Shifting immigration debate

America has always been a nation of immigrants, and immigration has always been a contentious political and social issue. Those who believe immigration should be curtailed marshall evidence that its economic and social costs outweigh the benefits; those who support more immigration present evidence

A tight labor market, especially for workers with high-tech skills, is the single most important factor limiting the economy's future growth. Yet of the 660,000 foreigners the US accepted as permanent residents in 1998, only 14,000 came in exclusively because they were skilled or educated. Changes in policy are needed.

Proposals before Congress would lift the annual cap on temporary work visas for foreign professionals from 115,000 to 195,000 through 2002 (and create a new visa category for foreigners who earn science and engineering degrees at US universities). But most analysts agree this isn't enough (after all, this year's visa quota will probably be reached by the time you read this). Some have suggested eliminating the caps altogether; others are advocating a complete overhaul of immigration policy.

The Context

In the early part of the 20th century, immigrants comprised 15% of the total national population, versus 10% today. But immigration has never been higher in absolute numbers (over 35 million in the past 20 years and still over 1 million per year), nor as a percentage of population growth (accounting for about 40%). Also, by changing the basis of immigration from national origin to family reunification, the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 have directed immigration away from Europe and almost totally toward Mexico, Central and South America, and Asia. The law also effectively favors unskilled over skilled immigrants.

Assimilation and acculturation are still the rule among immigrant populations, with the more educated and skilled adapting the fastest. Since a large and growing majority share of these millions of new immigrants are now less skilled and educated, however, there is concern that the process of assimilation could be overwhelmed. According to Peter Salinas, author of Assimilation American Style (1997), the contemporary politics of multiculturalism also work against the traditional process of adaptation among immigrants.

A 1999 study by Gregory Rodriguez of the Pepperdine Institute for Public Policy, "From Newcomers to Americans: The Successful Integration of Immigrants Into American Society," shows that immigrants have high rates of homeownership; are marrying outside their own group at high rates; and are becoming citizens in record numbers (albeit not in percentage terms - 30% today vs. 58% in 1970). Within 10 to 15 years, Rodriguez finds, immigrants typically speak English well and have caught up to the earnings levels of American-born workers.

Not so sanguine is George Borjas of Harvard University's John F Kennedy School of Government, author of Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (1999). Borjas finds that immigrants' average levels of education, skills, earnings and English proficiency have been declining with every new wave since 1965. This has led to higher levels of unemployment, poverty and welfare dependency among immigrant populations than among the native-born.

Who is right? Both are, of course. The National Academy of Sciences recently concluded that immigration benefits the economy overall: immigrants contribute a net $10 billion to the economy each year, and on average, each pay $1,800 more in taxes every year than are received in government benefits. But a National Research Council study shows wide discrepancies in this taxes paid/benefits received equation, corresponding to education level: immigrants without a high school diploma cost America an average of $89,000 over a lifetime; those with a high school education cost the nation an average of $31,000 over a lifetime; but immigrants with more than a high school education provide an average net gain to America of $105,000 over a lifetime.

This is a common theme in research findings on immigration: overall benefits over time, but concentrated and short-term costs. For example, took at the #1 immigrant destination state, California. Highly educated immigrants are a significant part of the state's new, entrepreneurial, high-tech economy; yet poorly educated immigrants cost the state billions of dollars a year in the provision of services (including schools, health care, welfare and criminal justice). According to RAND, there's a growing divergence between an increasingly skill-based California economy and immigration policies that produce a steady inflow of poorly educated immigrants. But according to the Center for US-Mexican Studies at UC San Diego, unskilled labor is structurally embedded into the California economy, where immigrants have largely replaced US-born workers in a large stratum Of occupations, from electronics assembler to gardener to domestic worker.

Implications

The choice facing the United States is not between open borders and a complete cessation of immigration - it is a question 'of how many immigrants, of what type, and from where. We wrote 5 years ago (issue #821, 5/22/95) that a common sense immigration policy would:

favor those with skills and abilities;

restrict family reunification to the immediate family only;

establish a point system for everyone else (awarded for such attributes as education, work and language skills, financial wherewithal, etc.);

require sponsors to support dependent family members for their lifetimes.

These parameters still apply. James Edwards, co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform (1998), writes that a new immigration system like this would serve the nation well. Growing economic sectors would get the qualified workers they'll need in the 21st century. Eliminating temporary worker visas would also prevent high-tech companies from relying on a steady stream of cheaper, short-term foreign workers while discriminating against more expensive American workers.

As the Wall Street Joumal recently noted: "This is a country with a work force of 139 million and the tightest job market in three decades. Allowing the world's most magnetic immigrant nation to run low on immigrant workers at a time when the economy is on tenterhooks seems a little foolish."