immigration sometimes takes the form of nativism targeted primarily at 'firstgeneration' immigrants.

Critics argue that the national identity of a nation-state is reflected in claims regarding ethnicity, and that immigrants fail to assimilate into the original population, and replace its culture with their own. This argument is based on maintaining the rule of the original ethnic group.

Principal Concerns The principal concerns expressed by those opposed to immigration are the perceived economic costs (job competition and education and social services burdens); negative environmental impact from accelerated population growth; increased crime rates, protection against infectious diseases and, in some cases, the distortion of the national identity.

There may also be a psychological component to prejudice against immigrants, with researchers showing that people are biased against immigrants partly because they find immigrants difficult to think about. In addition, when the immigration is illegal, opposition is focused on the economic and environmental costs and the violation of the receiving nation's law. In cases such as the United States, where illegal immigration since the 1986th amnesty has resulted in an estimated 10-20 million illegal immigrants, the issue of failure of the rule of law itself is implicated.

In countries where the majority of the population is of immigrant descent, such

National Unity Arguments emphasize language use and isolation: the immigrants "isolate themselves in their own communities and refuse to learn the local language".

Economic Arguments concentrate on competition for employment, and the burdens that many immigrants impose on social welfare systems and public schools. For example, Denmark's strict immigration law reform has saved the country 6.7 billion euros compared to previous more permissive approach, according to The Integration Ministry April 2011 report. Another argument against immigration is that it may lead to a brain drain.

Environmental arguments include the increased consumption of scarce resources, overpopulation and inefficiencies related to cases where immigration is to countries that are net importers of food and essential commodities.

The American Federation of Labor The American Federation of Labor (AFL), a coalition of labor unions formed in the 1880s, vigorously opposed unrestricted immigration from Europe for moral, cultural, and racial reasons. The

Page 11 of 55

issue unified the workers who feared that an influx of new workers would flood the labor market and lower wages.

Nativism was not a factor because upwards of half the union members were themselves immigrants or the sons of immigrants from Ireland, Germany and Britain. However, nativism was a factor when the AFL even more strenuously opposed all immigration from Asia because it represented (to its Euro-American members) an alien culture that could not be assimilated into American society.

The AFL intensified its opposition after 1906 and was instrumental in passing immigration restriction bills from the 1890s to the 1920s, such as the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, and seeing that they were strictly enforced.

Mink (1986) concludes that the link between the AFL and the Democratic Party rested in part on immigration issues, noting the large corporations, which supported the Republicans, wanted more immigration to augment their labor force.

The League of Nations The first international co-ordination of refugee affairs came with the creation by the League of Nations in 1921 of the High Commissioner for Refugees and the appointment of Fridtjof Nansen as its

head. Nansen and the Commission were charged with assisting the approximately 1,500,000 people who fled the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent civil war (1917–1921), most of them aristocrats fleeing the Communist government. It is estimated that about 800,000 Russian refugees became stateless when Lenin revoked citizenship for all Russian expatriates in 1921.

In 1923, the mandate of the Commission was expanded to include the more than one million Armenians who left Turkish Asia Minor in 1915 and 1923 due to a series of events now known as the Armenian Genocide. Over the next several years, the mandate was expanded further to cover Assyrians and Turkish refugees. In all of these cases, a refugee was defined as a person in a group for which the League of Nations had approved a mandate, as opposed to a person to whom a general definition applied.

The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey involved approximately two million people (around 1.5 million Anatolian Greeks and 500,000 Muslims in Greece) most forcibly repatriated and denaturalized from homelands of centuries or millennia (and guaranteed the nationality of the destination country) in a treaty promoted and overseen by the

Page 12 of 55

international community as part of the Treaty of Lausanne.

The U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans, especially Jews, Italians and Slavs, who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. Most of the European refugees (principally Jews and Slavs) fleeing Stalin, the Nazis and World War II were barred from coming to the United States.

In 1930, the Nansen International Office for Refugees (Nansen Office) was established as a successor agency to the Commission. Its most notable achievement was the Nansen passport, a refugee travel document, for which it was awarded the 1938 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nansen Office was plagued by problems of financing, an increase in refugee numbers, and a lack of co-operation from some member states, which led to mixed success overall.

However, it managed to lead fourteen nations to ratify the 1933 Refugee Convention, an early, and relatively modest, attempt at a human rights charter, and in general assisted around one million refugees worldwide.

Boat People The term "boat people" came into common use in the 1970s with the mass

exodus of Vietnamese refugees following the Vietnam War. It is a widely used form of migration for people migrating from Cuba, Haiti, Morocco, Vietnam or Albania. They often risk their lives on dangerously crude and overcrowded boats to escape oppression or poverty in their home nations. Events resulting from the Vietnam War led many people in Cambodia, Laos, and especially Vietnam to become refugees in the late 1970s and 1980s. In 2001, 353 asylum seekers sailing from Indonesia to Australia drowned when their vessel sank.

The main danger to a boat person is that the boat he or she is sailing in may actually be anything that floats and is large enough for passengers. Although such makeshift craft can result in tragedy, in 2003 a small group of 5 Cuban refugees attempted (unsuccessfully, but un-harmed) to reach Florida in a 1950s pickup truck made buoyant by oil barrels strapped to its sides.

Boat people are frequently a source of controversy in the nation they seek to immigrate to, such as the United States, New Zealand, Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain and Australia. Boat people are often forcibly prevented from landing at their destination, such as under Australia's Pacific Solution (which operated from 2001 until 2008), or they are subjected to mandatory detention after their arrival.

Page 13 of 55

Page 14 of 55

The Immigration & Naturalization Service individual states, regulated immigration into the United States, and the Immigration Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department. Over the years, these matters were later transferred to the purview of the United States Department of Commerce and Labor after 1903, the Department of Labor after 1913, and the Department of Justice after 1940.

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1933– 2003.

Referred to by some as former INS and by others as legacy INS, the agency ceased to exist under that name on March 1, 2003, when most of its functions were transferred to three new entities – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – within the newly created Department of Homeland Security, as part of a major government reorganization following the September 11 attacks of 2001.

INS was established on June 10, 1933, by a] merger to administer matters related to established immigration and naturalization policy. After 1890, the federal government, rather than the

In 2003 the administration of immigration services, including permanent residence, naturalization, asylum, and other functions became the responsibility of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), which existed only for a short time before changing to its current name, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The investigative and enforcement functions (including investigations, deportation, and intelligence) were combined with INS and U.S. Customs investigators, the Federal Protective Service, and the Federal Air Marshal Service, to create U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The border functions of the INS, which included the Border Patrol along with INS Inspectors, were combined with U.S. Customs Inspectors into the newly created U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The 2000 documentary Well-Founded Fear provided the first and only time a film crew was privy to a behind-thescenes look at the INS asylum process in the U.S.

Page 15 of 55

The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) administered the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8, United States Code) which included inspecting any persons arriving at an official Port of Entry (POE), detecting and deterring illegal entry between the ports (by the Border Patrol, a component of the INS) and by sea, and conducting investigations of criminal and administrative violations of the Act. The INS also adjudicated applications for permanent residency ("green cards"), change of status, naturalization (the process by which an alien (foreign-born person) becomes a citizen), and similar matters.

At the head of the INS was a commissioner appointed by the President who reported to the Attorney General in the Department of Justice.

The INS worked closely with the United Nations, the Department of State, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The INS was a very large and complex organization that had four main divisions—Programs, Field Operations, Policy and Planning, and Management—that were responsible for operations and management.

The operational functions of the INS included the Programs and Field Operations divisions. The Programs division was responsible for handling all the functions involved with enforcement and examinations, including the arrest, detaining, and deportation of illegal immigrants as well as controlling illegal and legal entry.

The Field Operations division was responsible for overseeing INS' many offices operating throughout the country and the world. The Field Operations

division implemented policies and handled tasks for its three regional offices, which in turn oversaw 33 districts and 21 border areas throughout the country. Internationally, the Field Operations division oversaw the Headquarters Office of International Affairs which in turn oversaw 16 offices outside the country.

Managerial functions of the INS included the Policy and Planning and Management divisions. The Office of Policy and Planning coordinated all information for the INS and communicated with other cooperating government agencies and the public.

The office was divided into three areas: the Policy Division; the Planning Division; and the Evaluation and Research Center.

The second managerial division, called the Management division, was responsible for maintaining the overall mission of the INS throughout its many offices and providing administrative services to these offices. These duties were handled by the offices of Information Resources Management, Finance, Human Resources and Administration, and Equal Employment Opportunity.

Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility.

The Immigration Act of 1891 established an Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department. This office was responsible for admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the United States and for implementing national immigration policy. 'Immigrant Inspectors', as they

Page 16 of 55

were called then, were stationed at major U.S. ports of entry collecting manifests of arriving passengers. Its largest station was located on Ellis Island in New York harbor. Among other things, a 'head tax' of fifty cents was collected on each immigrant.

Paralleling some current immigration concerns, in the early 1900s Congress's primary interest in immigration was to protect American workers and wages: the reason it had become a federal concern in the first place. This made immigration more a matter of commerce than revenue. In 1903, Congress transferred the Bureau of Immigration to the newly created (now-defunct) Department of Commerce and Labor, and on June 10, 1933 the agency was established as the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

After World War I, Congress attempted to stem the flow of immigrants, still mainly coming from Europe, by passing a law in 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 limiting the number of newcomers by assigning a quota to each nationality based upon its representation in previous U.S. Census figures. Each year, the U.S. State Department issued a limited number of visas; only those immigrants who could present valid visas were permitted entry.

There were a number of predecessor agencies to INS between 1891 and 1933.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was formed in 1933 by a merger of the Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization.

Both those Bureaus, as well as the newly created INS, were controlled by the Department of Labor. President Franklin Roosevelt moved the INS from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice in 1940, citing a need for "more effective control over aliens" as the United States moved closer to joining World War II.

By July 1941, Justice Department officials had decided that the INS would oversee the internment of enemy aliens arrested by the FBI should the U.S. enter the war, and immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor these plans went into effect. By December 10, three days after the attack, the INS had 1,291 Japanese, 857 German and 147 Italian nationals in custody. These "enemy aliens," many of whom had resided in the United States for decades, were arrested without warrants or formal charges. They were held in immigration stations and various requisitioned sites, often for months, before receiving a hearing (without benefit of legal counsel or defense witnesses) and being released, paroled or transferred to a Department of Justice internment camp.

Starting in 1942, the INS also interned German, Italian and Japanese Latin Americans deported from Peru and other countries. It is estimated that 17,477 persons of Japanese ancestry, 11,507 of German ancestry, 2,730 of Italian ancestry, and 185 others were interned by the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the war.

In November 1979, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti announced that INS "raids" would only take place at places of work, not at residences where illegal aliens were suspected of living.

Page 17 of 55

The 2000 documentary film WellFounded Fear, from filmmakers Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini marked the first time that a film-crew was privy to the private proceedings at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), where individual asylum officers ponder the often life-or-death

fate of the majority of immigrants seeking asylum. It provided a highprofile behind-the-scenes look at the process for seeking asylum in the United States. The film was featured at the Sundance Film Festival and was broadcast in June 2000 on PBS as part of POV.

Page 18 of 55

Economic Impacts In a late 1980s study, economists overwhelmingly viewed immigration, including illegal immigration, as a positive for the economy. According to James Smith, a senior economist at Santa Monica-based RAND Corporation and lead author of the United States National Research Council's study "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration", immigrants contribute as much as $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year. The NRC report found that although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, caused a net loss in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, immigration can provide an overall gain to the domestic economy due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital. The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for low-skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents. A nonpartisan report in 2007 from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that most estimates show that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments, but ―that no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, the cost on a national level.‖ Estimates of

the net national cost that illegal immigrants impose on the United States vary greatly, with the Urban Institute saying it was $1.9 billion in 1992, and a Rice University professor putting it at $19.3 billion in 1993. About twenty-one million immigrants, or about fifteen percent of the labor force, hold jobs in the United States; however, the number of unemployed is only seven million, meaning that immigrant workers are not taking jobs from domestic workers, but rather are doing jobs that would not have existed had the immigrant workers not been in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 indicated that the number of Hispanicowned businesses in the United States grew to nearly 1.6 million in 2002. Those businesses generated about $222 billion in gross revenue. The report notes that the burden of poor immigrants is not borne equally among states, and is most heavy in California. Another claim supporting expanding immigration levels is that immigrants mostly do jobs Americans do not want. A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report added evidence to support this claim, when they found that increasing immigration levels have not hurt employment prospects for American workers. Research shows an economic consensus that, taken as a whole, immigrants raise living standards for American workers by boosting demand and increasing productivity,

Page 19 of 55

contributing to innovation, and lowering prices.

In 2009, a study by the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, found that legalization of low-skilled illegal resident workers in the US would result in a net increase in US GDP of $180 billion over ten years. The Cato Institute study did not examine the impact on per capita income for most Americans. Jason Riley notes that because of progressive income taxation, in which the top 1% of earners pay 37% of federal income taxes (even though they actually pay a lower tax percentage based on their income), 60% of Americans collect more in government services than they pay in, which also reflects on immigrants. In any event, the typical immigrant and his children will pay a net $80,000 more in their lifetime than they collect in government services according to the NAS. Legal immigration policy is set to maximize net taxation. Illegal immigrants even after an amnesty tend to be recipients of more services than they pay in taxes. In 2010, an econometrics study by a Rutgers economist found that immigration helped increase bilateral trade when the incoming people were connected via networks to their country of origin, particularly boosting trade of final goods as opposed to intermediate goods, but that the trade

benefit weakened when the immigrants became assimilated into American culture.

The Kauffman Foundation‘s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives.

Immigrants were involved in the founding of many prominent American high-tech companies, such as Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Sun Microsystems, and eBay. On the poor end of the spectrum, the "New Americans" report found that low-wage immigration does not, on aggregate, lower the wages of most domestic workers.

The report also addresses the question of if immigration affects black Americans differently from the population in general: "While some have suspected that blacks suffer disproportionately from the inflow of low-skilled immigrants, none of the available evidence suggests that they have been particularly hard-hit on a national level. Some have lost their jobs, especially in places where immigrants are concentrated. But the majority of blacks live elsewhere, and their economic fortunes are tied to other factors."

A study done in 2005 showed that a third of adult immigrants had not finished high school, and a third had no health insurance. Robert Samuelson points out that poor immigrants strain public services such as local schools

Page 20 of 55

and health care. He points out that "from 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics." According to the immigration reduction advocacy group Center for Immigration Studies, 25.8% of Mexican immigrants live in poverty, which is more than double the rate for natives in 1999. In another report, The Heritage Foundation notes that from 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased by 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million.

U.S. citizens will not take certain jobs usually done by foreign workers, like manual labor involving agriculture. Fruit picking labor costs are estimated at $0.36 per pound, so a production rate of 1 pound per minute is required to earn minimum wage after fees are deducted.

Hard physical labor and dangerous jobs with a small paycheck create labor shortages in certain job markets that can only be satisfied using foreign labor.

Foreign laborers often work for no pay for several months each year to earn enough to pay their employer for the cost of their H series visa. Hispanic immigrants in the United States were hit hard by the subprime mortgage crisis.

There was a disproportionate level of foreclosures in some immigrant neighborhoods. The banking industry provided home loans to undocumented immigrants, viewing it as an untapped resource for growing their own revenue stream. In October 2008, KFYI reported that according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, five million illegal immigrants held fraudulent home mortgages. The story was later pulled from their website and replaced with a correction. The Phoenix Business Journal cited a HUD spokesman saying that there was no basis to news reports

that more than five million bad mortgages were held by illegal immigrants, and that the agency had no data showing the number of illegal immigrants holding foreclosed or bad mortgages.

Immigration and foreign labor documentation fees increased over 80% in 2007, with over 90% of funding for USCIS derived from immigration application fees, creating many USCIS jobs involving immigration to US, such as immigration interview officials, finger print processor, Department of Homeland Security, etc. An article by American Enterprise Institute researcher Jason Richwine states that while earlier European immigrants were often poor when they arrived, by the third generation they had economically assimilated to be indistinguishable from the general population. However, for the Hispanic immigrants the process stalls at the second generation and the third generation continues to be substantially poorer than whites. Despite apparent disparities between different communities, Asians, a significant number of whom arrived in the United States after 1965, had the highest median income per household among all race groups as of 2008.

According to NPR in 2005, about 3% of illegal immigrants were working in agriculture. The H-2A visa allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs. The passing of tough immigration laws in several states from around 2009 provides a number of practical case studies. The state of Georgia passed immigration law HB 87 in 2011; this led, according to the coalition of top Kansas businesses, to

Page 21 of 55

50% of its agricultural produce being left to rot in the fields, at a cost to the state of more than $400m. Overall losses caused by the act were $1bn; it was estimated that the figure would become over $20bn if all the estimated 325,000 undocumented workers left Georgia.

The cost to Alabama of its crackdown in June 2011 has been estimated at almost $11bn, with up to 80,000 unauthorised immigrant workers leaving the state.

While immigration from Latin America has kept the United States from falling off a Japanese or European style demographic cliff, this is a limited resource as fertility rates continue to decline throughout the Americas and the world.

Economic Incentives The continuing practice of hiring unauthorized workers has been referred to as "the magnet for illegal immigration".

As a significant percentage of employers are willing to hire illegal immigrants for higher pay than they would typically receive in their former country, illegal immigrants have prime motivation to cross borders.

In 2003, then-President of Mexico, Vicente Fox stated that remittances "are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment" and "the money transfers grew after Mexican consulates started giving identity cards to their citizens in the United States." He stated that money sent from Mexican workers in the United States to their families back home reached a record $12 billion in 2003. Two years later, in 2005, the World Bank stated that Mexico was

receiving $18.1 billion in remittances and that it ranked third (behind only India and China) among the countries receiving the greatest amount of remittances.

Economic reasons are the most popular motivation for people to illegally immigrate to the United States. United States employers hire illegal immigrants at wages substantially higher than they could earn in their native countries. A study of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the 1978 harvest season in Oregon showed that they earned six times what they could have earned in Mexico, and even after deducting the costs of the seasonal migration and the additional expense of living in the United States, their net U.S. earnings were three times their Mexican alternative. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Mexico's high fertility rate caused a large increase in population. While Mexican population growth has slowed, the large numbers of people born in the 60s and 70s are now of working age looking for jobs.

According to Judith Gans, Immigration Policy Program Manager at the University of Arizona, United States employers are pushed to hire illegal migrants for three main reasons - global economic change, the inadequacy of channels for legal economic migration, and ineffective employer sanctions.

Global economic change is one cause for illegal immigration because information and transportation technologies now foster internationalized production, distribution and consumption, and labor. This has encouraged many countries to open their economies to outside investment, then increasing the number of lowskilled workers participating in global

Page 22 of 55

labor markets and making low-skilled labor markets all more competitive. This and the fact that developed countries have shifted from manufacturing to knowledge-based economies, have realigned economic activity around the world. Labor has become more international as individuals migrate seeking work, despite governmental attempts to control this migration.

Because the United States education system creates relatively few people who either lack a high school diploma or who hold PhDs, there is a shortage of workers needed to fulfill seasonal lowskilled jobs as well as certain highskilled jobs. To fill these gaps, the United States immigration system attempts to compensate for these shortages by providing for temporary immigration by farm workers and seasonal low-skilled workers, and for

permanent immigration by high-skilled workers. The third cause of illegal immigration — the ineffectiveness of current employer sanctions for illegal hiring — allows migrants who are in the country illegally to easily find jobs. There are three reasons for this ineffectiveness - the absence of reliable mechanisms for verifying employment eligibility, inadequate funding of interior immigration enforcement, and the absence of political will due to labor needs to the United States economy.

For example, it is unlawful to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant, but according to Judith Gans, there are no reliable mechanisms in place for employers to verify that the immigrants' papers are authentic. Evidence is accumulating that the number of illegal immigrants is diminishing because of increased border security and tougher immigration laws.

Page 23 of 55

Page 24 of 55

Social Impacts Irish immigration was opposed in the 1850s by the nativist Know Nothing movement, originating in New York in 1843. It was engendered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants. In 1891, a lynch mob stormed a local jail and hanged several Italians following the acquittal of several Sicilian immigrants alleged to be involved in the murder of New Orleans police chief David Hennessy. The Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at limiting immigration overall, and making sure that the nationalities of new arrivals matched the overall national profile.

After the September 11 attacks, many Americans entertained doubts and suspicions about people apparently of Middle-Eastern origins. NPR in 2010 fired a prominent black commentator, Juan Williams, when he talked publicly about his fears on seeing people dressed like Muslims on airplanes.

Racist thinking among and between minority groups does occur; examples of this are conflicts between blacks and Korean immigrants, notably in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, and between African Americans and non-white Latino immigrants. There has been a long running racial tension between African

American and Mexican prison gangs, as well as significant riots in California prisons where they have targeted each other, for ethnic reasons. There have been reports of racially motivated attacks against African Americans who have moved into neighborhoods occupied mostly by people of Mexican origin, and vice versa. There has also been an increase in violence between non-Hispanic Anglo Americans and Latino immigrants, and between African immigrants and African Americans.

A 2007 study on assimilation found that Mexican immigrants are less fluent in English than both non-Mexican Hispanic immigrants and other immigrants. While English fluency increases with time stayed in the United States, although further improvements after the first decade are limited, Mexicans never catch up with non-Mexican Hispanics, who never catch up with non-Hispanics.

The study also writes that "Even among immigrants who came to the United States before they were ďŹ ve years old and whose entire schooling was in the United States, those Mexican born have average education levels of 11.7 years, whereas those from other countries have average levels of education of 14.1 years."

Unlike other immigrants, Mexicans have a tendency to live in communities with many other Mexicans which decreases incentives for assimilation. Correcting for this removes about half the fluency difference between Mexicans and other immigrants.

Page 25 of 55

Page 26 of 55

Political Ramifications A Boston Globe article attributed Barack Obama‘s win in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election to a marked reduction over the preceding decades in the percentage of whites in the American electorate, attributing this demographic change to the Immigration Act of 1965. The article quoted Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the New Democrat Network, as having said that the Act is "the most important piece of legislation that no one‘s ever heard of," and that it "set America on a very different demographic course than the previous 300 years."

The key interests groups that lobby on immigration are religious, ethnic and business groups, together with some liberals and some conservative public policy organizations. Both the pro- and anti- groups affect policy.

Studies have suggested that some special interest group lobby for less immigration for their own group and more immigration for other groups since they see effects of immigration, such as increased labor competition, as detrimental when affecting their own group but beneficial when affecting other groups.

A 2007 paper found that both pro- and anti-immigration special interest groups play a role in migration policy. "Barriers to migration are lower in sectors in which business lobbies incur larger lobbying expenditures and higher in sectors where labor unions are more

Immigrants differ on their political views; however, the Democratic Party is considered to be in a far stronger position among immigrants overall.

Research shows that religious affiliation can also significantly impact both their social values and voting patterns of immigrants, as well as the broader American population.

Hispanic evangelicals, for example, are more strongly conservative than non-Hispanic evangelicals. This trend is often similar for Hispanics or others strongly identifying with the Catholic Church, a religion that strongly opposes abortion and gay marriage. important." A 2011 study examining the voting of US representatives on migration policy suggests that "representatives from more skilled labor abundant districts are more likely to support an open immigration policy towards the unskilled, whereas the opposite is true for representatives from more unskilled labor abundant districts."

After the 2010 election, Gary Segura of Latino Decisions stated that Hispanic voters influenced the outcome and "may have saved the Senate for Democrats".

Several ethnic lobbies support immigration reforms that would allow illegal immigrants that have succeeded in entering to gain citizenship. They may also lobby for special arrangements for their own group. The Chairman for the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has stated that "the Irish Lobby will push for any special arrangement it can get — 'as will every other ethnic group in the country.'" The irrendentist and ethnic

Page 27 of 55

separatist movements for Reconquista and Aztlรกn see immigration from Mexico as strengthening their cause.

general, do not have too much power in foreign policy and can balance other special interest groups.

The book Ethnic Lobbies and US Foreign Policy (2009) states that several ethnic special interest groups are involved in pro-immigration lobbying.

Ethnic lobbies also influence foreign policy.

The authors write that "Increasingly, ethnic tensions surface in electoral races, with House, Senate, and gubernatorial contests serving as proxy battlegrounds for antagonistic ethnoracial groups and communities. In addition, ethnic politics affect party politics as well, as groups compete for relative political power within a party".

However, the authors argue that currently ethnic interest groups, in

In a 2012 news story, Reuters reported, "Strong support from Hispanics, the fastest-growing demographic in the United States, helped tip President Barack Obama's fortunes as he secured a second term in the White House, according to Election Day polling."

Lately, there is talk among several Republican leaders, such as governors Bobby Jindal and Susana Martinez, of taking a new, friendlier approach to immigration. Former US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez is promoting the creation of Republicans for Immigration Reform.

Page 28 of 55

Page 29 of 55

Immigrant Crime in the United States Empirical studies on links between immigration and crime are mixed.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2001, 4% of Hispanic males in their twenties and thirties were in prison or jail, compared to 1.8% of nonHispanic white males. Hispanic men are almost four times as likely to go to prison at some point in their lives than non-Hispanic white males, although less likely than non-Hispanic African American males.

Other writers have suggested that immigrants are under-represented in criminal statistics. In his 1999 book Crime and Immigrant Youth, sociologist Tony Waters argued that immigrants themselves are less likely to be arrested and incarcerated; he also argued, however, that the children of some immigrant groups are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated. This is a byproduct of the strains that emerge between immigrant parents living in poor, inner city neighborhoods. This occurs particularly in immigrant groups with many children as they begin to form particularly strong peer sub-cultures. A 1999 paper by John Hagan and Alberto Palloni estimated that the involvement in crime by Hispanic immigrants is less than that of other citizens. A 2006 OpEd in The New York Times by Harvard

University Professor in Sociology Robert J. Sampson says that immigration of Hispanics may in fact be associated with decreased crime.

A 2006 article by Migration Policy Institute cited data from the 2000 US Census as evidence for that foreignborn men had lower incarceration rates than native-born men.

According to a 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center, the American Immigration Law Foundation, citing data from the 2000 US Census, native-born American men between 18– 39 are five times more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants in the same demographic.

A 2008 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, found that, "...on average, between 2000 and 2005, cities that had a higher share of recent immigrants (those arriving between 2000 and 2005) saw their crime rates fall further than cities with a lower share" but adds, "As with most studies, we do not have ideal data. This lack of data restricts the questions we will be able to answer. In particular, we cannot focus on the undocumented population explicitly". In a study released by the same Institute, immigrants were ten

Page 30 of 55

times less likely to be incarcerated than native born Americans.

Explanations for the lower incarceration rates of immigrants include:  



Legal immigrants are screened for criminality prior to entry.

Legal and illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes are being deported and therefore are unable to commit more crimes (unlike their US counterparts who remain in the US). They are unlikely to become "career criminals" moving in and out of the prison system. In the last 10 years, 816,000 criminal aliens have been removed from the United States. This does not include immigrants whose only offense was living or working illegally in the United States.

Immigrants understand the severe consequences of being arrested given their legal status (i.e. threat of deportation).

Heather MacDonald at the Manhattan Institute in a 2004 article argued that sanctuary policies has caused large problems with crime by illegal aliens since the police cannot report them for deportation before a felony or a series of misdemeanors takes place. In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide are for illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California were illegal aliens in a 1995 report.

The Center for Immigration Studies in a 2009 report argued that "New government data indicate that

immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to a lack of good data and contrary information." It also criticized the reports by the Public Policy Institute of California and Immigration Policy Center for using data from the 2000 Census according to which 4% of prisoners were immigrants. Non-citizens often have a strong incentive to deny this in order to prevent deportation and there are also other problems. Better methods have found 20–22% immigrants. It also criticized studies looking at percentages of immigrants in a city and crime for only looking at overall crime and not immigrant crime. A 2009 analysis by the Department of Homeland Security found that crime rates were higher in metropolitan areas that received large numbers of legal immigrants, contradicting several older cross-city comparisons.

California has the largest immigrant population in the US, and immigrants (combined total of legal and illegal) are under represented among California prison inmates. The most recent research indicates approximately 35% of the California population consists of immigrants, while immigrants represent 17% of the prison population. In fact, U.S. born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men. However, this does not separate the illegal versus legal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants avoid involvement in criminal activity to reduce interaction with law enforcement officials, and according to Tim Wadsworth, an assistant professor of sociology at the

Page 31 of 55

University of Colorado at Boulder, "[t]he suggestion that high levels of immigration may have been partially responsible for the drop in crime during the 1990s seems plausible."

According to Edmonton and Smith in The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, "it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions on the association between immigration and crime". Cities with large immigrant populations showed larger reductions in property and violent crime than cities without large immigrant populations. Almost all of what is known about immigration and crime is from information on those in prison. Incarceration rates do not necessarily reflect differences in current crime rates.

The Center for Immigration Studies in a 2009 report argued, "New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to a lack of good data and contrary information." It also criticized reports using data from the 2000 Census according to which 4% of prisoners were immigrants. Non-citizens often have a strong incentive to deny this in order to prevent deportation and there are also other problems. Some better but still uncertain methods have found that 20-22% of prisoners were immigrants. It also criticized studies looking at percentages of immigrants in a city and crime for only looking at overall crime and not immigrant crime as well as having other possible problems.

As of 2010, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) under its "Secure Communities" project has identified 240,000 illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, according to Department of Homeland Security figures. Of those, about 30,000 have been deported, including 8,600 convicted of what the agency calls "the most egregious offenses.

A few of the other reasons also cited for why the extent of illegal immigrants' criminal activities is unknown are as follows: 

For many minor crimes, especially crimes involving juveniles, those who are apprehended are not arrested.

Only a fraction of those who are arrested are ever brought to the courts for disposition.



Many illegal immigrants who are apprehended by Border Patrol agents are voluntarily returned to their home countries and are not ordinarily tabulated in national crime statistics. If immigrants, whether illegal or legal, are apprehended entering the United States while committing a crime, they are usually charged under federal statutes and, if convicted,

Page 32 of 55





are sent to federal prisons.

Throughout this entire process, immigrants may have a chance of deportation, or of sentencing that is different from that for a nativeborn person.

immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime, most likely due to extensive smuggling activity along the border.

We lack comprehensive information on whether arrested or jailed immigrants are illegal immigrants, non-immigrants, or legal immigrants.

Such information can be difficult to collect because immigrants may have a reason to provide false statements (if they reply that they are an illegal immigrant, they can be deported, for instance). The verification of the data is troublesome because it requires matching INS records with individuals who often lack documentation or present false documents.

On August 6, 2008, an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 122 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois, jail were of questionable immigration status. Of those 122 originally suspected, 75 were later ordered to face deportation proceedings by the ICE. According to Lake County sheriff Mark Curran, illegal immigrants were charged with half of the 14 murders in the county.

Noncitizens may have had fewer years residing in the United States than citizens, and thus less time in which to commit crimes and be apprehended.

In 1999, law enforcement activities involving illegal immigrants in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas cost a combined total of more than $108 million. This cost did not include activities related to border enforcement.

In San Diego County, the expense (over $50 million) was nine percent of the total county's budget for law enforcement that year.

A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has found that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased

The Arizona Department of Corrections reported in 2010 that illegal immigrants are over-represented in the state's prison population. In June 2010, illegal immigrants represented 14.8 percent of Arizona state prisoners, but accounted for 7 percent of the state's overall population according to the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, the data showed that illegal immigrants accounted for 40% of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping; 24% of those serving time for drug charges; and 13 percent of those serving time for murder.

A US Justice Department report from 2009 indicated that one of the largest street gangs in the United States, Los Angeles-based 18th Street gang, has a membership of some 30,000 to 50,000 with 80% of them being illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. Active in 44 cities in 20 states, its main source of income is street-level distribution of cocaine and marijuana

Page 33 of 55

and, to a lesser extent, heroin and methamphetamine. Gang members also commit assault, auto theft, carjacking, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, identification fraud, and robbery.

belong to someone else; to be guilty of identity theft with regard to social security numbers, they must know that the social security numbers that they use belong to others.

Another prominent street gang, Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS 13, with a membership of some 8,000 to 10,000 members in the US, is estimated to be predominantly composed of illegal immigrants (with some reporting up to 90%). MS-13 members smuggle illicit drugs, primarily powder cocaine and marijuana, into the US and transport and distribute the drugs throughout the country. Some members also are involved in alien smuggling, assault, drive-by shootings, homicide, identity theft, prostitution operations, robbery, and weapons trafficking. With over 3,000 members in Northern Virginia alone making it the largest gang in the region, MS-13 has been targeted by the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force which reports that 40% of arrests from 2003-2008 were of illegal immigrants. It is also reported that 71% of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) gang arrestees under "Operation Community Shield" in Northern Virginia from February 2005 to September 2007, were of EWI "Enter Without Inspection" status.

Drug Trafficking

Identity Theft Identity theft is often committed by illegal immigrants who use social security numbers belonging to others, in order to obtain fake work documentation. However, the US Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants cannot be prosecuted for identity theft if they use "made-up" social security numbers that they do not know

According to proceedings from a 1997 meeting of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."

Drug cartels have been reported using illegal immigrants, sometimes armed, to cultivate marijuana within American National Forests, in California's Los Padres National Forest, Tahoe National Forest, Six Rivers National Forest, and Sequoia National Forest, as well as in Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado.

Gang Violence See also: 2010 Tamaulipas massacre and Los Zetas As of 2005, Operation Community Shield had detained nearly fourteen hundred illegal immigrant gang members.

Members from the Salvadoran gang MS-13 are believed by authorities to have established a smuggling ring in Matamoros, Mexico. This smuggling involved transporting illegal immigrants from foreign countries into the United States. MS-13 has shown extreme violence against Border Patrol security

Page 34 of 55

to "teach them a lesson". "Mexican alien smugglers plan to pay violent gang members and smuggle them and drugs into the United States to murder Border Patrol agents, according to a confidential Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the Daily Bulletin."

Environment Waves of illegal immigrants are taking a heavy toll on U.S. public lands along the Mexican border, federal officials say.

Mike Coffeen, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Tucson, Arizona found the level of impact to be shocking.

"Environmental degradation has become among the migration trend's most visible consequences, a few years ago, there were 45 abandoned cars on the Buenos Aires refuge near Sasabe, Arizona and enough trash that a volunteer couple filled 723 large bags with 18,000 pounds of garbage over two months in 2002."

"It has been estimated that the average desert-walking immigrant leaves behind 8 pounds of trash during a journey that lasts one to three days if no major incidents occur. Assuming half a million people cross the border illegally into Arizona annually, that translates to 2,000 tons of trash that migrants dump each year."

Illegal immigrants trying to get to the United States via the Mexican border with southern Arizona are suspected of having caused eight major wildfires in 2002. The fires destroyed 68,413 acres (276.86 km2) and cost taxpayers $5.1 million to fight.

National Security and Terrorism Mohamed Atta and two of his coconspirators had expired visas when they executed the September 11 attacks. All of the attackers had U.S. government issued documents and two of them were erroneously granted visa extensions after their deaths. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States found that the government inadequately tracked those with expired tourist or student visas.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think-tank that promotes immigration reduction, testified in a hearing before the House of Representatives, out of the 48 al-Qaeda operatives who committed crimes here between 1993 and 2001, 12 of them were illegal immigrants when they committed their crimes, seven of them were visa overstayers, including two of the conspirators in the first World Trade Center attack, one of the figures from the New York subway bomb plot, and four of the 9/11 terrorists. In fact, even a couple other terrorists who were not illegal when they committed their crimes had been visa overstayers earlier and had either applied for asylum or finagled a fake marriage to launder their status.

Vice Chair Lee H. Hamilton and Commissioner Slade Gorton of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has stated that of the nineteen hijackers of the September 11, 2001 attacks, "Two hijackers could have been denied admission at the port on entry based on violations of immigration rules governing

Page 35 of 55

terms of admission. Three hijackers violated the immigration laws after entry, one by failing to enroll in school as declared, and two by overstays of their terms of admission." Six months after the attack, their flight schools received posthumous visa approval letters from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for two of the hijackers, which made it clear that actual approval of the visas took place before the September 11 attacks.

Dix attack plot—Dritan Duka, Shain Duka, and Eljvir Duka—were ethnic Albanians from the Republic of Macedonia who entered the United States illegally through Mexico with their parents in 1984. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, an illegal immigrant from Jordan who remained in the United States after the expiration of his tourist visa, was arrested in September 2009 for attempting to carry out a car bomb attack against Fountain Place in Dallas.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegal immigrants within the United States have attempted to carry out other terrorist attacks as well. Three of the six conspirators in the 2007 Fort

In the case of Rasmea Odeh, she was convicted of immigration fraud in 2014 for concealing her arrest, conviction, and imprisonment for a fatal terrorist bombing in Israel.

Page 36 of 55

Page 37 of 55

Legal Issues Laws concerning immigration and naturalization include: 

the 1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT), which limits the annual number of immigrants to 700,000. It emphasizes that family reunification is the main immigration criterion, in addition to employment-related immigration.

Illegal immigration to the United States, also referred to in the media as undocumented immigration, is the act by foreign nationals of entering the United States without government permission (i.e., a visa) and in violation of immigration law of the United States, or staying beyond the termination date of a visa, also in violation of the law. In 2012 the Obama administration spent 18 billion dollars on immigration enforcement programs; more than the budget for all other federal law enforcement agencies that year combined.

Illegal immigrants continue to exceed the number of legal immigrants —a trend that has held steady since the 1990s. While the majority of illegal immigrants continue to concentrate in places with existing large Hispanic communities, increasingly illegal immigrants are settling throughout the rest of the country.

 

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)

AEDPA and IIRARA exemplify many categories of criminal activity for which immigrants, including green card holders, can be deported and have imposed mandatory detention for certain types of cases. ______ The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007. Other estimates range from 7 to 30 million. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2004, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world. ______

An estimated 14 million people live in families in which the head of household or the spouse is in the United States illegally. Illegal immigrants arriving in recent years tend to be better educated than those who have been in the country a decade or more. A quarter of all immigrants who have arrived in recent years have at least some college education.

Nonetheless, illegal immigrants as a group tend to be less educated than other sections of the U.S.

Page 38 of 55

population: 49 percent haven't completed high school, compared with 9 percent of native-born Americans and 25 percent of legal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants work in many sectors of the U.S. economy. According to National Public Radio in 2005, about 3 percent work in agriculture; 33 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (16 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (17 percent).

According to USA Today in 2006, about 4 percent work in farming; 21 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (19 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (15 percent), with

12% in sales, 10% in management, and 8% in transportation. Illegal immigrants have lower incomes than both legal immigrants and native-born Americans, but earnings do increase somewhat the longer an individual is in the country.

A percentage of illegal immigrants do not remain indefinitely but do return to their country of origin; they are often referred to as "sojourners: they come to the United States for several years but eventually return to their home country."

State to State Statistics As of 2006, the following data table shows a spread of distribution of locations where illegal immigrants reside by state.

State of Residence of the Illegal Immigrant Population: January 2000 and 2006 State of Estimated population Percent of Percent Average annual residence in January total change change All states 11,555,000 100 37 515,000 California 2,930,000 25 13 53,333 Texas 1,640,000 14 50 91,667 Florida 980,000 8 23 30,000 Illinois 550,000 5 25 18,333 New York 540,000 5 Arizona 500,000 4 52 28,333 Georgia 490,000 4 123 45,000 New Jersey 430,000 4 23 13,333 North Carolina 370,000 3 42 18,333 Washington 280,000 2 65 18,333 Other states 2,950,000 26 69 200,000 Public Opinion The ambivalent feeling of Americans toward immigrants is shown by a positive attitude toward groups that have been visible for a century or more, and much more negative attitude toward

recent arrivals. For example a 1982 national poll by the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut showed respondents a card listing a number of groups and asked, "Thinking both of what they have contributed to this country and have gotten from this

Page 39 of 55

country, for each one tell me whether you think, on balance, they've been a good or a bad thing for this country," which produced the results shown in the table. "By high margins, Americans are telling pollsters it was a very good thing that Poles, Italians, and Jews emigrated to America. Once again, it's the newcomers who are viewed with suspicion. This time, it's the Mexicans, the Filipinos, and the people from the Caribbean who make Americans nervous."

In a 2002 study, which took place soon after the September 11 attacks, 55% of Americans favored decreasing legal immigration, 27% favored keeping it at the same level, and 15% favored increasing it.

In 2006, the immigration-reduction advocacy think tank the Center for Immigration Studies released a poll that found that 68% of Americans think U.S. immigration levels are too high, and just 2% said they are too low. They also found that 70% said they are less likely to vote for candidates that favor increasing legal immigration. In 2004, 55% of Americans believed legal immigration should remain at the current level or increased and 41% said it should be decreased. The less contact a native-born American has with immigrants, the more likely one would have a negative view of immigrants.

One of the most important factors regarding public opinion about immigration is the level of unemployment; anti-immigrant sentiment is where unemployment is highest, and vice-versa.

Surveys indicate that the U.S. public consistently makes a sharp distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and generally views those perceived as ―playing by the rules‖ with more sympathy than immigrants that have entered the country illegally.

Sheer Numbers According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), different estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants vary depending on how the term is defined. There are also questions about data reliability. The GAO has stated, "it seems clear that the population of undocumented foreignborn persons is large and has increased rapidly." On April 26, 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals. This number was derived by a statistical method known as the "residual method".

According to the General Accounting office the residual estimation (1) starts with a census count or survey estimate of the number of foreign-born residents who have not become U.S. citizens and (2) subtracts out estimated numbers of legally present individuals in various categories, based on administrative data and assumptions (because censuses and surveys do not ask about legal status). The remainder, or residual, represents an indirect estimate of the size of the illegal immigrant population.

Using the residential method, several different estimates of the number of illegal immigrants present in the United States have been derived: 

According Accounting

to the General Office, DHS had

Page 40 of 55

variously estimated the size of the illegal immigrant population as of January 2000 as 7 million and 8.5 million.

Some unofficial private estimates put the number even higher 



In August, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed the illegal immigrant population at 10.5 million as of January 2005, and indicates that if recent trends continued, the figure for January 2006 would be 11 million.

The Pew Hispanic Center's indirect estimate of the number of illegal immigrants as of 2006 was 11.5 million to 12 million. These estimates represented roughly one-third of the entire foreignborn population.

From 2005 to 2009, the number of people entering the U.S. illegally declined by nearly 67%, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, from 850,000 yearly average in the early 2000s to 300,000.

Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of illegal immigrants. (The report classifies a child as offspring of illegal immigrants if either parent is unauthorized.) In total, 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009 (alongside 1.1 million foreign-born children of illegal immigrant parents). These infants are, according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, American citizens from birth. These children are sometimes referred to as anchor babies by those opposed to this method of citizenship attained outside of the legal immigration process.

The majority of children that are born to parents who are undocumented migrants fail to graduate high school, averaging two fewer years of school than children of legal immigrants.

Reasons for this under-performance are thought to include stress, pressure to work at a younger age, and not having the economic resources needed for higher education.

Deportation

In 2013, a DHS report estimating the size of the illegal immigrant population living in the U.S. said, "In summary, an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011. These results suggest little to no change in the unauthorized immigrant population from 2011 to 2012."

Children The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census

Deportations of immigrants, which are also referred to as removals, may be issued when immigrants are found to be in violation of the United States' immigration laws. Deportations may be imposed on a person who is neither native-born nor a naturalized citizen of the United States.

Deportation proceedings are also referred to as removal proceedings and are typically initiated by the Department of Homeland Security. The United States issues deportations for various reasons which

Page 41 of 55

include security, protection of resources, and protection of jobs.

The AEDPA and IIRIRA Acts of 1996 In 1996 there were two major pieces of legislation passed that had a significant effect on illegal immigration and most importantly deportations in the United States. The two new laws were the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). These two laws were introduced following the events of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, both of which were terrorist attacks that claimed American lives. These two acts resulted in a significant change in the process of convicting lawful permanent residents.

Although deportation had always been a viable and practiced sentence, these new laws changed the way criminal cases of lawful permanent residents were handled which in turn resulted in an increased number of deportations from the United States. Before the 1996 deportation laws there were two steps that lawful permanent residents who were convicted of crimes had to go through. The first step was simply to determine whether or not the person was deportable. The second step reviewed the case to determine if that person should or shouldn't be deported.

Before the 1996 deportation laws the second step prevented many permanent residents from being deported by allowing for their cases to be reviewed

in full before issuing deportations.

External factors were taken into consideration such as the effect deportation would have on a person's family members and a person's connections with their country of origin.

Under this system permanent residents were able to be relieved of deportation if their situation deemed it unnecessary.

The 1996 laws however issued many deportations under the first step without ever arriving at the second step resulting in a great increase in the likelihood and frequency of permanent residents being subjected to deportation.

One significant change that resulted from the new laws was the definition of the term aggravated felony. Being convicted of a crime that is categorized as an aggravated felony results in mandatory detention and deportation. The new definition of aggravated felony includes simple convictions like shoplifting that would not be considered anything more than a misdemeanor in a lot of states.

The new laws have categorized a much wider range of crimes under the term aggravated felony. The effect of this has been a large increase in permanent residents facing mandatory deportation from the United States without the opportunity to plea for relief. The 1996 deportation laws have received a lot of criticism for their curtailing of permanent resident's rights.

The USA Patriot Act The USA Patriot Act was passed seven weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The purpose of

Page 42 of 55

the act was to give the government more power to act against suspicious terrorist activity. The new governmental powers granted by this act included significant expansion in surveillance as well as a significant expansion in the range of conditions in which illegal immigrants could be deported from the United States based on suspicion of terrorist activity. The USA Patriot Act had a direct effect on deportations of immigrants from the United States. The new act gave the government the power to deport individuals based not on plots or acts of terrorism but simply on affiliations with certain organizations.

The Secretary of State designated specific organizations foreign terrorist organizations before the USA Patriot Act was implemented. Organizations on this list were deemed dangerous because they were actively involved in terrorist activity that threatened United States national security. The USA Patriot Act created a type of organization deemed designated organizations. The Secretary of State and Attorney General were given the power to designate any organization that supported terrorist activity on any level. The act also allows for penalization of an individual's involvement in undesignated organizations that were still deemed suspicious.

Under the USA Patriot Act the Attorney General was granted the power to "certify" illegal immigrants based on the grounds that they pose a threat to national security. Once an illegal immigrant is certified they must be taken into custody and face mandatory detention which will result in a criminal charge or release. The USA Patriot Act has been criticized for violating the Fifth Amendment's right to due process.

Under the USA Patriot Act an illegal immigrant is not granted the opportunity for a hearing before given certification. It is criticized in general for allowing mandatory detention of illegal immigrants on inadequate grounds.

Complications Complications in deportation efforts ensue when parents are illegal immigrants but their children are birthright citizens. Federal appellate courts have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.

There are some 3.1 million United States citizen children with at least one illegal immigrant parent as of 2005; at least 13,000 American children had one or both parents deported in the years 2005–2007.

Such was the case of Mexican Elvira Arellano, who had a child while in the U.S. illegally and later sought sanctuary at a Chicago-area church in an effort to evade a deportation order. This was also the case in the instance of Sadia Umanzor, a fugitive from a 2006 deportation order who failed to appear in court after her arrest for illegally crossing into the U.S. Deportations from the United States increased by more than 60 percent from 2003 to 2008, with Mexicans accounting for nearly twothirds of those deported. Under the Obama administration, deportations have increased to record levels beyond the level reached by the George W. Bush Administration with a projected 400,000 deportations in 2010, 10 percent above the deportation rate of 2008 and 25 percent above 2007. Fiscal

Page 43 of 55

year 2011 saw 396,906 deportations, the largest number in the history of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; of those, 216,698 had been convicted of crimes, including:    

44,653 convicted of "drug-related crimes" 35,927 convicted of driving under the influence 5,848 convicted of sexual offenses 1,119 convicted of homicide

By the end of 2012, as many people had been deported during the first four years of the Obama presidency as were deported during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush.

Dream Act The Act was intended to stop the deportation of people who had arrived as children and had grown up in the US. The Act would give lawful permanent residency under certain conditions which include: good moral character, enrollment in a secondary or postsecondary education program, and having lived in the United States at least 5 years. Those in opposition of the DREAM Act believe that it encourages illegal immigration.

Although the Dream Act was never enacted a number of the principles behind it transferred over to a memorandum issued by Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security whilst under the Obama administration. To be eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), one must show that they were

under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; that they came to the United States before their 16th birthday; that they have continuously resided in the United States from June 15, 2007 until the present; that they were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and at the time they applied for DACA; that they were not authorized to be in the United States on June 15, 2012; that they are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and that they have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Deportation Trends A direct effect of the deportation laws of 1996 and the USA Patriot Act has been a dramatic increase in deportations.

Prior to these acts deportations had remained at about an average of 20,000 per year. Between 1990 and 1995 deportations had increased to about an average of 40,000 a year. From 1996 to 2005 the yearly average had increased to over 180,000. In the year 2005 the number of deportations reached 208,521 with less than half being deported under criminal grounds.

According to a June 2013 report published by the Washington Office on Latin America, dangerous deportation practices are on the rise and pose a serious threat to the safety of the migrants being deported.

These practices include repatriating migrants to

Page 44 of 55

border cities with high levels of drugrelated violence and criminal activity, night deportations (approximately 1 in 5 migrants reports being deported between the hours of 10pm and 5am), and "lateral repatriations", or the practice of moving migrants from the region where they were detained to areas hundreds of miles away. These practices increase the risk of gangs and organized criminal groups preying upon the newly arrived migrants.

According to survey by the Associated Press conducted in August 2014, The Homeland Security Department was on pace to remove the fewest number of immigrants since 2007. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency responsible for deportations, sent home 258,608 immigrants between the start of the budget year - Oct. 1, 2013. and July 28, 2014 - a decrease of nearly 20 percent from the same period in 2013, when 320,167 people were removed. Obama announced earlier in 2014 plans to slow down deportations; recently these have been put on hold until the upcoming election in November.

Mass Deportation According to The Washington Post, Rajeev K. Goyle, of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank, says he conducted a study to respond to officials who have advocated mass deportations.

This study claims that the cost of forcibly removing most of the nation's estimated 10 million illegal immigrants is $41

billion a year. A spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo calls the study "useless" because no one's talking about employing mass deportation as a tactic.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, describes the study as a cartoon version of how enforcement would work.

There have been two major periods of mass deportations in U.S. history. In the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930s, through mass deportations and forced migration, an estimated 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were deported or coerced into emigrating, in what Mae Ngai, an immigration history expert at the University of Chicago, has described as "a racial removal program".

The majority of those removed were U.S. Citizens. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., cosponsor of a U.S. House Bill that calls for a commission to study the "deportation and coerced emigration" of U.S. citizens and legal residents, has expressed concerns that history could repeat itself, and that should illegal immigration be made into a felony, this could prompt a "massive deportation of U.S. citizens". Later, in Operation Wetback in 1954, when the United States last deported a sizable number of illegal immigrants, in some cases along with their U.S. born children (who are citizens according to U.S. law), some illegal immigrants, fearful of potential violence as police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states, stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification, fled to Mexico.

Page 45 of 55

Page 46 of 55

References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_immigration 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States 8. http://www.ucc.org/refugees/pdf/BIBLICAL-REFERENCES-TO-REFUGEES.pdf 9. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/9/immigration%20 greenstone%20looney/09_immigration.pdf 10. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Rowthorn_Immigration.pdf

Page 47 of 55

Page 48 of 55

Attachment A

Biblical References for Refugees

Page 49 of 55

BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO REFUGEES The following passages from the Bible refer to refugees. All quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version.

Genesis 3:22-24 – Adam and Eve are forced out of the Garden.

Genesis 7 and 8 – Noah builds an ark and takes refuge from the flood.

Genesis 12:1 – The call of Abram: “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.”

Genesis 12:10 – “Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to reside there as an alien, for the famine was severe in the land.”

Genesis 19 – Lot takes his family and flees Sodom.

Genesis 23 – Abraham is a stranger and an alien in the land of Canaan.

Genesis 46:1-7 – Jacob moves his family to Egypt to escape the famine and reunite with Joseph.

Genesis 47: 1-6 – Joseph brings his brothers to Pharaoh and they are welcomed and given jobs.

Exodus 1:8-14 – Joseph’s generation is gone, and the Egyptians oppress the Israelites.

“Therefore they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor.”

Exodus 1:15-2:10 – Pharaoh orders all the Hebrew boy babies to be killed, but Moses is hidden and is saved by Pharaoh’s daughter.

Exodus 12:37-39 – The Israelites were driven out of Egypt so fast they had no time to make provisions and had to bake unleavened cakes of bread.

Exodus 12:49 and Leviticus 24:22 – “There shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you.”

Exodus 12:21 and 23:9 – Moses gives God’s law: “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”

Leviticus 19:9-10 and 23:22 – Moses gives God’s law: “You shall not strip your vineyards bare…leave them for the poor and the alien.”

Leviticus 19:33-34 and 24:22 – When the alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

Leviticus 24:23 – Moses receives God’s law: “With me you are but aliens and tenants.”

Numbers 9:14 and 15:15-16 – “…you shall have one statute for both the resident alien and the native.”

Numbers 35 and Joshua 20 – The Lord instructs Moses to give cities of refuge to the Levites so that when the Israelites must flee into Canaan they may have cities of refuge given to them.

Deuteronomy 1:16 – “Give the members of your community a fair hearing, and judge rightly between one person and another, whether citizen or resident alien.”

Deuteronomy 6:10-13 – The people of Israel are made aware that the land had come to them as a gift from God and they were to remember that they were once aliens.

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 14:28-29 and 26:12-13 – Tithing was begun, in part, for resident aliens.

Deuteronomy 24:14 – “You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land...”

Deuteronomy 24:17-18 – “You shall not deprive a resident alien...of justice.”

Deuteronomy 24:19-22 – Leave sheaf, olives, grapes for the alien.

Deuteronomy 26:5 – A wandering alien was my ancestor…

Deuteronomy 27:19 – “Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien…of justice.”

I Chronicles 22:1-2 – Aliens were important in building the temple.

I Chronicles 29:14-15 – David praises God: “We are aliens and transients before you…”

II Chronicles 2:17-18 – Solomon took a census of all the aliens and assigned them work.

Psalm 105 – Remembering their sojourn: “When they were few in number, of little account, and strangers in it, wandering from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people,...”

Psalm 137:1-6 – “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept…How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?”

Psalm 146:9 – “The Lord watches over the strangers…”

Ecclesiastes 4:1 – “Look, the tears of the oppressed—with no one to comfort them.”

Isaiah 16:4 – Be a refuge to the outcasts of Moab.

Jeremiah 7:5-7 – “If you do not oppress the alien…then I will dwell with you in this place…”

Jeremiah 22:3-5 – Do no wrong or violence to the alien.

Ezekiel 47:21-22 – The aliens shall be to you as citizens, and shall also be allotted an inheritance.

Zechariah 7:8-10 – Do no oppress the alien.

Malachi 3:5 – The messenger will bear witness against those who thrust aside the alien.

Matthew 2:13-15 – Jesus and parents flee Herod’s search for the child.

Matthew 5:10-11 –“Blessed are those who are persecuted.”

Matthew 25:31-46 – “…I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Luke 3:11 – “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none…”

Luke 4:16-21 – “…Bring good news to the poor…release to the captives…sight to the blind...let the oppressed go free.”

Romans 12:13 – “Mark of the true Christian: “…Extend hospitality to strangers…”

II Corinthians 8:13-15 – “It is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need…”

Ephesians 2:11-22 – “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.” Hebrews 11 – “By faith Abraham…set out for a place…not knowing where he was going.”

Hebrews 13:1-2 – “…show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels…”

James 2:5 – “Has not God chosen the poor in the world…”

James 2:14-17 – “What good is it…if you say you have faith but do not have works?”

I John 3:18 – “…Let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.”

I John 4:7-21 – “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God…” We love because God first loved us.”

Attachment B

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

Page 50 of 55

POLICY MEMO | SEPTEMBER 2010

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney

w w w. H A M I LT O N P R O J E C T. O R G

MISSION STATEMENT The Hamilton Project seeks to advance America’s promise of opportunity, prosperity, and growth. The Project’s economic strategy reflects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role for effective government in making needed public investments. We believe that today’s increasingly competitive global economy requires public policy ideas commensurate with the challenges of the 21st century. Our strategy calls for combining increased public investments in key growth-enhancing areas, a secure social safety net, and fiscal discipline. In that framework, the Project puts forward innovative proposals from leading economic thinkers — based on credible evidence and experience, not ideology or doctrine — to introduce new and effective policy options into the national debate.

The Project is named after Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, who laid the foundation for the modern American economy. Consistent with the guiding principles of the Project, Hamilton stood for sound fiscal policy, believed that broad-based opportunity for advancement would drive American economic growth, and recognized that “prudent aids and encouragements on the part of government” are necessary to enhance and guide market forces.

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney

Introduction The Hamilton Project

believes it is important to ground the current immigration debate in an objective economic framework based on the best available evidence. In this policy memo, we explore some of the questions frequently raised around immigration in the United States and provide facts drawn from publicly available data sets and the academic literature.

Most Americans agree that the current U.S. immigration system is flawed. Less clear, however, are the economic facts about immigration—the real effects that new immigrants have on wages, jobs, budgets, and the U.S. economy—facts that are essential to a constructive national debate.

These facts paint a more nuanced portrait of American immigration than is portrayed in today’s debate.

Recent immigrants hail from many more countries than prior immigrants; they carry with them a wide range of skills from new PhDs graduating from American universities to laborers without a high school degree. Most recent immigrants have entered the United States legally, but around 11 million unauthorized immigrants currently live and work in America; the majority of these unauthorized workers settled here more than a decade ago. Each of these immigrant groups affects the U.S. economy in varied ways that should be considered in the current debate around immigration reform.

Immigrants now comprise more than 12 percent of the American population, according to recent estimates, approaching levels not seen since the early 20th century. Today’s controversies over immigration echo arguments made a century ago during the last immigration peak. While the demographics of U.S. immigrants have shifted dramatically, the concerns voiced about the social and economic impacts of immigration strike a familiar chord.

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

I

Introduction continued from page 1

A major economic concern is how immigrants influence the wages and employment prospects of U.S. workers. The economic impacts of immigration vary tremendously, depending on whether immigrants are unskilled agricultural laborers, for example, or highly skilled PhD computer scientists. Although their consequences are often conflated, it is constructive to examine the impacts of low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants independently.

these unauthorized immigrants are from Mexico. (However, unauthorized immigrants make up only about 21 percent of U.S. residents of Mexican heritage.) When possible, we try to differentiate the figures to more closely understand the different effects—positive or negative—that unauthorized workers may have on the economy.

Another point of controversy in today’s debate involves the impact of unauthorized immigrants on our economic wellbeing. The best estimates suggest that 28 percent of the total foreign-born population could be unauthorized.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, roughly 60 percent of

Of course, there are many factors at play and the economic evidence is only one piece of the puzzle. These facts are designed to provide a common ground that all participants in the policy debate can agree on. In the months and years ahead, The Hamilton Project will return to the issue of immigration as we offer policy recommendations on the economic issues facing the United States.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Foreign-Born Population by Legal Status 45

16%

Unaut 40

14%

35

12%

Millions of of People Millions People

a percent of Population ForeignForeign Born Born as aaspercent ofU.S. U.S. Population

U.S. Foreign-Born Population

10% 8% 6% 4%

Legal

28%

30

Legal

25 20

37%

15 10

2% 0%

Natura

31% 5 1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950 1960 Year

1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

4%

0

Year

45

Unauthorized immigrants Source: US Bureau of the Census

40

Millions of People

35

Naturalized citizens Legal permanent resident aliens

28%

30

Legal temporary migrants

25 Source: Passel and Cohn Table 3(2010, p. 2). Estimates from Pew Hispanic Center, based on

20

37%

tabulations from the augmented March 2009 Current Population Survey.

Note: This memo draws on the latest 15 information available including data from the Census, Current Population Survey, Department of Homeland Security, United States Budget, research from the Pew Hispanic Center, and peer reviewed economic studies. Often, these sources do not provide direct, definitive evidence of the legal status of immigrants, making it difficult to distinguish the foreign born population (immigrants) into naturalized citizens, permanent residents, and unauthorized immigrants.

10 In the instances where the data distinguish among the foreign born we refer to naturalized citizens and permanent residents as “legal immigrants” and other immigrants 31% as “unauthorized immigrants.”

5

2

0 Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

4%

1.

Today’s Immigrants Hail From More Diverse Backgrounds Than They Did A Century Ago

America’s immigrants are more diverse than they were a century ago. In 1910, immigrants from Europe and Canada comprised 95 percent of the foreign-born population in the United States. Today’s immigrants hail from a much broader array of countries, including large populations from Latin

American and Asia. Not surprisingly, the single largest home country of today’s immigrants is Mexico. All told, immigrants from Latin American and the Caribbean make up 53 percent of the U.S. foreign-born population.

Figure 3.

Foreign Born by Place of Origin: 1910 Africa (0%)

Asia (2%)

Other (9%) Other Europe (27%) Italy (10%)

Ireland (10%) Germany (18%)

Scandinavia (10%)

Source: IPUMS-USA - Census 1910 1% Extract

Other USSR/ Russia (11%)

Figure 4.

Foreign Born by Place of Origin: 2008-2009 and the Caribbean (15%)

Central America (7%)

Other (3%) Africa (4%)

Europe (13%)

Asia (28%) Mexico (31%)

Source: IPUMS-CPS - 2008-2009 March CPS.

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

3

2.

Immigrants Bring A Diverse Set Of Skills And Educational Backgrounds

Immigrants are both better and worse educated than U.S.-born citizens. At one end of the spectrum, more than 11 percent of foreign-born workers have advanced degrees—slightly above the fraction of Americans with post-college degrees.

Even more striking, more than 1.9 percent of immigrants have PhDs, almost twice the share of U.S.-born citizens with doctorates (1.1 percent).

At the other end of the spectrum, however, immigrants are much more likely than U.S.-born citizens to have less than a high school education. Roughly 30 percent of immigrants lack a high school diploma, nearly four times the figure for U.S.born citizens.

Figure 5.

Education of U.S. Born and Foreign Born 35%

Percentage of Ages 25 to 64

Percentage of Ages 25 to 64

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

U.S. Born Foreign Born Less Than High School Some High School Degree College 11% 30% 27%

Bachelor’s Degree 21%

Master’s or Professional 10%

PhD 1%

HighestHighest Level of Education Attained Level of Education Attained

Source: IPUMS-CPS - 2008-2009 March CPS. Ages 25 to 64. Foreign Born Arriving After 1980.

4

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

Share of Workforce

3.

On Average, Immigrants Improve The Living Standards Of Americans

The most recent academic research suggests that, on average, immigrants raise the overall standard of living of American workers by boosting wages and lowering prices. One reason is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs; instead many immigrants complement the work of U.S. employees and increase their productivity. For example, low-skill immigrant laborers allow U.S.-born farmers, contractors, or craftsmen to expand agricultural production or to build more homes—thereby expanding employment possibilities and incomes for U.S. workers. Another reason is that businesses adjust to new immigrants by opening stores, restaurants, or production facilities to take advantage of the added supply of workers; more workers translate into more business.

Because of these factors, economists have found that immigrants raise average wages slightly for the United States as a whole. As illustrated in the chart below, estimates from opposite ends of the academic literature arrive at this same conclusion, and point to small but positive wage gains of between 0.1 and 0.6 percent for American workers.

But while immigration improves living standards on average, the economic literature is divided about whether immigration reduces wages for some groups of American workers. In particular, some estimates suggest that immigration has reduced the wages of low-skilled workers and college graduates. This research, exemplified by the purple bars in the chart below, implies that immigrant workers may have lowered the wages of low-skilled workers by 4.7 percent and college graduates by 1.7 percent. However, other estimates that examine immigration within a different economic framework (the light blue bars in the chart) find that immigration raises the wages of all U.S. workers—regardless of their level of education.

Immigrants also affect the well-being of U.S. workers by affecting the prices of the goods and services that they purchase. Recent research suggests that immigrant workers enhance the purchasing power of Americans by lowering prices of “immigrant-intensive” services like child care, gardening, and cleaning services. By making these services more affordable and more widely available, immigrant workers benefit U.S. consumers who purchase these services.

Figure 6.

Effect of Immigration on Wages of U.S.-Born Workers 3

PercentPercent Change in Wages Change in Wages

2 1 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 −5 −6

Less than HS

HS Graduates

Some College

College Graduates

All U.S.−Born Workers

8%

31%

30%

32%

Share of workforce

Borjas-Katz (2007) Style Estimate

Ottaviano-Peri (2008)

Note: Ottaviano and Peri (2008), Table 7; March 2008-2009 CPS, U.S. Born Ages 25-64, numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

5

4.

Immigrants Are Not A Net Drain On The Federal Government Budget

Taxes paid by immigrants and their children—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the costs of the services they use. In fact, a 2007 cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office found that a path to legalization for unauthorized immigrants would increase federal revenues by $48 billion but would only incur $23 billion of increased costs from public services, producing a surplus of $25 billion for government coffers.

According to the Social Security Administration Trustees’ report, increases in immigration have also improved Social Security’s finances.

citizens are expensive when they are young because of the costs of investing in children’s education and health. Those expenses, however, are paid back through taxes received over a lifetime of work. The consensus of the economics literature is that the taxes paid by immigrants and their descendants exceed the benefits they receive—that on balance they are a net positive for the federal budget.

However, it is important to recognize that some of these budgetary costs are unequally shared across state and local governments. Education and health services for immigrant children are generally state liabilities and are concentrated in immigrant-heavy states like California, Nevada, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, and Arizona. While the federal government is a winner in terms of tax revenues, these states may be burdened with costs that will only be recouped over a number of years, or, if children move elsewhere within the United States, may never fully be recovered.

Many government expenses related to immigrants are associated with their children. From a budgetary perspective, however, the children of immigrants are just like other American children. The chart below compares the taxes paid and expenditures consumed by the children of immigrants and by the children of U.S.-born citizens over their lifetimes.

Both the immigrant children and children of U.S.-born Figure 7.

Net Taxpayer Benefit or Cost (Thousands of Dollars)

Net Taxpayer Benefit or Cost (Thousands of Dollars)

Net Taxpayer Cost or Benefit by Age $20 $15 $10 $5 $0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

($5,) ($10) ($15) ($20)

Age Age Immigrant Parent Source: IPUMS-CPS - 2005-2009 March CPS; U.S. Census Bureau.

6

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

U.S.-Born Parent

Mexican or Central American Immigrant Parent

5.

Both Immigration Enforcement Funding And The Number Of Unauthorized Immigrants Have Increased Since 2003

The United States has dramatically raised immigration border security and enforcement funding to $17 billion over the past decade in an effort to improve national security, as well as to stem the flow of unauthorized immigrants entering the country. A secure border is required for national security and to enforce legal and customs requirements. As a tool of immigration policy, however, the available evidence suggests that this increased spending is unlikely to have had a major effect on the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. Indeed, the number of unauthorized immigrants continued to rise between 2003 and 2007. The

decrease in unauthorized immigration since 2007 is likely due to the Great Recession.

One reason that increases in border patrol have had modest impacts on the number of unauthorized immigrants is that most arrived before the enhanced security measures were implemented after 2001; according to estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, more than half of unauthorized immigrants arrived here before 2000. In addition, some research suggests that increased security has resulted in unauthorized immigrants staying in the United States longer rather than risking detection by visiting home.

Figure 8.

Immigration Enforcement

$16 11.5

$15 $14

11

$13 10.5

$12 $11

10 November 2007: Begining of Recession

9.5

$10

$ Billions of Enforcement Spending

Unauthorized Immigrant Population Unauthorized Immigrant Population

$17

12

$ Billions of Enforcement Spending

$18

12.5

$9

9

$8 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year Year Unauthorized Immigrant Population

Immigration Enforcement Spending (2009 Dollars)

Sources: Passel and Cohn, Pew Hispanic Center 2010; Hinojosa-Ojeda, CAP (2010)

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

7

6.

Immigrants Do Not Disproportionately Burden U.S. Correctional Facilities And Institutions

Immigrants are institutionalized at substantially lower rates than U.S.-born citizens. Looking at Census data covering correctional facilities and mental hospitals, U.S.-born citizens are more than five times more likely than immigrants to be institutionalized. (One study estimated that as many as

70 percent of the institutionalized population are housed in correctional facilities). This evidence suggests that immigrants impose fewer costs on taxpayers from crime and institutionalization than do U.S.-born citizens.

Figure 9.

Institutionalization by Place of Birth

PercentageInstitutionalized Institutionalized Percentage

2.5%

2%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0% U.S. Born

Foreign Born Place of Origin

Source: IPUMS-USA - Census 2000 5% Extract. Ages 18 to 40.

8

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

7.

Recent Immigrants Reflect America’s Melting Pot

Some groups are concerned that recent immigrants choose not to integrate and assimilate into American social and economic life, in contrast to previous generations of immigrants. The data suggest this is not true. Recent waves of immigrants and their children are integrating into the U.S. economy, just as previous immigrant families did. This is true also for immigrants from Mexico and Central America, where firstgeneration immigrants have tended to concentrate in sectors like construction, food preparation, and agriculture. As seen

in the chart below, the children of these immigrants engage in occupations more closely resembling those of U.S.-born citizens than the occupations of their parents.

Not only do immigrants assimilate into U.S. economic life, but they also integrate in other ways. In addition to being vital to gaining employment, speaking English is a measure of social assimilation into the United States. More than 90 percent of the children of recent immigrants speak English, regardless of their country of origin, according to the U.S. Census.

Figure 10.

Occupations of U.S. Born, First, and Second-Generation Immigrants

Occupation

Percentage of Labor Force

Construction and Extraction Occupations Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations Production Occupations Farming, Fishing and Forestry Occupations Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations Education, Training and Library Occupations Sales and Related Occupations Management Occupations

Source: IPUMS-CPS 2003-2009 March CPS.

Office and Administrative Support Occupations

Ages 25-64 Participating in Labor Force

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percentage of Labor Force Occupation Mexico or Central American Born

U.S. Born; Parents from Mexico or Central American

U.S. Born

Figure 11.

Percent of Children Speaking English Well or Better

Percent of Children Speaking English Well or Better

English Proficiency Among U.S.-Born Children of Immigrants 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

Source: IPUMS-USA - Census 2000 5% Extract.

10%

Sample: Children Ages 6-15

0% Latin America

Europe or Russia

Asia or Middle East

Africa

Region Origin Region of ofOrigin

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

9

8.

The Skill Composition Of U.S. Immigrants Differs From That Of Other Countries

Compared to countries like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, the United States has a greater proportion of lowskilled immigrants. About 30 percent of immigrants in the United States possess a low level of education and only 35 percent possess a high level of education. In Canada, only 22 percent have a low level of education (equivalent to less than high school in the United States) while more than 46 percent have a high level of education (roughly equivalent to an associate’s degree or higher in the United States).

Countries like Canada attract a greater influx of immigrants with higher education levels and specialized skills through immigration policies that specifically favor visa applicants with advanced degrees or work experience. The composition of U.S. immigrants is the result of our immigration policies, which place more emphasis on family relationships and less consideration on skill or education than many other countries when granting permanent residence.

Figure 12.

Educational Attainment of Immigrants Across Countries 50 45

Percentage of of Immigrants Immigrants Percentage

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Canada

New Zealand

United Kingdom

Low Education (Less than High School)

Note: See technical appendix. Source: OECD (2007), Table II.1

10

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

Australia

United States

High Education (Associate’s Degree or Higher)

9.

Immigrants Start New Businesses And File Patents At Higher Rates Than U.S.-Born Citizens

Today’s immigrants possess a strong entrepreneurial spirit.

In fact, immigrants are 30 percent more likely to form new businesses than U.S.-born citizens. Furthermore, evidence shows that foreign-born university graduates are important contributors to U.S. innovation—among people with

advanced degrees, immigrants are three times more likely to file patents than U.S.-born citizens. Such investments in new businesses and in research may provide spillover benefits to U.S.-born workers by enhancing job creation and by increasing innovation among their U.S.-born peers.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Number of Patents Granted per 10,000 Post-College Graduates 1200

400 350

1000

300

Patents Granted Patents Granted

Monthly Business Formation (per 100,000) Monthly Business FormationRate Rate (per 100,000)

Monthly Business Formation by Immigrants and U.S. Born

250 200 150

800

600

400

100

200

50 0

Immigrants

0

U.S. Born

Immigrants

U.S. Born

Source: Fairlie, R.W., “Estimating the Contribution of Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S.

Source: Patents granted over the period 1998-2003. Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle (2003),

Economy,” Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy (Nov 2008)

Table 1

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

11

10.

America Is Issuing A Declining Number Of Visas For High-Skill Workers

With its top-level universities, dynamic business environment, and wide-ranging economic opportunities, the United States has a history of attracting high-skill workers. However, a recent study suggests that this trend may be waning; many of today’s international students either plan to leave the United States or are uncertain about remaining, raising the potential for a

reverse brain‐drain of the skilled workers who contribute to U.S. global competitiveness.

As seen in the graph below, the number of high-skill visas has also declined somewhat since 2000. In 2009, 270,326 visas for high-skill workers were available, down from 301,328 in 2000.

Figure 15.

450

35%

400

30%

350 300

25%

250

20%

200

15%

150

10%

100

5% 0%

50 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total H-1B Visas

0

Number of Highly Skilled Immigrants (1,000s)

Percent of Recent College Graduates

40%

Number of Highly Skilled Immigrants (1,000s)

Percent of Recent College Graduates

High-Skill Immigration

Employment-Based Preference Visas + H-1B Visas Total High Skill Visas as a % of Recent College Graduates

Note: Includes workers seeking legal permanent residence under Employment First (Eb-1), Second (Eb-2) and Third (Eb-3) Preference, new arrivals and adjustments, and H-1B Initial and Continuing Applications. College graduates refers to bachelors degrees, and excludes bachelors conferred to non-resident aliens; Source: DHS (2000-2009), NCES (2009)

Most high-skilled immigrants to the United States come through two programs: Employment-Based Immigrant Visas: Highly-skilled immigrants and their families can obtain permanent legal residence in

the United States by qualifying for one of five “preference categories” that include professionals with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities; professors or researchers; skilled workers, professionals, and needed unskilled workers; immigrant investors; and certain other groups.

H-1B Specialty Occupation Visa Program: This program allows skilled workers in “specialty occupations” to work in the United States temporarily (up to six years if renewed). The H-1B visa requires the worker to have a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific field. In 2009, approximately 86,000 new H-1B applications were approved and 128,000 H-1Bs were renewed.

12

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

Technical Appendix PRIMARY DATA SOURCES:

The primary data sources include the United States Census (U.S. Census), the American Community Survey (ACS) produced by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the Current Population Survey (CPS) which is a survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Datasets were accessed through the Minnesota Population Center’s Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS).

United States Census (U.S. Census) And American Community Survey (ACS):

Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek.

Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010.

Current Population Survey (CPS): Miriam King, Steven

Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Sarah Flood, Katie Genadek, Matthew B. Schroeder, Brandon Trampe, and Rebecca Vick. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database].

Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor], 2010.

INTRODUCTION

There are an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S, constituting 28 percent of total immigration to the U.S. Of these unauthorized immigrants, 60 percent originate from Mexico.

Source: Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade,” Pew Hispanic Center (Sep 2010).

21 Percent of U.S. residents of Mexican heritage are unauthorized.

The DHS estimates 6,650,000 unauthorized Mexican immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2009 (table 3, p. 4). The DHS estimates that the ACS underreports non-immigrants by 10 percent, unauthorized immigrants by 10 percent, and legal permanent residents (LPRs) by 2.5 percent (Appendix 1). Total estimates of undercounting of the foreign born are provided in Table 2, p. 3.

Source: Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina and Bryan Baker, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Data on the number of people of Mexican origin who were granted LPR and asylum and the number of people of Mexican origin who came to the U.S. with non-immigrant status in 2009 are provided in the DHS’ Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 3, p. 12; Table 17, p. 45; Table 26, p. 69.

Source: United States Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics (2010).

To find the denominator, an estimate of the number of total U.S. residents of Mexican heritage was derived from the ACS (2008). The shares of people of Mexican origin for each of these categories were compiled from DHS (2010) and multiplied by the share of undercounting given in DHS (2009) to get an ACS undercount estimate for first-generation Mexican immigrants. This was added to estimates from the ACS on Mexicans and American citizens of Mexican origin.

The DHS estimate of unauthorized Mexicans was divided by the adjusted ACS count of U.S. residents of Mexican origin and heritage.

Figure 1: U.S. Foreign-Born Population Sources: “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign Born Population of the United States 1850-1990,” U.S. Bureau of the Census (Feb 1999).

“QT-P14: Nativity, Citizenship, Year of Entry and Region of Birth,” Census 2000, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

“S0501-Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign Born Populations,” 2008 American Community Survey 1 Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Figure 2: Foreign-Born Population by Legal Status Source: Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade,” Pew Hispanic Center (Sep 2010), Table 3, p. 2.

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

13

1. TODAY’S IMMIGRANTS HAIL FROM MORE DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS THAN THEY DID A CENTURY AGO

Figure 3 and Figure 4: Foreign Born by Place of Origin, 1910 and 2008-2009 Sources: U.S. Census (1910); March CPS (2008 and 2009).

Foreign born U.S. residents excludes individuals born abroad to U.S.-born parents. U.S. born includes all individuals born in the U.S. plus those born abroad to U.S.-born parents.

“Europe” includes Western, Northern, and Eastern Europe as well as the former USSR. “Asia” category includes East, South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East. “Other” includes Canada, Oceania and other outlying countries.

2. IMMIGRANTS BRING A DIVERSE SET OF SKILLS AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS

Figure 5: Education of U.S. Born and Foreign Born Sources: 2008 and 2009 March CPS. The sample includes individuals ages 25 to 64. U.S. born includes all those born in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory). Foreign born includes all individuals born outside the U.S. and who arrived in the U.S. in 1980 or later, regardless of legal status. The workforce is defined as the population of non-institutionalized U.S. residents ages 25-64.

3. ON AVERAGE, IMMIGRANTS IMPROVE THE LIVING STANDARDS OF AMERICANS

Figure 6: Effect of Immigration on Wages of U.S.-Born Workers Source: Estimates from Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, “Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the Theory and the Empirics,” NBER Working Paper No. 14188 (July 2008), Table 7, p. 58.

Increases in immigration have improved Social Security’s finances.

Source: The Board of Trustees, Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds. The 2010 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, U.S. Government Printing Office (2010).

Figure 7: Net Taxpayer Cost or Benefit by Age Sources: March CPS (2005-2009); and U.S. Census Bureau “Public Education Finances” (2008).

Sample includes U.S. born-individuals whose parents are either U.S. born, foreign born, or born in Mexico or Central America. A person is counted as a 2nd Generation immigrant from Mexico or Central America if at least one of their parents is from Central America or Mexico. State and federal expenditures recorded in the CPS and included in the analysis include welfare, SSI, Social Security, the cash value of Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, home energy assistance, survivors’ benefits, disability benefits, and education benefits. Children ages 6 to 18 are assumed to attend public schools at a cost of the average state per pupil expenditure on public schooling. Taxes paid include federal income and payroll taxes, property taxes, and state income taxes as estimated in the CPS. For the purposes of estimating sales taxes, individuals are assumed to spend half of their after-tax income on purchases subject to the state sales tax rate. Certain taxes and government expenditures are unavailable in the CPS data and are excluded from the analysis.

5. BOTH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT FUNDING AND

The U.S. born workforce refers to the share of all noninstitutionalized U.S.-born residents ages 25-64 from the 2008 and 2009 March CPS. Evidence on the effects of immigration on prices is from Patricia Cortes, “The Effect of Low-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Prices: Evidence from CPI Data,” Journal of Political Economy, 116: 3 (2008).

4. IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT A NET DRAIN ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET

A path to legalization for unauthorized immigrants would increase federal revenues by $48 billion but would only incur $23 billion of increased costs from public services, producing a surplus of $25 billion for government coffers.

Source: “Senate Amendment 1150 to S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007,” Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate (June 2007).

14

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

THE NUMBER OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS HAVE INCREASED SINCE 2003

Figure 8: Immigration Enforcement Source: Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade,” Pew Hispanic Center (Sep 2010).

Expenditures for immigration enforcement were compiled from the Department of Homeland Security Budgets in Brief from 2003 and 2009, as quoted in Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, “Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” Center for American Progress, American Immigration Council (Jan 2010), Figure 4, p. 5.

6. IMMIGRANTS DO NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDEN U.S. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS

Figure 9: Institutionalization by Place of Birth Source: Census 2000. The sample was restricted to individuals ages 18 to 40 living in group quarters to focus on individuals living in correctional facilities (rather than institutions housing the elderly and disabled). Although these data do not allow us to differentiate the incarcerated from those housed in other institutions (e.g. institutions for the physically or mentally disabled), we follow Butcher and Piehl (2008) in assuming that most of the institutionalized population is housed in correctional institutions. See Butcher, Kristin F. and Piehl, Ann Morrison, “Why Are Immigrants’ Incarceration Rates So Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation,” NBER Working Paper 13229 (July 2007).

7. RECENT IMMIGRANTS REFLECT AMERICA’S MELTING POT

Figure 10: Occupations of U.S. Born, First and SecondGeneration Immigrants Source: March CPS (2003-2009). Sample includes all individuals ages 25 to 64 in the labor force. U.S. born includes all individuals born in the U.S. or to U.S.-born parents living abroad. First generation immigrants from Mexican or Central American refers to all those born in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, or El Salvador to non-U.S. born-parents in the labor force. Second generation immigrants from Mexico and Central American refers to all U.S.-born individuals with at least one parent from Mexico or Central America.

Occupational categories were derived from the IPUMS Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).

Figure 11: English Proficiency Among U.S.-Born Children of Immigrants Source: Census 2000. Sample includes individuals ages 6 and 15 with at least one parent born abroad. When the child had two parents born abroad from different regions, the mother’s country of birth was used. The fraction speaking English includes individuals who report that they “only speak English,” “speak English very well,” or “speak English well.”

8. THE SKILL COMPOSITION OF U.S. IMMIGRANTS DIFFERS FROM THAT OF OTHER COUNTRIES

Figure 12: Educational Attainment of Immigrants Across Countries Source: International Migration Outlook: Annual Report 2007 Edition, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2007), Table II.1, p. 133. Data refer to population ages 15-64 for Australia, and 25-64 for all other countries. Reference years are 2001 for Canada

and New Zealand, and 2003-2004 for other countries. Low education and college education levels are defined based upon UNESCO’s International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). Low education corresponds to individuals having completed ISCED 0/1/2 and high education corresponds to individuals having completed ISCED 5/6.

9. IMMIGRANTS START NEW BUSINESSES AND FILE PATENTS AT HIGHER RATES THAN U.S.-BORN CITIZENS

Figure 13: Monthly Business Formation by Immigrants and U.S. Born Source: Robert Fairlie, “Estimating the Contribution of Immigrant Business Owners to the U.S. Economy,” Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy (Nov 2008), Table 7, p. 19.

Figure 14: Number of Patents Granted per 10,000 PostCollege Graduates Source: Hunt, J. and M. Gauthier-Loiselle, “How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation,” Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Discussion Paper No 3921 (2009), Table 1, p.

33. Patent data come from the National Survey of College Graduates and refer to patents granted in the period from October 1998 to 2003.

10. AMERICA IS ISSUING A DECLINING NUMBER OF VISAS FOR HIGH-SKILL WORKERS

Many of today’s international students either plan to leave the United States or are uncertain about remaining Source: Vivek Wadhwa, Guillermina Jasso, Ben Rissing, Gary Gereffi and Richard Freeman, “Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain: America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part III,” Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University, New York University, Harvard Law School, Kauffman Foundation (August 2007). According to the New Immigrant Survey 21.7 percent of new legal immigrants and 34.5 percent of employment principals either plan to leave the United States or are uncertain about remaining.

Figure 15: High-Skill Immigration Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics (2010), Table 6, pp. 18-19. “Employment Based preference immigration” refers to individuals granted LPR under First (EB-1), Second (EB-2) and Third (EB-3) preferences. Data on H-1B visas include initial and continuing applications as reported in “Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B),” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Fiscal Years 2000-2009.

The Hamilton Project • Brookings

15

The number of recent college graduates is the total number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in the reference year minus bachelor’s degrees awarded to non-resident aliens. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), “Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred” surveys, 1976-77 and 1980-81; and 1989-90 through 2007-08 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, “Completions Survey” (IPEDS-C:90-99), and Fall 2000 through Fall 2008 (Table prepared June 2009), Table 285, “Bachelor’s degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976-77 through 2007-08.”

16

Ten Economic Facts About Immigration

Advisory Council George A. Akerlof Koshland Professor of Economics University of California at Berkeley

Roland Fryer Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics Harvard University and CEO, EdLabs

Peter Orszag Distinguished Visiting Fellow Council on Foreign Relations

Roger C. Altman Founder & Chairman Evercore Partners

Mark Gallogly Managing Principal Centerbridge Partners

Richard Perry Chief Executive Officer Perry Capital

Howard P. Berkowitz Managing Director BlackRock

Ted Gayer Senior Fellow & Co-Director of Economic Studies The Brookings Institution

Penny Pritzker Chairman of the Board TransUnion

Alan S. Blinder Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics & Public Affairs Princeton University Timothy C. Collins Senior Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer Ripplewood Holding, LLC Robert Cumby Professor of Economics Georgetown University John Deutch Institute Professor Massachusetts Institute of Technology Karen Dynan Vice President & Co-Director of Economic Studies Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution Christopher Edley, Jr. Dean and Professor, Boalt School of Law University of California, Berkeley Meeghan Prunty Edelstein Senior Advisor The Hamilton Project Blair W. Effron Founding Partner Centerview Partners LLC Judy Feder Professor of Public Policy Georgetown University Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

Richard Gephardt President & Chief Executive Officer Gephardt Government Affairs Michael D. Granoff Chief Executive Officer Pomona Capital Robert Greenstein Executive Director Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Robert Reischauer President The Urban Institute Alice Rivlin Senior Fellow & Director Greater Washington Research at Brookings Professor of Public Policy Georgetown University Robert E. Rubin Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations Former U.S. Treasury Secretary

Chuck Hagel Distinguished Professor Georgetown University Former U.S. Senator

David Rubenstein Co-Founder & Managing Director The Carlyle Group

Glenn H. Hutchins Co-Founder and Co-Chief Executive Silver Lake

Leslie B. Samuels Partner Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Jim Johnson Vice Chairman Perseus LLC

Ralph L. Schlosstein President & Chief Executive Officer Evercore Partners

Lawrence Katz Elisabeth Allen Professor of Economics Harvard University

Eric Schmidt Chairman & CEO Google Inc.

Mark McKinnon Vice Chairman Public Strategies, Inc.

Eric Schwartz 76 West Holdings

Eric Mindich Chief Executive Officer Eton Park Capital Management Suzanne Nora Johnson Former Vice Chairman Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Thomas F. Steyer Co-Senior Managing Member Farallon Capital Management Laura D’Andrea Tyson S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management, Haas School of Business University of California, Berkeley Michael Greenstone Director

Figure 1.

U.S. Foreign-Born Population

14% 12% 10% 8% Source: US Bureau of the Census

Foreign Born as a percent of U.S. Population

Foreign Born as a percent of U.S. Population

16%

6% 4% 2% 0%

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950 1960 Year Year

1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

Economic Facts:

6.

Immigrants Do Not Disproportionately Burden U.S. Correctional Facilities And Institutions

Bring A Diverse Set Of Skills 2. Immigrants And Educational Backgrounds

7.

Recent Immigrants Reflect America’s Melting Pot

Average, Immigrants Improve 3. On The Living Standards Of Americans

8.

The Skill Composition Of U.S. Immigrants Differs From That Of Other Countries

Are Not A Net Drain On 4. Immigrants The Federal Government Budget

9.

Immigrants Start New Businesses And File Patents At Higher Rates Than U.S.-Born Citizens

1.

Today’s Immigrants Hail From More Diverse Backgrounds Than They Did A Century Ago

Immigration Enforcement Funding 5. Both And The Number Of Unauthorized Immigrants Have Increased Since 2003

Is Issuing A Declining 10. America Number Of Visas For High-Skill Workers

1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 797-6279

Printed on recycled paper.

w w w. H A M I LT O N P R O J E C T. O R G w w w. H A M I LT O N P R O J E C T. O R G

Attachment C

The Economic Impact of Immigration

Page 51 of 55

A Civitas Online Report

The Economic Impact of Immigration Professor Robert Rowthorn, Economics Faculty, University of Cambridge

April 2004

The Economic Impact of Immigration1

Immigration is a difficult subject. It raises hard moral choices about whom should we let into the country; how long should we let them stay; by what means should we control entry, indeed, are we morally justified in seeking to regulate entry in the first place? In the modern world, regulating entry means deporting or otherwise excluding people whose only reason for wanting to be here is to earn an honest living. Moreover, hostility to such people is stoked up by sections of the press that exploit abuses of the welfare system to demonize whole categories of immigrant, such as asylum seekers. Faced with these unpleasant realities, many liberals respond by arguing that immigration is to our economic benefit.

Instead of fearing immigration, the British people should welcome even more of it than we have at present. Immigration, they argue, helps to offset the ageing of our population caused by lower birth rates and the fact that people are living longer. It means lower taxes for the existing population because immigrants pay more taxes than they receive in government expenditure. Immigrants will do the jobs that locals will not do and allow economic growth to continue that would otherwise be brought to a standstill by labour shortage. Moreover, local workers should not be afraid because immigrants pose no threat to their jobs or their wages.

I understand why liberals respond in this way. Indeed, I find the whole system of immigration controls unpleasant and I share many of their moral concerns. But I think their economic arguments are either wrong or misleading.

It is true that certain types of immigration, such as that of highly skilled professionals or dynamic entrepreneurs are to our economic advantage and may help to create extra jobs for the less skilled sections of our society.

However, this is only one type of immigration. Many immigrants, especially those from poorer countries, have a low educational 1

An updated version of a lecture delivered at an IntelligenceSquared debate in January 2004.

2

level and are more likely to be unemployed or economically inactive than the domestic population. And if unskilled immigrants do get jobs it may be the expense of existing workers. Large-scale immigration of unskilled people may be beneficial for urban elites who enjoy the benefits of cheap servants, restaurants and the like, but it is not to the economic advantage of those who have to compete with these immigrants. Moreover, unskilled, unemployed or economically inactive immigrants may be a significant tax burden on the local population, especially if they settle permanently and require public support and care in old age.

These are not just my views. They are very similar to those expressed by Professor Mark Kleinman in a survey that he wrote for a book recently produced by Heaven Crawley’s outfit, the Institute for Public Policy Research.2 His argues that some forms of immigration are beneficial to the local population, whilst others are costly. But taken as a whole these effects mostly cancel out.

He concludes that “The economic impact of migration on the UK is positive but not very large. Hence the argument for immigration restriction on the basis of ‘unsupportable’ economic costs is wrong. But at the same time, there is not a compelling long-term case for increased immigration purely in terms of economic benefits”. In general, I agree with this assessment, although I would question his conclusion the overall economic impact of immigration is small but positive. In my view it is small but negative. I also believe that large-scale immigration of unskilled workers would be more harmful to unskilled workers in this country than Kleinman allows. However, these are minor differences.

Kleinman also questions the need for a major expansion in temporary work-permits for unskilled migrant workers. He argues 2

Mark Kleinman, “The Economic Impact of Labour Migration” in Sarah Spencer, The Politics of Migration: Managing Opportunity, Conflict and Change, London, Institute for Public Policy Research, 2003.

3

that such ‘guest-worker’ schemes will inevitably turn into permanent migration. There is already a large pool of unemployed and inactive workers in this country who could perform such jobs.

Our first priority should be to employ these people. I agree with this view.

The reason for citing Kleinman at length is that the IPPR is a highly influential think-tank which is represented here tonight by Heaven Crawley, who is arguing that Britain needs even more immigration than there is at present. It is striking that an economist commissioned by the IPPR to write a survey on the subject does not believe that there is an economic need for large scale immigration and is critical of the government policy to expand greatly the number of work permits.

I shall consider the impact of immigration can be considered under four headings: • • • •

Unemployment and Wages Government Finances Ageing Population

Unemployment and Wages A report by Christian Dustmann and others for the Home Office is often cited as evidence that immigration does not harm local workers. In fact, the conclusions of this report are inconclusive3.

The authors find that immigration leads to lower employment for local workers but also to higher money wages for those workers who keep their jobs. The finding that immigration leads to higher money wages is at first sight surprising, but in fact it makes sense in the British context. The inflow of immigrants into an area may 33

Christian Dustmann, Francesca Fabbri, Ian Preston, Jonathan Wadsworth, "The local labour market effects of immigration in the UK", Home Office Online Report 06/03. Tables 4.1 and 5.1.

4

increase the demand for housing and push up the cost of living. To compensate their workforce many employers are likely to raise money wages. If the resulting increase in wages is less than the original increase in the cost of living, local workers will be worse off even though they are being paid more. Thus, the finding that immigration leads to higher money wages is plausible, but it is not conclusive proof that immigration is to the benefit of local workers.

Dustmann and his colleagues point out that their estimates are unreliable, because they are subject to such a large margin of error.

In the language of econometrics, these estimates are not statistically significant. This is not surprising, given the limitations in the data they are using. To find firmer evidence we must look to other countries. Dustmann and his colleagues cite a number of studies that suggest that immigration in other countries has had a small negative effect on the local workforce. More recent evidence suggests that this effect may be quite large.

In a large study completed about eighteen months ago, the eminent migration economist George Borjas from Harvard University estimates that immigration into the United States has led to unemployment amongst native high school dropouts and reduced their weekly earnings by around 20 percent4. An article in the June 2003 issue of the Economic Journal, covering the countries of the European Union, claims that on average the addition of 100 immigrants to the labour force leads eventually to the loss of 83 jobs for local workers5. This estimate seems implausibly high, although the evidence provided in the article does support the view that immigration reduces employment opportunities for local 4

George J. Borjas, The Labour Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market, Harvard University, November 2002, mimeo, p. 32. For an opposing view see James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, editors, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1997 5 J. D. Angrist and A. D. Kugler, “Protective or Counter-Productive? Labour Market Institutions and the Effect of Immigration on EU Natives�, Economic Journal, vol. 113, no. 488, June 2003, p. F332.

5

workers. The effect is greatest in countries where local workers enjoy the most job protection. In such countries, employers cannot easily sack existing workers, but when filling new jobs they will choose immigrants, because they are easier to sack than native workers.

The authors conclude that more labour-market “flexibility� would reduce unemployment amongst local workers.

If employers could easily dismiss local workers they would have no reason to prefer immigrants. Thus, immigration leads to either unemployment or greater job insecurity for local workers. Either way, they lose and the employers gain. This, at least, is what the article implies.

The conclusion I draw from this literature is that large scale immigration of unskilled labour does harm the local workers who compete with them, possibly by a large amount. Moreover, the workers who are harmed are not simply those in the locality where the immigrants arrive. They may also be located in other parts of the country. For example, an unskilled worker living in Clydeside may not move South in search of work, because jobs in the South have been filled by immigrants or housing costs have been pushed up and wages down by immigration. It is the conventional wisdom that such knock on effects of immigration are negligible.

However, a very recent study by Tim Hatton and Massimiliano Tani finds that foreign immigration into the South of Britain has led to significantly reduced migration into the South from elsewhere in the country6. If their finding is correct, we should not expect to see the harmful effects of immigration to show up only in the South. They will also show up in the depressed areas of Scotland, the North of England and other places which have a surplus of labour that is deterred from moving South by competition from foreign migrants.

6

T. Hatton and Tani, M., Immigration and Inter-Regional Mobility in the UK, 1982-2000, CEPR Working Paper, DP4061.

6

It is often said that immigrants are needed to do the jobs that locals will not do. This may be true in a few cases, but in general it is false. In most parts of the country there are relatively few unskilled immigrants and it is the locals who do most of the jobs which British workers supposedly will not do. The problem in the end boils down to wages and conditions. When employers in the South of the country say that they cannot get workers to perform menial tasks, what they often mean is that local workers will not accept, or stay in, jobs at the kind of wages and conditions that they are offering. In this case, the problem is not an absolute shortage of labour, but a shortage of cheap labour. The most effective way to raise the wages of low paid workers is to maintain an artificial shortage of labour so that employers have no option but to pay more. This is inconsistent with the mass importation of cheap labour from abroad.

Government Finances When she was at the Home Office Barbara Roche, who is speaking here tonight, commissioned a report on the fiscal impact of immigration by Ceri Gott and Karl Johnston7.

They estimated that in the fiscal year 1999/2000 Britain’s 5 million migrants paid in aggregate £2.5 billion more in taxes than they received in government expenditure. This estimate is widely used to prove that the domestic population benefits from large-scale immigration and that we should want even more of it. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. As the authors themselves point out, there are many conceptual and practical difficulties in determining what the net fiscal contribution of the immigrant population is to the rest of the society. Depending on how it is measured, it can be made to look either positive or negative. The authors obtain a positive number, but using the information provided in their own

7

Ceri Gott and Karl Johnston, (2002), The Migrant Population in the UK: Fiscal Effects, RDS

7

appendices together with other plausible adjustments one can easily make this negative.

• Unusual year. The estimate refers to 1999/2000. That was a year when the government had a fiscal surplus and even the non-immigrant population paid more taxes than they received in government expenditure. A correction for this would knock £1.3 billion off the estimate8.

• Corporation tax.

Part of the tax revenue imputed to immigrants is in fact corporation tax paid by shareholders resident abroad. A correction for this would knock off another £ 0.8 billion9.

When these two corrections are made, the net contribution of £2.5 billion by immigrants shrinks to a mere £0.4 billion in a normal year10. But this is not the end of the story. Any assessment of the fiscal contribution of migrants should take into account the cost of administering the immigration programme and providing for the special needs of immigrants. For example, in the fiscal year 1999/2000, government expenditure on “immigration and citizenship” was £797 million and two years later it had risen to £1631 million11. There are also the tax revenues which are lost and the welfare expenditures incurred if competition from immigrants leads to job losses or lower wages amongst local workers. The conventional wisdom in liberal circles is that such job losses are negligible, but as I have argued above this may be wrong. There is also congestion to consider. Immigration is contributing to a rapid growth of population in the Southern England, and the resulting 8

In 1999/00 there was an overall budget surplus of £15.3 billion. Allocating this total according to their share in population yields £1.3 billion for migrants (8.4% of the total) and £14.0 billion for non-migrants.

9 In 1999/00 the total mount of corporation tax was £34.3 billion. Gott and Johnson (p. 31) imply that at least 28% (= £ 9.6 billion) of this was indirectly a tax on overseas shareholders and should not be included as part of the tax paid by UK residents. Allocating this total according to their share in the population yields £0.8 billion for migrants (8.4% of the total) and £8.8 billion for non-migrants.

10 Note that Gott & Johnson discuss both of these corrections in the course of their paper, but ignore them in their final conclusions.

11 Table 3.6 in 'Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2002-2003, HMSO.

8

congestion both hampers production and is costly to manage.

Although difficult to measure this must be harmful to government finances.

On the positive side of the balance sheet, we could make the picture more favourable to immigrants by using a different convention for allocating certain central government expenditures such as defence. We could also take into account the fact that the immigration of skilled workers or entrepreneurs may create new or better paid jobs for local workers, thereby increasing the ability of the latter to pay taxes and reducing their dependence on welfare benefits. However, it is difficult to believe that these positive adjustments would offset the long list of negative adjustments given above. I conclude that the widely cited figure of ÂŁ2.5 billion for the net fiscal contribution of immigrants is too big and the true figure could well be negative, though probably not by very much.

Even if we accept the figure of ÂŁ2.5 billion at face value, this should be seen in perspective. It is equivalent to 0.3% of GDP, 0.4 % of individual consumption or 0.8% of total government expenditure. These are not very large amounts. Given the uncertainties involved and the small size of any likely estimate, the only thing we can really say is that past immigration into this country has not in aggregate led to a significant fiscal burden on the rest of society, nor has it provided a significant surplus. It has been broadly neutral.

This is also the conclusion which most studies in other countries reach. When all types of migrant are included, immigration normally has only a minor fiscal effect. Skilled migrants, who come disproportionately, though not exclusively, from other developed countries, typically make a large positive contribution, whereas other migrants, who come mainly from less developed countries, cost more on average in terms of government 9

expenditure than they pay in taxes. In most countries, the fiscal surplus of skilled migrants roughly offsets the fiscal deficit of other migrants, so the net impact of migrants as a whole on the government’s fiscal balance is roughly zero.

The implications of this for public policy are open to debate.

Perhaps we should take more skilled immigrants and fewer other types of migrant? This is what many migration economists suggest, but personally I have moral qualms. Many of the extra skilled workers would come from less developed countries which need them more than we do. There has already been an outcry about us recruiting medical staff from poorer countries. Should we step up this type of policy with a view to improving the government’s fiscal balance? Surely not!

Ageing We are often told that Britain is ageing and we need to import young people to support us in old age - “To pay for our pensions” as it is often said.

To the extent that individuals have private or fully funded government pensions this is nonsense. Such pension funds can invest their money abroad where the financial return is unaffected by the state of the labour market in this country. The same is true of health treatment in cases where this financed from the returns on private investment.

If health and pensions are financed by taxation it is theoretically correct that we could bring in young immigrants to work here and pay some of the taxes needed to support us. Moreover, given their cultural background, many of these immigrants would have relatively large families, and as the immigrant children grew up they would also start paying taxes. Unfortunately, this argument ignores two things. Like the rest of us, immigrants get old and if they remain in the country they will require support just like we 10

do. In addition, the fertility of immigrants normally converges to that of the host society after a couple of generations. Certain types of immigrant may have large families now, but most of their descendents will not do so in the future. As this cohort ages and their children begin to behave like the local population, a new wave of immigrants will be required to keep the country young.

As the rejuvenating effect of this wave of immigration fades, yet another wave of immigrants will be required, and so on ad infinitum. A country seeking to retain its youth through immigration is like the 16th century Princess Elizabeth Bartory of Transylvania, who sought to keep herself young by bathing in the blood of young maidens. Each bath appeared to restore her youth for a time, but the effect would soon wear off and she would then require another bath, and then another bath, and so on ad infinitum.

Moreover, the scale of permanent immigration required to keep the population young is truly massive and will eventually lead to a totally unsustainable explosion in national population. Permanent immigration on any feasible scale has only a marginal long-run effect on the age structure of a country.

Projections by the Government Actuary’s Department indicate that ageing of the British population will lead to a sharp fall in the potential support ratio (aged 16-64/aged 65+) over the next thirty years, after which it will stabilise at a much lower level than at present12. Projections also show the implications of different levels of immigration. The striking thing is how little difference they make to the potential support ratio. There is hardly any difference at all between the high and low migration scenarios.

High migration means a slightly higher ratio of 16-64 year olds to the over 65s, but the difference is very small. Moreover, the potential support ratio is rather misleading. What matters is the actual support ratio. This ratio measures how may people there are in employment to support each person without as job. This 12

C. Shaw , “United Kingdom Population Trends in the 21st Century�, Population Trends, no 103, Spring 2001.

11

depends not just on the age structure, but also on the proportion of people in each age group who are employed. Permanent immigrants, especially the less skilled, are on average less likely to have a job than the existing population. When this is taken into account, it seems likely that the slight rejuvenating effect of increased permanent immigration could be more than cancelled out by the higher than average propensity of permanent immigrants to be workless. As a result, the actual support ratio might even get worse.

One way that immigration can significantly affect the age structure of a country is through the use of temporary migrants. Such workers come into a country when they are young, pay their taxes and leave before they become old enough to become a fiscal burden. However, temporary worker programmes are difficult to run, especially in a democracy where there are justified qualms about the morality of forcing people to leave after many years here.

Permanent immigration means a bigger population than would otherwise be the case, but on any feasible scale it has only a minor effect on long-run age structure. A large scale programme of temporary migration is not feasible for moral and political reasons.

We must learn to accept ageing and manage it.

Population It is often said that we need a bigger population to support a bigger home market, or a bigger military machine. The size of the home market is irrelevant in a trading economy like ours. If our firms do not have enough consumers at home they can export what they produce. Indeed, most of them do this on a large scale already. The military advantage to us of a larger population is marginal. We will never be more than a minor military power – what matters is quality not quantity. Our safety depends more on the alliances we forge than on the size of our population.

12

What about population growth? Is this economically desirable?

Does population growth lead to a faster growth in per capita income?

The empirical evidence suggests not. There is no statistical correlation between growth in per capita income and population in advanced countries, and the relationship is negative in poorer countries.

What about population decline? Are we facing the prospect of population collapse as some other countries are allegedly facing?

The answer is no. The Government Actuary’s Department has made long-range projections of the UK population. These suggest that in the complete absence of immigration, the population of this country would shrink from 60 million at present to around 49 million in 207013. This gentle decline would take us back to the population this country had in 1950 and a full 10 million more than in 1900.

Most people would probably welcome such a development on environmental grounds.

Conclusion We cannot rely on mass immigration to solve the problems arising from ageing of the population and alleged labour shortages. Mass immigration is not an effective solution to these problems. To the extent that they are real, such problems can only be effectively tackled by mobilizing the under-utilized talents and energies of the existing population. This does not mean that there is no economic benefit at all from immigration. It will always be in our collective interest to admit skilled and talented people. But this is happening already. We also admit a large number of other migrants, such as spouses and asylum seekers. People who say that this country needs more immigration really mean that we should encourage the mass immigration of unskilled workers. This would be of negligible benefit to the local population as a whole. It would also 13

The Government Actuary's Department 2000-based 'natural change' variant projection which gives 48.9 million for the UK in 2070 (website).

13

harm the weaker sections of our society who would have to compete with such immigrants - including the more disadvantaged members of our existing ethnic minorities.

14

Page 52 of 55

Notes ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

Page 53 of 55

Notes ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

Page 54 of 55

Page 55 of 55