I can't decide whether to laugh or cry when I read all the heartfelt sympathy for low-wage workers in the US. Where are the demands to actually do something to assist them? Nowhere. And the Boy Scout salutes while our noble citizens obey the law. Driven down an Interstate lately? Speed limit, what speed limit? Today's special sauce -- manufacturing jobs that "evolved" into well-paid union jobs. Seen the famous picture, professor, of the Ford thugs beating up union organizers in the Battle of the Overpass at the River Rouge plant? I guess not.
8
I live in San Diego, our Southern City Limit is the Mexican Border. We have the busiest border crossing in the world as part of our city. We live with the immigration issue every day. As Mr. Borjas points out this is not a simple issue:
Most of the immigrants in San Diego, legal or not, are hard working community members who make our city a vibrant, exciting place to live. There are some criminals, and just like an obnoxious house guest, these people should be thrown out.
A lot of the problem with our immigration system rests with us. We KNOW there are millions of undocumented people in our cities. We CHOOSE to look the other way because we like the prices we get at our local restaurants, having our lawn mowed, houses built, child care, on and on.
If we truly want to change and improve our immigration system, there is a critical first step: LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
Most of the immigrants in San Diego, legal or not, are hard working community members who make our city a vibrant, exciting place to live. There are some criminals, and just like an obnoxious house guest, these people should be thrown out.
A lot of the problem with our immigration system rests with us. We KNOW there are millions of undocumented people in our cities. We CHOOSE to look the other way because we like the prices we get at our local restaurants, having our lawn mowed, houses built, child care, on and on.
If we truly want to change and improve our immigration system, there is a critical first step: LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
28
The Immigration Debate We Need
Here is a starter - if you are not here legally, GO HOME!
Here is a starter - if you are not here legally, GO HOME!
31
WARNING:
No matter how much this regime argues to the contrary, they are lying:
Mass deportations are imminent.
They are starting to happen. Don't believe a word they say.
No matter how much this regime argues to the contrary, they are lying:
Mass deportations are imminent.
They are starting to happen. Don't believe a word they say.
6
Fighting immigration is like fighting the tide. Futile. Unless we want to turn into a Nazi-state. Sadly, it seems many of us do. I am becoming petrified and my country is becoming unrecognizable.
4
Yes basics of demand & supply means if qualified Americans are available they will easily get hired. H1B fees are so steep that no sane manager would shell that out unless absolutely necessary. Many companies prohibit hiring foreigners on H1B precisely because of that. Yes abuses like Disney do happen but implying that's the whole picture & not an exception is a needless lie that distorts the debate. Bottomline, outside of obvious abuses it's already very hard to hire H1's so you & your cohorts relentless attack on immigrants of all stripes is just bigotry notwithstanding your own history. After all, you are no different that many immigrants before you who came in & wanted to promptly shut the door behind you.
7
I think we need to dispense with the fiction that you either sign on with the "America First" proposal raft or you are implicitly rooting against America. Are you kidding? Trump's version of "America First" isn't simply "help Americans before you help others," it's an excuse for doing everything from abrogating treaty responsibilities (by turning away refugees), to backing off of security obligations (i.e. NATO), to rushing the deportations of those 11 million illegal-but-mostly-benign immigrants.
Sure, I think America should care for America first. But I don't believe in relinquishing a leading role on the international stage or creating deportation forces or a farcical wall. I am not Trump's "America First," but I definitely root for America. Please dispense with the nonsensical idea that it is either one or the other.
Sure, I think America should care for America first. But I don't believe in relinquishing a leading role on the international stage or creating deportation forces or a farcical wall. I am not Trump's "America First," but I definitely root for America. Please dispense with the nonsensical idea that it is either one or the other.
19
The author states that Mr. Trump made the statement quoted in the last paragraph of this article when he spoke at the Republican National Convention. His history of pre-election words don't always match up accurately with his post-election statements. He changes his mind, a serious problem for immigrants.
We're in this mess because Congress has been unwilling to come to grips with the issue of Immigration. It was too tough, they could lose their seats.
We need immigrants. We need a plan to assimilate them. We need a plan to register, as in a census, every illegal or undocumented person now living here. The criminals won't show up for registration, I assume. If apprehended, they're immediately deported - as it stands now. But we have to think of a system by which decent, law-abiding illegal immigrants can register and be phased in on a path to citizenship. There might be a 5 year plan for families with children now in school, a 10 year plan for individuals who came here alone and who may have a job. Whatever imagination it takes to reduce the amount of suffering while at the same time making it known that the doors cannot be wide open, that's the job we need to do. In the meantime, numbers of immigrants should probably be reduced for a time. The entire project make take years, but it could establish a credible order. This is only an idea.
Immigrants come here looking for a better life, having no idea how difficult it is. They need our support. We need them.
We're in this mess because Congress has been unwilling to come to grips with the issue of Immigration. It was too tough, they could lose their seats.
We need immigrants. We need a plan to assimilate them. We need a plan to register, as in a census, every illegal or undocumented person now living here. The criminals won't show up for registration, I assume. If apprehended, they're immediately deported - as it stands now. But we have to think of a system by which decent, law-abiding illegal immigrants can register and be phased in on a path to citizenship. There might be a 5 year plan for families with children now in school, a 10 year plan for individuals who came here alone and who may have a job. Whatever imagination it takes to reduce the amount of suffering while at the same time making it known that the doors cannot be wide open, that's the job we need to do. In the meantime, numbers of immigrants should probably be reduced for a time. The entire project make take years, but it could establish a credible order. This is only an idea.
Immigrants come here looking for a better life, having no idea how difficult it is. They need our support. We need them.
12
You must be kidding? Trump guiding a more rational approach to immigration? Nothing rational about that egoist! And highlighting Trump's preposterous claim that he will be considerate and compassionate... Nuts!
Any consideration of immigration that avoids the moral obligations of Americans to deal the consequences of their rape and pollution of the world and over-consumption of its resources is doomed to failure. This is not 1960. The population of the world is headed for 10 billion. America has more than tripled in population in my lifetime.
America already has the greatest military the world has ever seen, and sits firmly atop the nukes table. Yet he wants to increase the military and the nukes? To take care of would-be refugees at source?
Any consideration of immigration that avoids the moral obligations of Americans to deal the consequences of their rape and pollution of the world and over-consumption of its resources is doomed to failure. This is not 1960. The population of the world is headed for 10 billion. America has more than tripled in population in my lifetime.
America already has the greatest military the world has ever seen, and sits firmly atop the nukes table. Yet he wants to increase the military and the nukes? To take care of would-be refugees at source?
8
Be interesting to see the Liberal echo chamber of the NY Times editorial page refute the data in this essay. Well written and well said.
62
Finally. If you'd published this a couple years ago, Trump may not have made it to the White House. Time to see the nose on your face, Democrats.
46
I like George Borjas' piece. Basically, he argues for sensible immigration reforms, including how to deal with illegal entrants already in the U.S. Let's get back to this discussion, among ourselves, in the press, and in Congress. And let's resist all of the hype over deportation. Before this issue again became hyper-politicized by Trump, both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations were pushing for sensible reforms. Can we do it now? Trump could have been very constructive here, but I'm afraid the real Trump expressed himself again quite clearly the other day before his audience in South Carolina (I think it was there) where he said something like "I'd like to get them all the h... out of here." So much for sensible thought? Mr. Trump, over to you.
44
Finally, beyond knee-jerk left and right screeds, this is a clear statement as to what the immigration debate should be about.
134
What a relief to see at least a little diversity of opinion in the NYT again today (Christopher Caldwell on Bannon yesterday, too). Maybe some sanity and sense of proportion is returning. Both Caldwell and Borjas are looking toward making democratic discussion possible again--toward finding a middle. Beyond all the recent shouting and posturing and foregone conclusions, there really are questions to be addressed that do not have obvious answers. There really are choices to be made, and the grounds for making those choices include what appear to be conflicting but reasonable interpretations of facts. It's necessary to have these discussions without demonizing the opposition--and that goes to everyone on all sides.
110
We live in an Age of Information. Most illegal immigrants hail from Mexico and parts south, where the cultures do not place much value education. In Mexico today, the average adult has only a 6th grade education.
Back in the 1960’s, UCLA interviewed Mexican immigrants. In 2008 graduate students of sociology professors Edward E. Telles and Vilma Ortiz were able to find and reinterview about 700 of the original respondents and 800 of their children. Their research showed that the first generation went to school for more years than their immigrant parents had, but that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation did not continue to improve. In fact many of the succeeding generations dropped out of school at a younger age than the 1st generation. This low level of education was used to explain Mexican-Americans “alarmingly low levels of income, occupational status, homeownership, and other indicators of socioeconomic status”.
Today, Hispanics continue to lead the nation in their rates of teen pregnancy and school drop-outs. This is despite an abundance of federal, state, and local school subsidies for students who are poor and/or English-language learners.
The media highlights illegal immigrants who are attending college without telling us how poorly most illegal immigrants and their succeeding generations have done in school and in employment.
Back in the 1960’s, UCLA interviewed Mexican immigrants. In 2008 graduate students of sociology professors Edward E. Telles and Vilma Ortiz were able to find and reinterview about 700 of the original respondents and 800 of their children. Their research showed that the first generation went to school for more years than their immigrant parents had, but that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation did not continue to improve. In fact many of the succeeding generations dropped out of school at a younger age than the 1st generation. This low level of education was used to explain Mexican-Americans “alarmingly low levels of income, occupational status, homeownership, and other indicators of socioeconomic status”.
Today, Hispanics continue to lead the nation in their rates of teen pregnancy and school drop-outs. This is despite an abundance of federal, state, and local school subsidies for students who are poor and/or English-language learners.
The media highlights illegal immigrants who are attending college without telling us how poorly most illegal immigrants and their succeeding generations have done in school and in employment.
96
We're dependent upon illegal immigrants in many ways, for example with most of our food. Most of the criticism is filled with rage and racism, so I appreciate this author's approach. However, I'm not sure immigration (legal or illegal) is a net economic loss. The information I've seen suggests a net gain in economic contributions.
Vice News discussed a looming real estate slump if there is an immigration crackdown (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-22/could-trumps-immigration-ban-ca.... Also, the NY times had a recent article about the possible toll on farms if they lose migrant laborers (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-bu....
Outside of that, regarding the contribution they might make to U.S. workers' declining wages, we need to fix immigration and create a guest worker program. We should be angry at Congress for failing to pass immigration reform, not toward the families that have enriched our society and with members working in many jobs U.S. citizens won't do.
Vice News discussed a looming real estate slump if there is an immigration crackdown (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-22/could-trumps-immigration-ban-ca.... Also, the NY times had a recent article about the possible toll on farms if they lose migrant laborers (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-bu....
Outside of that, regarding the contribution they might make to U.S. workers' declining wages, we need to fix immigration and create a guest worker program. We should be angry at Congress for failing to pass immigration reform, not toward the families that have enriched our society and with members working in many jobs U.S. citizens won't do.
Excellent article on a complex topic, one which is consistently sensationalized in the media. Thank you.
44
To a great extent the writer points to the questions that need to be asked. However he dances around the critical question, how do we deal with it. Neither a totally open border or the Trump/ICE Nazi attitude will address the issue which has been festering in our society for decades.
The answers lie with a group that needs to (and possibly could) devise a reasonable policy, one that may satisfy no one, meaning it is approximately balanced. That group is Congress! Of course they never will because they have no interest in doing anything that will benefit the country, only protecting their own jobs.
The problem will reoccur again and again; our recent history proves that.
The answers lie with a group that needs to (and possibly could) devise a reasonable policy, one that may satisfy no one, meaning it is approximately balanced. That group is Congress! Of course they never will because they have no interest in doing anything that will benefit the country, only protecting their own jobs.
The problem will reoccur again and again; our recent history proves that.
21
Thank you! Economists seem always to ignore the conclusions of their own models and teachings of their own textbooks -- that immigration as well as more open trade create winners and losers and the losers are those native workers who compete with low wage foreign or foreign-born workers. On the other hand, immigrant workers who are here legally present less of a threat than those here illegally. Undocumented immigrants can be paid less than minimum wage, dare not form unions, are not protected by US labor laws and drag down wages and labor standards.
42
The meaningless Trump quotes chosen by this author betray either delusion or deception. He espouses fact-based debate and compassion, yet Trump is the sworn enemy of both. Trump's true attitude towards immigrants can be found in his many racist lies, his conversion of CBP into a gestapo terror force, and his silence on the recent hate-fueled murder of an Indian immigrant.
It's way past time for conservative intellectuals to come out from their newfound and illusory political power under the Trump banner and speak out against lies and thuggery. Those who don't can be assumed to be mendacious and deserve to be scorned or ignored.
It's way past time for conservative intellectuals to come out from their newfound and illusory political power under the Trump banner and speak out against lies and thuggery. Those who don't can be assumed to be mendacious and deserve to be scorned or ignored.
21
Bravo, Dr. Borja, for your intelligent, balanced treatment of the issue of immigration. Such thoughtful economic analysis -- something many of us sorely miss in the NYT nowadays-- is likely to provoke some interesting discussion and healthy debate among those whose have not succumbed to the fear of being (falsely) accused of micro-aggressions or implicit bias. Moreover, your expert credentials and experience as a refugee lend credibility and drastically reduce the likelihood of any such labels being thrown your way. I've said it once or twice in the last few months and I'll say it again--more articles like this please, NYT!
70
We shouldn't pay anything. They need to pay us to come here.
14
Perhaps having a simple welcoming attitude should carry more weight in the analyzation.
"In 1776, there were four million people here, and 290 million in China. We have 75 million owner-occupied homes, 260 million vehicles, the greatest universities in the world, up and down the line—all of this from nothing 240 years ago. That’s pretty remarkable. There’s no one at the border saying you have to have a 140 I.Q. to get in, or a propensity to work 60 hours a week, but certain ingredients have created a miracle here. You had a welcoming attitude toward immigrants who then did wonders for this country." - Warren Buffett
"In 1776, there were four million people here, and 290 million in China. We have 75 million owner-occupied homes, 260 million vehicles, the greatest universities in the world, up and down the line—all of this from nothing 240 years ago. That’s pretty remarkable. There’s no one at the border saying you have to have a 140 I.Q. to get in, or a propensity to work 60 hours a week, but certain ingredients have created a miracle here. You had a welcoming attitude toward immigrants who then did wonders for this country." - Warren Buffett
21
There's one big issue which the author failed to discuss: population growth. Without immigration, the U.S. will have minimal population growth and a higher proportion of retired people (who receive substantial federal government benefits paid for by workers' taxes and pension payments from plans that are largely underfunded and therefore will need catch-up payments from existing workers).
The right first question every side on the immigration needs to answer is: what population growth should the United States have? Those who argue for closing the borders need to understand the burdens that approach will place on the working-age population given our existing safety net for senior citizens.
The right first question every side on the immigration needs to answer is: what population growth should the United States have? Those who argue for closing the borders need to understand the burdens that approach will place on the working-age population given our existing safety net for senior citizens.
There should be a moratorium on immigration altogether, until we figure out the real economic and social benefit to it. We have been fed a heavy dose of confusing and unfounded statistics. Countless sob stories and emotional arguments that have nothing to do with the consequences of the chaotic and social balkanization, I see all around me. The level of poverty among minorities is self-evident. I did not vote for Trump and I totally agree with him on deporting all the people who have abused our laws.
49
The author uses the analogy of the price of gas to the price of undocumented labor, but the argument is weakened by its lack of completeness.
Yes when there's a surplus of gas the price goes down. But what else happens?
The demand for more expensive cars goes up. The number of vacation road trips ( which patronize local businesses over global chains) goes up, the demand for housing in commuter cities goes up, easing the demand for real estate in urban centers.
Just like globalization keeps prices low at Target, undocumented labor keeps the cost of living in the US low. Artificially low. Americans are not used to paying fair market value for the services they receive.
Do people really think you can raise the wages of food service workers, hospitality workers, domestic workers, salon workers and still keep prices ( and demand) for those services the same?
This is not a pro-undocumented labor argument. It is a reminder of the economic realities that allow it to persist. We do need a measured approach to dealing with it, which includes treating people with longstanding ties inside the country differently, while curbing the continuous flow of undocumented labor into the country.
But beware of changing things too quickly. It's going to take Americans a while to adjust to $40 manicures and $12 value meals and $200/ night stays at Motel 6.
Yes when there's a surplus of gas the price goes down. But what else happens?
The demand for more expensive cars goes up. The number of vacation road trips ( which patronize local businesses over global chains) goes up, the demand for housing in commuter cities goes up, easing the demand for real estate in urban centers.
Just like globalization keeps prices low at Target, undocumented labor keeps the cost of living in the US low. Artificially low. Americans are not used to paying fair market value for the services they receive.
Do people really think you can raise the wages of food service workers, hospitality workers, domestic workers, salon workers and still keep prices ( and demand) for those services the same?
This is not a pro-undocumented labor argument. It is a reminder of the economic realities that allow it to persist. We do need a measured approach to dealing with it, which includes treating people with longstanding ties inside the country differently, while curbing the continuous flow of undocumented labor into the country.
But beware of changing things too quickly. It's going to take Americans a while to adjust to $40 manicures and $12 value meals and $200/ night stays at Motel 6.
27
We are on the precipice of having unskilled work become completely automated. Forget coal mines, think about fast food, data entry, call centers, farming - anything that pays less than $20/hr can and will be automated shortly. Then what do we do with the millions of untrained, unskilled immigrants and non-immigrants. Idle hands do the devil's work - just look at the rampant drug use in our hollowed out cities and rural areas.
I understand that bringing these people into the country may seem like the right thing to do now, but it will be a disaster in the future.
I understand that bringing these people into the country may seem like the right thing to do now, but it will be a disaster in the future.
68
Immigration is not charity. Immigrants give a recipient nation something it wants and needs, most basically their labor and skill, and they receive in return the benefits and advantages of a new homeland. If an immigration is perceived as disadvantageous to the recipient nation, whether it is or not, one can expect efforts to reduce influx. That acknowledged, It is proper to debate what and how serious those immigration-related problems are, and to approach immigrants with sympathy and friendship. We have had that debate and the public attitude toward immigrants, never friendly, has regrettably soured even more. The preponderant opinion now holds that the current level of immigration is disadvantageous to the United States, and it's appropriate temporarily to reduce influx in the interest of social peace at home. Otherwise one continues to drop fuel onto a conflagration.
18
I was with you 100% until you brought in Trump. We can and should have a rational discussion of immigration policy, in fact we did, but the Republicans blocked sensible reform legislation in earlier years. Now, Trump and the current Republican led Congress, are not promoting a rational discussion, they are using immigrants as scapegoats, fanning resentment and racism. Trump's single factor policy of increased deportations is inhumane, and hides the benefit that low wage immigrant, especially illegal immigrant workers have provided over many years to business and investors. It is a fear-mongering tactic, in no way an immigration reform policy, that fits with Trump and Bannon's authoritarian, apocalyptic vision.
Critique and adjust globalization - yes. Use immigration crackdowns to intimidate society and disguise crony capitalism - NO!
Critique and adjust globalization - yes. Use immigration crackdowns to intimidate society and disguise crony capitalism - NO!
16
I really value analysis that can rise above partisanship and provide intellectual insight into core problems and issues. This piece does neither. Professor Borjas' words belie only a simplistic understanding of either microaggressions or E Pluribus Unum. Yes, we are all of different cultures, but our strength is in our unity as patriotic Americans grounded in our belief that all men are created equal. He seems to value earlier immigrants who could find a valuable place in manufacturing. If you have skill in economics, tell us why this is no longer true and how we can unleash the enormous untapped value in this country.
7
Thanks NYT for this blast of fresh air. I sincerely wish more Americans could think as clearly about these issues as George Borjas does. It is especially unfortunate that Democrats couldn't address these issues in a rational manner before losing the election to Donald Trump. Even in my own family I got the message that border control was inherently racist. No wonder Dems lost.
47
Bravo, Dr. Borjas! This is the best and the most thoughtful article written to date with respect to the immigration problems that our nation confronts currently. If only the other economist, Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, can be as level-headed, calm and cool as Dr. Borjas, I think we can resolve this serious problem without the partisan and dishonest bickering that dominated every discussions, particularly those on the left who resort to calling people racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic, that kills any possibility of solving this crisis in immigration.
41
The horse has already left the barn with 11 million undocumented settled and contributing to the country. When given a chance to overhaul the immigration system the republican party went off into a their usual stance of governing is to hard and caved their fringe. The republican establishment likes the cheap labor because they are the party of corporate elites masquerading as working class warriors when looking for votes. The orang/gold plated president has a swamp cabinet of billionaires who obviously can relate to the working class and immigrants or how can we use them for are own personal enrichment.
7
So is the size of the pie fixed? That's what this tome says. It's all a scramble for crumbs. But that's not what most economists have said. They say the pie gets bigger as new wealth is created.
We see the fruits of de-unionization, not immigration. Pay levels, benefits and retirement plans have all been downsized as unions were forced out of existence. Wealth that had been more equitably shared has flowed to the top instead.
Eliminate all right-to-work laws nationwide and give labor the ability to organize. While automation will keep occurring, skilled labor will still benefit.
We see the fruits of de-unionization, not immigration. Pay levels, benefits and retirement plans have all been downsized as unions were forced out of existence. Wealth that had been more equitably shared has flowed to the top instead.
Eliminate all right-to-work laws nationwide and give labor the ability to organize. While automation will keep occurring, skilled labor will still benefit.
19
It's illustrative to read the angry liberal comments here attacking a straw man rather than this very nuanced column.
Immigration should be for the American people. Immigration is good for America, but we should choose the immigrants. We should choose a lot of them, but we should choose. We need educated immigrants and we also need immigrants without a high-school diploma who are willing to pick fruits and vegetables.
But we should choose.
Immigration should be for the American people. Immigration is good for America, but we should choose the immigrants. We should choose a lot of them, but we should choose. We need educated immigrants and we also need immigrants without a high-school diploma who are willing to pick fruits and vegetables.
But we should choose.
29
It will be cheaper offer the undocumented prole a free airplane ticket , a check and good bye.what about a Loan ?
5
The costs of immigration go beyond the analysis in this piece. Naturalizing illegal immigrants are a political time bomb for the Republican party since Hispanics tend to vote 75-80% Democrat and tend to be indifferent to entrenched American values like gun rights and small government. So any Republican cooperation in naturalizing 11,000,000 immigrants would be like taking a slow acting poison pill.
The Democrats have therefor always had a motivation to ignore the enforcement of immigration law. This could have serious consequences years hence when red states refuse to recognize the results of elections that turned on the immigrant vote, with voters that could be argued were fraudulently enfranchised by Democratic administrations looking the other way on immigration.
The Democrats have therefor always had a motivation to ignore the enforcement of immigration law. This could have serious consequences years hence when red states refuse to recognize the results of elections that turned on the immigrant vote, with voters that could be argued were fraudulently enfranchised by Democratic administrations looking the other way on immigration.
15
Utterly ridiculous claim, "We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone, but my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens". Taking health insurance away from our poorest citizens is hardly compassionate, telling impoverished coal miners that he is going to bring their high paying jobs back is cruel. Telling Rust Belt blue collar workers that he is going to bring high paying low education manufacturing jobs back is cruel, and not going after the corporation CEOs who have labored mightily to cut good paying jobs so as to pad the bottom line, the share price, and as a result their Golden Parachute retirement packages is the PROBLEM facing the U.S. worker, not the solution.
The article falls short in its analysis of our current immigration policy and how an ideal immigration policy should look like.
The US can regulate visa requiring immigration as it sees fit. Obviously it wants to attract people based on economic, social and academic needs. Every qualifying immigrant deserves objective vetting that does not discriminate.
We have allowed 11 Million undocumented immigrants into the country. The overwhelming majority does work for low wages in back breaking jobs, many of them seasonal. They also live in fear of deportation, and remain in the shadows. They deserve a pass to permanent residency and naturalization. Amnesty will be granted to everyone with a clear record. After a grace period everyone lacking documents will face the possibility of being forced leaving the country.
Guest worker programs, improved conditions in their home countries and smart border control will slowly dwindle the numbers of people trying to enter the US without proper documents. Already today net illegal immigration approaches zero.
As one of the richest nations in the world we have a moral obligation to ease the pain of 40 Million world wide refugees by helping res live conflicts, provide humanitarian aide and allow a steady number of refugees into the country. We have a sufficient vetting system in place.
Executive orders based on xenophobia and racism clearly will not deliver. We need a comprehensive, fact based immigration policy passed by Congress.
The US can regulate visa requiring immigration as it sees fit. Obviously it wants to attract people based on economic, social and academic needs. Every qualifying immigrant deserves objective vetting that does not discriminate.
We have allowed 11 Million undocumented immigrants into the country. The overwhelming majority does work for low wages in back breaking jobs, many of them seasonal. They also live in fear of deportation, and remain in the shadows. They deserve a pass to permanent residency and naturalization. Amnesty will be granted to everyone with a clear record. After a grace period everyone lacking documents will face the possibility of being forced leaving the country.
Guest worker programs, improved conditions in their home countries and smart border control will slowly dwindle the numbers of people trying to enter the US without proper documents. Already today net illegal immigration approaches zero.
As one of the richest nations in the world we have a moral obligation to ease the pain of 40 Million world wide refugees by helping res live conflicts, provide humanitarian aide and allow a steady number of refugees into the country. We have a sufficient vetting system in place.
Executive orders based on xenophobia and racism clearly will not deliver. We need a comprehensive, fact based immigration policy passed by Congress.
5
This is an excellent, non-partisan analysis of the immigration problem, with realistic solutions. Those who advocate for some form of legalization for those here illegally need to acknowledge that that will only encourage more illegal immigration. On the other side, folks need to acknowledge that a "wall" is both costly and ineffective.
The real solution, as the author notes, is e-Verify and punishment of those who employ (and frequently take advantage of) illegal immigrants. It's lots easier to enforce the law against 100,000 employers than !,000,000 immigrants. With no jobs illegal immigration will shrink to a trickle and many here illegally will go home. No massive increase in ICE needed, no massive deportation program.
Then we can have a discussion about how many immigrants want to allow to come to this country legally each year.
The real solution, as the author notes, is e-Verify and punishment of those who employ (and frequently take advantage of) illegal immigrants. It's lots easier to enforce the law against 100,000 employers than !,000,000 immigrants. With no jobs illegal immigration will shrink to a trickle and many here illegally will go home. No massive increase in ICE needed, no massive deportation program.
Then we can have a discussion about how many immigrants want to allow to come to this country legally each year.
19
Let's not hastily conclude that the author's arguments are based on research that has not been criticized. A number of other economists have criticized Borjas for presuming a much higher degree of substitutability between immigrants and native workers, which in turn overestimates the wage impacts. Additionally, work by the Hamilton Project concludes that though there are negative budget consequences in the short term, these tend to fade over the longer term. Bottom line is that the author is a more pessimistic outlier than most other economists who conduct research on the economic impacts of immigrants.
7
I really enjoyed this article--finally someone who has common sense and is looking at all the pros and cons of a situation. I think a lot of people have lost sight that a debate doesn't mean one side has to be a 100% right and the other 100% wrong, there needs to be a give-and-take to reach a common ground that everybody can agree with. Congress is so split by partisanship that it's an us vs them mentality and that's not what is needed. Rational discussion to come up with viable answers and a system that can respond to changing times is what we need.
17
Short version: now that we're on here. the boat is full.
8
Yesterday the NYT's editorial board claimed "undocumented" immigrants were net positive for the American economy, whereas today, you claim "immigrants" are a net negative.
However, the fact that the recent crackdown has only began in earnest we will have to wait to see the true effects of ICE's gung ho approach to eliminating the "undocumented crisis."
While it is true the decades long escalation of illegal immigrants have had a negative impact on wages, particularly in the food and construction industries, these labor abuses have helped keep prices down in these particular industries, which benefited, through lower prices, most Americans.
The question becomes will we see immediate consequences from the wholesale roundup of undocumented immigrants; will small, and chain restaurants have problems finding the necessary labor to fill their predominantly minimum, or less than minimum wage positions, and will the once high labor cost meat packing industry need to restore living wages to attract American labor.
However, the most immediate concern is will the itinerant labor market dry up as migrant farm workers fear they will be easy targets for the new ICE initiatives, and refuse to come north during the upcoming harvest season. This could have a devastating affect on the availability and cost of many necessary food staples. It's my guess the food CPI will suffer double digit inflation.
However, the fact that the recent crackdown has only began in earnest we will have to wait to see the true effects of ICE's gung ho approach to eliminating the "undocumented crisis."
While it is true the decades long escalation of illegal immigrants have had a negative impact on wages, particularly in the food and construction industries, these labor abuses have helped keep prices down in these particular industries, which benefited, through lower prices, most Americans.
The question becomes will we see immediate consequences from the wholesale roundup of undocumented immigrants; will small, and chain restaurants have problems finding the necessary labor to fill their predominantly minimum, or less than minimum wage positions, and will the once high labor cost meat packing industry need to restore living wages to attract American labor.
However, the most immediate concern is will the itinerant labor market dry up as migrant farm workers fear they will be easy targets for the new ICE initiatives, and refuse to come north during the upcoming harvest season. This could have a devastating affect on the availability and cost of many necessary food staples. It's my guess the food CPI will suffer double digit inflation.
3
How is it possible to have the debate the author suggests without first agreeing on a population size goal? If you want a dynamic lively country like China's, with about 1.35 billion people in roughly the same area as the U.S., you would support a different immigration policy than would an environmentalist who wants to see a gradual shrinkage in the U.S. population.
9
Professor: You and I entered the US at about the same time, a time when legal immigration was much simpler than today. Today, the doors for illegal entrance are kept far more open by the political power of the industries that enrich themselves through the low wages paid illegals: farming, construction, et al. That is not going to change. Congress will merely lower legal immigrant numbers and say they have solved the problem.
Reality is that the US population would be falling in the absence of immigration regardless of type. The country needs more people to continue growing. As an economist, you know that GDP is primarily made up of total wages, the formulae do not care if the units of measure are large or small, distributed fairly or not, just that the money is paid. The way to fight the balkanization of the population is to fight for increased legal immigration that does not force immigrants to cower in shadowy communities.
Reality is that the US population would be falling in the absence of immigration regardless of type. The country needs more people to continue growing. As an economist, you know that GDP is primarily made up of total wages, the formulae do not care if the units of measure are large or small, distributed fairly or not, just that the money is paid. The way to fight the balkanization of the population is to fight for increased legal immigration that does not force immigrants to cower in shadowy communities.
2
Our immigration system appears to be broken. We make it extremely hard for people to enter our country so many folks choose to enter our country illegally. Our corporations do an end around on the law by sponsoring folks who get to come to our country and work in high tech. Some folks get approved to enter our country that have intentions to do harm to our citizens.
Overall, the immigration process needs to be improved. I don't have faith Congress is up to the task. Right now they are selling fear and not solutions to our problems.
Overall, the immigration process needs to be improved. I don't have faith Congress is up to the task. Right now they are selling fear and not solutions to our problems.
3
Professor Borjas wants to limit low-skilled immigration so Americans can settle into low-skilled jobs at perhaps somewhat higher wages. That would relieve the pressure on them to move up the skill ladder and is a recipe for stagnation. What's need is reasonable openness in combination with a full-employment policy that maintains dynamism in our labor markets and in our diverse society.
1
The title of this op-ed is "The immigration debate we need" but the argument given here largely misses the point. The immigration debate is multifaceted and complex, since immigration is like a complicated piece of machinery where changes introduced into one part of the system alter operations and movements in other parts of the machine. Before we start tinkering with gears and levels of this intricate machine, we need to be very clear about what outcomes we seek from the machine. (This analogy comes from the work of immigration scholars Douglass Massey, Jorge Durand and Nolan Malone in their book Beyond Some and Mirrors, 2002, a comprehensive analysis of the impact of NAFTA on international migration.) Immigration policy such as deportations and bans against immigrants from certain countries that are responses to popular misconceptions and nativist ideology are likely to have catastrophic unintended results that simply gum up the works. Borjas' analysis ignores the current realities of the push-pull factors in immigration and the potential effects of the Trump administration's reckless rhetoric provoking a trade war with Mexico.
I am pleased to see that a debate about immigration is emerging, but we must ensure that this debate take place within the broader context of the United States' international economic and intercultural relationships.
I am pleased to see that a debate about immigration is emerging, but we must ensure that this debate take place within the broader context of the United States' international economic and intercultural relationships.
5
Mr. Borjas is correct regarding e-verify, not only for employers, but landlords and financial institutions as well. But Congress doesn't like it, and voted it down a few times.
His numbers however do not add up. US pop was 266 million in '95, same year as the last Immigration Reform Act, when Congress set the quota at 675,000 per year. Even if you add refugees who are exempt, one million per year doesn't get us to 322 million counted in '15.
Mindful that our birthrate has been 1.7 to 1.9 for those years, below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per child bearing age woman. It's as if the entire countries of Canada and Australia moved here.
There is no doubt as the Professor pointed out this has added to the US deficit. Every economy requires a growing population, however as with supply and demand of labor, there is always a point of diminishing returns.
His numbers however do not add up. US pop was 266 million in '95, same year as the last Immigration Reform Act, when Congress set the quota at 675,000 per year. Even if you add refugees who are exempt, one million per year doesn't get us to 322 million counted in '15.
Mindful that our birthrate has been 1.7 to 1.9 for those years, below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per child bearing age woman. It's as if the entire countries of Canada and Australia moved here.
There is no doubt as the Professor pointed out this has added to the US deficit. Every economy requires a growing population, however as with supply and demand of labor, there is always a point of diminishing returns.
5
Borjas notes that many of his colleagues “recoil when they hear that immigration should serve the interests of Americans, [labeling] such thinking as racist and xenophobic”. My question to his colleagues: Where are your criticisms of other countries, which do the same? Why should the U.S. offer birthright citizenship, for example, without expecting a reciprocal benefit for foreign-born offspring of American citizens?
My question to Borjas: Is it enough to point out the harms to some groups of native-born Americans in the labor market, or is it time also to consider the effect upon our primary and secondary educational systems? American citizens receive a sadly inferior education at those levels than do their peers in countries such as Germany and Japan—and efforts at “reform” are driven by trends, rather than empirical evidence. By relying upon the brain drain from other countries, the U.S. undercuts the motivation to do what is needed to provide its citizens with a good education.
My question to journalists everywhere: Many of your stories about immigration focus upon the plight of individuals, such as the recent story about a man who leapt to his death after being deported for the third time back to Mexico. Don’t you realize that however tragic any individual case might be, responsible policy-makers have a duty to consider the effects upon all people, however, which means weighing and choosing among interests that are often in competition with one another?
My question to Borjas: Is it enough to point out the harms to some groups of native-born Americans in the labor market, or is it time also to consider the effect upon our primary and secondary educational systems? American citizens receive a sadly inferior education at those levels than do their peers in countries such as Germany and Japan—and efforts at “reform” are driven by trends, rather than empirical evidence. By relying upon the brain drain from other countries, the U.S. undercuts the motivation to do what is needed to provide its citizens with a good education.
My question to journalists everywhere: Many of your stories about immigration focus upon the plight of individuals, such as the recent story about a man who leapt to his death after being deported for the third time back to Mexico. Don’t you realize that however tragic any individual case might be, responsible policy-makers have a duty to consider the effects upon all people, however, which means weighing and choosing among interests that are often in competition with one another?
19
One point ignored by Dr. Borjas is that America is an ageing society - i.e. low birth rates and a consequent 'bulge' in the percent at older ages. Immigrants bring in a much needed boost to the working-age population, and they have higher birth rates than native-born Americans for the first generation. This makes many positive contributions: more workers, more taxpayers (including into the pay-as-you-go Social Security tax scheme), a more balanced age structure, and no declining population base.
Japan has strongly discouraged immigration, and faces a consequent economic stagnation. This is partly the reason why Germany (historically anti immigrant) is taking a slightly looser stance on the refugee issue. Canada has the same demographic problem and is welcoming immigrants, especially those with higher education and skills.
Japan has strongly discouraged immigration, and faces a consequent economic stagnation. This is partly the reason why Germany (historically anti immigrant) is taking a slightly looser stance on the refugee issue. Canada has the same demographic problem and is welcoming immigrants, especially those with higher education and skills.
8
George, in my personal experiences in life, I've noticed many times, that it is always the people who point their fingers and call someone a thief or a bad person, are themselves the thieves or the bad persons.
So just by opposing the deportation orders of 11+ millions of 'undocumented workers', I'm not anti-American.
And since we've a thriving democracy and not a feudal lordship or authoritarian dictatorship, the kind of of theocracy that Trump and the Republicans are trying to impose on us through kind of cabal law followed by some Christians of our country or the Halakhah law that some orthodox Jewish immigrants of this country follow which is as similar as what the 'sharia law' that some orthodox Muslims followed and still prevalent in some Muslim countries at present.
So to brand some people as not welcome in this country on the basis of their languages,cultures and religions is like shutting the door on the face of the God.
Yes,if somebody truly believes in God and follow the God's core principles that God intended us to follow, not like what the stupid interpretations of our scriptures say and force many followers to observe by various immoral scholars of theology, then they'll find out that the people like Trump and the Republicans who call themselves true Americans by preaching a fake dictum,"America First' in all of their rallies, are the true villains of this country.
By deporting the very people who're working so hard from our country, is totally UnAmerican.
So just by opposing the deportation orders of 11+ millions of 'undocumented workers', I'm not anti-American.
And since we've a thriving democracy and not a feudal lordship or authoritarian dictatorship, the kind of of theocracy that Trump and the Republicans are trying to impose on us through kind of cabal law followed by some Christians of our country or the Halakhah law that some orthodox Jewish immigrants of this country follow which is as similar as what the 'sharia law' that some orthodox Muslims followed and still prevalent in some Muslim countries at present.
So to brand some people as not welcome in this country on the basis of their languages,cultures and religions is like shutting the door on the face of the God.
Yes,if somebody truly believes in God and follow the God's core principles that God intended us to follow, not like what the stupid interpretations of our scriptures say and force many followers to observe by various immoral scholars of theology, then they'll find out that the people like Trump and the Republicans who call themselves true Americans by preaching a fake dictum,"America First' in all of their rallies, are the true villains of this country.
By deporting the very people who're working so hard from our country, is totally UnAmerican.
2
Borjas is right in claiming that there is a price to be paid for immigration, but wrong in not pointing out the clear answer to how that price could and should be paid, and by whom.
Simply put, this is just another example of conservative doubletalk where budget shortfalls and stagnant wages are decried yet any talk of eliminating corporate subsidies, easing corporate tax breaks, or raising the minimum wage gets drowned out in a hysterical deluge of "too much job-killing government regulation" complaints.
Want less government spending on subsidized healthcare? Then you need to require that employers invest in the well-being of their employees and make them pay their fair share of taxes. If an employer claims that their business would tank if they were forced to pay their employees a livable wage or insure them - well, if your business model relies on overworking your underpaid laborers, cutting their hours, making them "independent contractors," or making them take a second job to fill the gaps and hope they don't get sick, then I'm sorry, but your business model is not viable and should fail.
Want to keep companies like Disney from abusing HB-1? Regulate such practices in order to limit outsourcing. Will the companies who abuse low-wage labor in poor foreign countries for their manufacturing and call centers cry foul? Yep, but them's the breaks. You can't have both, and then we'll finally get to see if Americans really will do those jobs immigrants typically do.
Simply put, this is just another example of conservative doubletalk where budget shortfalls and stagnant wages are decried yet any talk of eliminating corporate subsidies, easing corporate tax breaks, or raising the minimum wage gets drowned out in a hysterical deluge of "too much job-killing government regulation" complaints.
Want less government spending on subsidized healthcare? Then you need to require that employers invest in the well-being of their employees and make them pay their fair share of taxes. If an employer claims that their business would tank if they were forced to pay their employees a livable wage or insure them - well, if your business model relies on overworking your underpaid laborers, cutting their hours, making them "independent contractors," or making them take a second job to fill the gaps and hope they don't get sick, then I'm sorry, but your business model is not viable and should fail.
Want to keep companies like Disney from abusing HB-1? Regulate such practices in order to limit outsourcing. Will the companies who abuse low-wage labor in poor foreign countries for their manufacturing and call centers cry foul? Yep, but them's the breaks. You can't have both, and then we'll finally get to see if Americans really will do those jobs immigrants typically do.
6
Mr. Borjas: Thank you sir, finally a balanced narrative from the N.Y.T. This good cop bad cop charade the politicians and the media have been exploiting for decades has practically destroyed the nation.
20
What needs to be debated is the cost/benefit relationships of differing economic goals. Certainly there is a cost to immigration reform and enforcement, does the costs of building a wall and enlisting a deportation force benefit the majority of Americans? I think not, and that there are many more important uses of taxpayer funds.
Overall there constantly needs to be a debate on the values and responsibility of government. Do we really need more weapons and bombs? Would it not be more prudent to invest in our future, education, the environment, and healthcare for all, are certainly responsibilities of government just as security and protection. What about spending on our decaying infrastructure and on science and technology?
Theses are the debates we need to have, what should the priorities of government be, along with what are the responsibilities of a national government?
Overall there constantly needs to be a debate on the values and responsibility of government. Do we really need more weapons and bombs? Would it not be more prudent to invest in our future, education, the environment, and healthcare for all, are certainly responsibilities of government just as security and protection. What about spending on our decaying infrastructure and on science and technology?
Theses are the debates we need to have, what should the priorities of government be, along with what are the responsibilities of a national government?
2
"employers should not walk away with all the gains, and workers should not suffer all the losses"
The reference here is to the corporate elite who benefit from paying lower wages while putting the costs of assimilation upon the taxpayer. Just another example of the corporate parasite living off the "free market", that is, free for exploitation: "less regulation, lower taxes, fewer benefits".
Revision of the immigration rules to improve American society, and supplying support for assimilation, haven't happened because the purpose of immigration for corporations is plumping up their foreign tax havens, not the welfare of society.
It's time to get the corporate hands off Congress and make the benefits that immigration brings paramount in our laws, not the corporate bottom line.
The reference here is to the corporate elite who benefit from paying lower wages while putting the costs of assimilation upon the taxpayer. Just another example of the corporate parasite living off the "free market", that is, free for exploitation: "less regulation, lower taxes, fewer benefits".
Revision of the immigration rules to improve American society, and supplying support for assimilation, haven't happened because the purpose of immigration for corporations is plumping up their foreign tax havens, not the welfare of society.
It's time to get the corporate hands off Congress and make the benefits that immigration brings paramount in our laws, not the corporate bottom line.
28
I agree with RC The issue is immigration (illegal or not) vs the smaller pie left for most American to get a piece. When you have billionaires running a country the tactic unfortunately becomes pitting the less against the less. I have noticed that many billionaires are getting dual citizenship in Australia. Do they know something the rest of us don't?
What we have now is hunting season on anyone who looks "foreign." ICE officers standing outside shelter churches and going into courthouses is hunting season. The Administration does not want an immigration policy, they just want to make sure we do not notice how they erode our democracy. That is the real issue.
What we have now is hunting season on anyone who looks "foreign." ICE officers standing outside shelter churches and going into courthouses is hunting season. The Administration does not want an immigration policy, they just want to make sure we do not notice how they erode our democracy. That is the real issue.
11
The problem with any academic debate of immigration and labor markets is that it labels immigrants who lack a college education as "low skill." As someone who has worked in construction and the restaurant business, many immigrants from Mexico and Central America are not "low skill" despite lacking academic credentials. Many enter the country with experience and hands-on skills much needed by various industries, particularly agriculture, culinary and construction. The vast majority of "low skill" immigrants are competing not on low cost, but on the very real skills they can contribute. Ask any business owner in the industries I've highlighted above. Economics generally don't know this because they can't see the forest from the trees.
38
Excellent comment. This truth needs to be recognized by American schools more broadly so that all American young people who go into trades with hands-on skills get the training and the respect they need and deserve.
5
But that is not the argument. Hiring immigrants below minimum wage is the general practice among the restaurant industry. Americans do not learn skills like cooking or agriculture because there are no real jobs for Americans in those fields. The jobs go to those willing to work for the lowest wages, which tends to be illegal immigrants. The idea here is that these are not skills that are difficult to learn (at least at an acceptable level), unlike something like computer science
11
Agreed, but think about how many American high school graduates would be better off if there were votech education in their high schools so that they left high school with those skills that you now attribute to "low skill" immigrants, rather than being shunted off into fast food cashier level jobs. African American men in urban areas with few prospects would be quite grateful I imagine.
What will be happen if all 11 Millions people go to bank and close the account took all money out what will be happening with banks
3
Sixty-nine percent of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts and 34 percent have no saving account. A much smaller percent of unauthorized immigrants have bank accounts.
5
1. Most of these people (as with the poor generally) are under-banked, meaning, they don't have accounts. They also don't have much money. The effect would likely be small.
2. If 11 million people withdrew their deposits for cash the banking system would sell bonds and use the proceeds to secure printed bills which would be handed to the customers. I'm assuming when you say "take all the money out" you mean for cash. Any other form of moving the money keeps it in the banking system. When people choose to hold cash, they are in effect holding pre-printed checks that are drawn upon the central bank. So they become direct customers of the central bank rather than having a private bank as intermediary.
3. If 11 million people suddenly had large cash deposits at home, one would expect a rise in break-ins not just for those 11 million people but for their neighbors, as burglars would be hopeful of finding money stashed in mattresses and what not.
4. If the idea here is that the specter of these bank withdrawals would give pause to the anti-immigrant project, that's not going to happen. Much more plausible are issues such as rising food prices because it will cost more to bring in the crops. Housing prices would be impacted in areas where undocumented immigrants live.
2. If 11 million people withdrew their deposits for cash the banking system would sell bonds and use the proceeds to secure printed bills which would be handed to the customers. I'm assuming when you say "take all the money out" you mean for cash. Any other form of moving the money keeps it in the banking system. When people choose to hold cash, they are in effect holding pre-printed checks that are drawn upon the central bank. So they become direct customers of the central bank rather than having a private bank as intermediary.
3. If 11 million people suddenly had large cash deposits at home, one would expect a rise in break-ins not just for those 11 million people but for their neighbors, as burglars would be hopeful of finding money stashed in mattresses and what not.
4. If the idea here is that the specter of these bank withdrawals would give pause to the anti-immigrant project, that's not going to happen. Much more plausible are issues such as rising food prices because it will cost more to bring in the crops. Housing prices would be impacted in areas where undocumented immigrants live.
1
LOL, they send all of their money home to Mexico.
9
If that debate doesn't include the acceptance that a considerable number of Americans BENEFIT from less immigration, it won't achieve anything.
25
As an economist, I'm surprised you don't value that it's not only an increase in profits for companies, but a lowering of costs to consumers as well. It's not as if the PRICE is not also impacted by the availability of lower cost labor. Raising the COST of construction through higher wages is going to reduce DEMAND (remember that supply/demand thingy) meaning that we may be PAYING American workers more, but they will have LESS WORK, so less will get done and the economy will shrink.
American's have wanted the paradox of cheap labor and no immigrants for a long time. That is foundation of immigration policy in the US since the early 1980s. That fiction served, but Trump has torn off the fig leaf and forced us to choose which we value more: new, cheap housing, inexpensive fresh food, etc or a whiter America with more less material wealth.
American's have wanted the paradox of cheap labor and no immigrants for a long time. That is foundation of immigration policy in the US since the early 1980s. That fiction served, but Trump has torn off the fig leaf and forced us to choose which we value more: new, cheap housing, inexpensive fresh food, etc or a whiter America with more less material wealth.
17
As an economist I'm sure you've heard of oligopolies not passing price decreases on to consumers.
And you seem to be assuming a full employment equilibrium condition. In the presence of a large deficit combined with anti-immigration policies, the resulting situation might actually be sustained demand with rising nominal (but likely not real) wages.
And you seem to be assuming a full employment equilibrium condition. In the presence of a large deficit combined with anti-immigration policies, the resulting situation might actually be sustained demand with rising nominal (but likely not real) wages.
3
The issue is we are currently not paying the actual cost for goods and services - everything is artificially subsided through cheap labor and destruction of the environment. Maybe we don't need to be mass consumers of "stuff" - instead pay a little more for quality goods and wages that help support our neighbors.
Oh, like the benefit of pricing when companies move production offshore? A pair of Nikes made in China doesn't cost $10. They cost $110.
Similarly the price of Ethan Allen furniture didn't go down when they moved production offshore. What kind of economist are you?
Similarly the price of Ethan Allen furniture didn't go down when they moved production offshore. What kind of economist are you?
Borjas either failed to research the basics on the incredible restrictiveness of our immigrant visa system, or he is willfully ignorant. He falsely claims that "Many will eventually qualify for visas because they have married American citizens or have native-born children. Rather than fight over a politically impossible amnesty, we could accelerate the granting of family-preference visas to that population." This is wrong, and the Times should have fact-checked. In fact it takes decades to get status through one's adult children, and many undocumented people cannot qualify because of policies built into our system that grant immigrant visas only to the relatively well-off people who arrived with a tourist or similar visa rather than those who could not obtain visas and crossed the border.
21
Indeed, a USC child must be 21 in order to file for a foreign-born parent, but a USC spouse - even one who just yesterday became a USC - CAN file IMMEDIATELY for a foreign-born spouse, and if that spouse entered the US legally, s/he can complete the entire green-card to citizenship process within 4-5 years. If the foreign-born spouse entered ILLEGALLY, s/he can STILL complete the process within 4-5 years; just with more steps/complication. It's not cheap and it's not for the faint of heart, but it's doable.
2
This is an opinion piece. Who fact-checks opinion? Brooks? Douthat?
I am getting sick and tired of the worn out phrases such as we are doing jobs the Americans don't want to do. All we want is for you to come here legally. Simple. Nothing more and nothing less. Can't you do this???
60
No they can't & every time solutions, laws & sensible policy is proposed so they can the same people complaining about the undocumented actively work to block immigration reform.
2
No, they can't. That's the point is missing here. Mr. RB mentioned at the beginning of his article that he was a refugee himself, escaping Cuba in the 60's and brought into the U.S. As a child. Many of the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are here because, as it is the case of the author, the political, economical environments of their countries have left them with very few options. When you don't know if your kids will have a meal the next day, or if your spouse will be forced to join a militia or a drug cartel, when the uncertainty is such, when you ponder your options,applying to emigrate to the U.S. legally is virtually impossible. The system is too restrictive and it takes too long. The reality is we can't comprehend why this people would choose to make such a dangerous journey with no guarantee of success and if they succeed, live in constant fright because they can be deported any moment. The reason we can't comprehend it is because we do t know what it is to live in such conditions, in that regard we have been lucky and we should not hold it against anyone for looking a better future.
3
As I read through the comments I can not help but be astounded at the lack of acknowledgment of someone who wrote a non extreme, thought out opinion. It does not make Georges Opinion right or wrong but I salute him for not joint the extremists on both sides who are doing nothing but polarizing the country. He is truly doing a radical thing...having and intelligent conversation.
121
That's exactly what I thought--it's a rational well thought-out article. That alone should be applauded.
11
What will happen if all immigrants go to bank and took all money !!!!
1
Can't have bank account without SS number
2
The same thing that would happen if any large part of any system suddenly changed its function overnight. Hopefully just as the author has factored in some varied considerations, any changes would be smart enough to not be so damningly abrupt. Not that I'm saying I have faith the government (especially the current one) would heed such consideration, but if you have an issue that needs to be addressed, the pain of doing so does not automatically deem it unworthy.
Perhaps they could use the money to take classes in English grammar, including the usage of the definite article?
3
Finally a rational opinion piece on immigration from the NY Times! It is indeed ironic that Bill Clinton reneged on his public and private commitments to the full Barbara Jordan Commission recommendations. Her untimely death before the Congressional bill could finish making its way through Congress allowed Clinton to weasel out and instead choose to reward the Chinese and Indonesian campaign donors illegally financing his 1996 reelection (who insisted on zero chain migration reform). Barbara Jordan saw that NAFTA and globalization combined with unlimited streams of unskilled, uneducated labor was already hurting the least advantaged US citizens. If Clinton had instead simply implemented the full recommendations in 1996, including reduction of legal immigration, it is doubtful Trump ever would have had the opening this past year.
60
Imagine...if Barbara Jordan had been elected President. One of our most insightful political leaders of the last third of the 20th century.
7
Well, by the same token, if Congressional Republicans had had any intestinal fortitude whatsoever, they'd've taken up the Senate-approved comprehensive reform back in 2014 and we may not be here now. Missed opportunities.
2
My experience is that immigrants both documented and undocumented contribute enormously to our society. I have been teaching them for 30 years at CUNY. First generation immigrants are always the most serious and hard working students. They set an example for everyone. Given half a chance they make this country great.
18
Illegal is illegal is illegal
10
For the US to act as a safety valve for those fleeing dysfunctional countries perpetuates the root cause of the problem.
44
The melting pot of 20th century America was possible because of a strong supported public education system. It provided immigrant families not only a way to learn English language, but receive to quality education that could lead to good paying jobs. And yes it allowed for assimilation into American society and culture.
With the current Administration's devaluing and withdrawn of support for a strong public education system, we have lost one of the most positive ways in which we can welcome and help immigrants to our country.
With the current Administration's devaluing and withdrawn of support for a strong public education system, we have lost one of the most positive ways in which we can welcome and help immigrants to our country.
22
While I cannot speak for the school systems in our whole country, in NYC the school system deteriorated LONG before Trump was elected.
4
Sadly, professor you fail to mention a simple solution, one that reduces the number of arrests to a tiny fraction of those produced by Trump's war on illegal immigrants and precludes the need to hire thousands more immigration officials. Arrest and jail the corporate CEO's and those directly involved in hiring illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs for illegal immigrants, there are no illegal immigrants in the workforce. Problem solved?
35
How much overcrowding do we want? How many hours per day do we want to spend in traffic? How much more splintered and balkanized do we want US culture to be? How much more encroachment upon open spaces do we wish to sanction in the name of development? How much more do we want to deplete our natural resources? These are questions we must grapple with before we smugly drink the open-borders Kool-Aid.
90
Let's not forget how much of a strain it is on local school systems to educate these kids. Also, interpreters need to be hired because the parents refuse to learn English. Here's a good test. If you don't speak English you are out, because you have clearly demonstrated that you refuse to assimilate into American life.
35
I fully agree with this article, always assuming that the writers's figures are correct about the costs and benefits of immigration. Nevertheless, like a lot of liberals, I find it difficult not to agree with resistance to the Trump people's approach to deportation and immigration, since there seems to be so much irrational and repellent sheer hatred in their rhetoric and the design of their approaches to immigrant issues. As this article suggests, the problem could be dealt with rationally, but the apparent lack of simple good will on the other side makes it seem impossible.
16
This is a key issue that goes beyond the policy debate. It is an ethical issue. It makes the policy debate hard to have. What will we NOT do to people--including families and individuals that have immigrated illegally? I'm open to a more well-formed and more consistently enforced immigration policy--but not at the cost of destroying families, uprooting communities, and causing serious human suffering. We need a separate policy for immigrants who entered illegally but whose lives are obviously now rooted in this country. We do not need ICE agents terrorizing these people.
Trump executive orders to round up immigrants and build a wall are brutal PR stunts that do not solve any problems and create a lot of needless suffering and fear for many desperate people. As an immigrant I understand that fear because of my family history. While we came to the US with green cards when I was 8 and became US citizens when I as a teenager, it is my family history in occupied Netherlands during World War II that is most relevant. When I see refugees risking their lives to escape war and famine I see the image of my parents foraging for food in the black market as many starved toward the end of the war. When I see pictures of ICE agents raiding places to find immigrants I see the image of my father who had to hide between the double brick walls of his house to avoid being conscripted to work in a German factory. As he hid he could hear Germans soldiers interrogate my grand parents about his whereabouts. Hiding from conscription was illegal so the Germans were legally justified in trying to hunt him down. When I see pictures of immigrants in detention centers. I see images of the Japanese concentration camps used to hold my relatives in Indonesia during the war. When people tell me that as a naturalized citizen who has never had a speeding ticket the Trump executive orders don't affect me I am reminded that as members of the master race the Germans told the Dutch they should not fear the occupation. Everyone is a target of state sponsored Xenophobia.
31
Illegal aliens are not immigrants
3
A very good article that describes the problem fairly accurately.
My husband and I came to USA in early 70s as a result of the shortages in medical personnel that occurred as a result of Medicare and Medicaid programs. We were warmly welcomed and as we spoke fluent English, apart from our brown skin, we assimilated easily into American society.
The American medical schools had seen what happened and they increased enrollment, so that in a short span of 10 years, with many more American graduates than before, we Foreign Medical Graduates had to suddenly face hostility and discrimination from the same hospitals and medical schools who had welcomed us with open arms.
The writer is quite right in saying that so far the employers have dictated who is allowed in and who is blocked and the benefits have overwhelmingly gone to the employers.
There has never been a debate about immigration, whose interests should be considered, and why. It is time to have that debate.
My husband and I came to USA in early 70s as a result of the shortages in medical personnel that occurred as a result of Medicare and Medicaid programs. We were warmly welcomed and as we spoke fluent English, apart from our brown skin, we assimilated easily into American society.
The American medical schools had seen what happened and they increased enrollment, so that in a short span of 10 years, with many more American graduates than before, we Foreign Medical Graduates had to suddenly face hostility and discrimination from the same hospitals and medical schools who had welcomed us with open arms.
The writer is quite right in saying that so far the employers have dictated who is allowed in and who is blocked and the benefits have overwhelmingly gone to the employers.
There has never been a debate about immigration, whose interests should be considered, and why. It is time to have that debate.
58
Does the writer send his children to public or private schools? The losers are students in overcrowded urban public schools where the children of undocumented immigrants have taxed resources beyond reason. Years ago the Supreme Court decided by 5-4, that children of undocumented immigrants could attend public schools. Reverse this and one of the major incentives for coming here is removed.
13
This kind of immigration debate is long overdue! According to recent studies from Silicon Valley and the Obama administration, we are facing massive job losses due to rapidly approaching automation: 83% of jobs where people make less than $20 an hour will be automated!! If we've got angry populists now, then what's in the future? See: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/silicon-valley-rightour-jobs-already-disa...
12
This appears thoughtful but begs too many questions, especially with regard to the millions of undocumented people who have established lives and families in this country, sometimes for decades. The new bully-boy behavior of the border cops illustrates the flimsiness of depending on good-faith from the current regime.
4
An infrequently discussed aspect of immigration is its effect on population growth. The WWII population of the US was approximately 100 million. It is now approximately 300 million. Immigration is responsible for a substantial part of the increase. Population growth contributes to environmental problems, ever-more-crowded highways, increased pressure on already inadequate infrastructure, and urban sprawl. How much was the severity of California's recent, and certain to return, water shortage worsened by immigration enhanced population growth?
25
IAn impressive cogently argued Op-Ed. It is dismaying to learn that the term "melting pot" is a censored term for employees of U. of Calif. Yet another example of hyper-political correctness. Isn't it reasonable that a society that attracts immigrants is, on balance, one worth assimilating to? However, I do disagree with his surprisingly confident declaration that Trump has "already answered a fundamental question: 'We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone.'" Many of Trump's actions belie those admirable words.
16
Political borders are an unnatural imposition to the natural state of things. The founders envisioned the enshrinement of Natural Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion being notable among them. I argue that freedom of immigration was unfairly neglected.
There is no good reason why people shouldn't compete with new comers into the country. It's just another form of economic nationalism and protectionism. If immigrant labor is being exploited force employers to treat then fairly, encourage policies that benefit labor unions, but don't punish a person for being born in the wrong side of an imaginary line.
There is no good reason why people shouldn't compete with new comers into the country. It's just another form of economic nationalism and protectionism. If immigrant labor is being exploited force employers to treat then fairly, encourage policies that benefit labor unions, but don't punish a person for being born in the wrong side of an imaginary line.
3
Maybe I will come to your house and break in. Will you welcome me with open arms? Will you pay to feed me? Clothe me? Educate me?
Will you call me an "undocumented resident"?
Will you call me an "undocumented resident"?
40
Wow! Really!?
2
It is refreshing to finally hear from a legal immigrant. How do the majority of naturalized citizens and green card holders feel about illegal wannabes pushing their way to the head of the line?
23
You forget that Cubans didn't have to push their way to the front of the line . they were put there automatically through the Cuban Adjustment Act. Although this family came here 4 years before that became law.
1
Truth at at last ! The author correctly recognizes that the uncontrolled influx of low skill, nearly illiterate, illegal immigrants are likely to be a lomg term liability to the nation. For a wide range of reasons, low skill jobs are evaporating. The long term prospects of low skill immigrants is dire. Many are destined to become wards of the state or trapped at the bottom of the wage scale.
The idea that 12 million illegals has not hurt lower and middle class citizens is an utter fantasy. They displace citizens because of market dynamics, they exist in a shadow economy, where no benefits are paid, wages are in cash. Their incomes are invisible to taxation, yet they draw heavily upon social services. As noted, they tend to live in Balkanized ghettos, resisting assimilation.
Immigrants helped build this country and will continue to do so. However, in the past there was a huge demand for low skill laborers to build railroads, etc. There is no long term place for them in the new economy. If we rebuild our infrastructure, those jobs should go citizens.
The idea that 12 million illegals has not hurt lower and middle class citizens is an utter fantasy. They displace citizens because of market dynamics, they exist in a shadow economy, where no benefits are paid, wages are in cash. Their incomes are invisible to taxation, yet they draw heavily upon social services. As noted, they tend to live in Balkanized ghettos, resisting assimilation.
Immigrants helped build this country and will continue to do so. However, in the past there was a huge demand for low skill laborers to build railroads, etc. There is no long term place for them in the new economy. If we rebuild our infrastructure, those jobs should go citizens.
33
"No long term place for them in the new economy?"
How about the "old economy"? Thousands of farmers rely on migrant labor every year for their harvests and preparation of fields. There are some jobs that simply cannot be done by a computer keyboard or through robotics. I grew up in agricultural eastern Washington, where there is a heavy reliance on the immigrant, migrant labor force.
People chastise migrant labor for not speaking English... just how difficult do you think it is to learn English when parents are spending 8-10 hours per day in 95 degree weather harvesting such "stoop" crops as strawberries, asparagus, etc.? It is difficult to spend evenings in an ESL class when days are full of hard physical labor.
No one worries too much about all the H-lB visa holders who come here from other countries to work for high tech companies. They are welcomed, and it is easier for them to receive a green card and stay. THOSE are the jobs I'd like to see go to more Americans.
And who says earlier immigrant populations didn't live in "Balkanized ghettos"... East New York tenements full of eastern European immigrants were notorious in the early 20th century.
How about the "old economy"? Thousands of farmers rely on migrant labor every year for their harvests and preparation of fields. There are some jobs that simply cannot be done by a computer keyboard or through robotics. I grew up in agricultural eastern Washington, where there is a heavy reliance on the immigrant, migrant labor force.
People chastise migrant labor for not speaking English... just how difficult do you think it is to learn English when parents are spending 8-10 hours per day in 95 degree weather harvesting such "stoop" crops as strawberries, asparagus, etc.? It is difficult to spend evenings in an ESL class when days are full of hard physical labor.
No one worries too much about all the H-lB visa holders who come here from other countries to work for high tech companies. They are welcomed, and it is easier for them to receive a green card and stay. THOSE are the jobs I'd like to see go to more Americans.
And who says earlier immigrant populations didn't live in "Balkanized ghettos"... East New York tenements full of eastern European immigrants were notorious in the early 20th century.
1
The author brings up a number of very good points.
There presence of illegal immigrants poses a lot of financial burdens that are not usually discussed. For example, the US federal prison system currently has about 25000 Mexican nationals who are in jail just for criminal offenses, not immigration offenses. The cost of this part of the foreign prison population is in the billions per year.
The solution is to aggressively enforce immigration law, otherwise the system doesn't work.
There presence of illegal immigrants poses a lot of financial burdens that are not usually discussed. For example, the US federal prison system currently has about 25000 Mexican nationals who are in jail just for criminal offenses, not immigration offenses. The cost of this part of the foreign prison population is in the billions per year.
The solution is to aggressively enforce immigration law, otherwise the system doesn't work.
33
Thank you for presenting a nuanced stand on an increasingly divisive issue. Tell a hard core Trump supporter that you think that building a wall is silly and that mass depotations of people who have lived in this country for years is cruel and you will be besiged with stories of horrible crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Tell a hardcore Clintonite that you think that there need to be checks on immigration and that employers should be penalized for hiring unauthorized workers and they will call you a racist.
It's impossible to hold an intelligent conversation when those are the fallback positions for both sides.
Opening the floodgates has hurt millions of working Americans. By ignoring that both socially liberal Democrats and establishment (cheap labor) Republicans have sowed the seeds for Trumps rise to power.
It's impossible to hold an intelligent conversation when those are the fallback positions for both sides.
Opening the floodgates has hurt millions of working Americans. By ignoring that both socially liberal Democrats and establishment (cheap labor) Republicans have sowed the seeds for Trumps rise to power.
149
Fully agree. It is almost surreal how this discussion is led only from the extremes. In all fairness my understanding is that the proponents of immigration reform always envisioned a combination a stricter control/enforcement for future immigration with a solution for people already in the country that would allow (most of) them to stay. This was categorically blocked by the ideological right.
I think what gets mixed up is the benefit of new immigration which Borjas seems to be referring to vs the effect of mass deportation. Even though some of the arguments and data of Borjas seem somewhat biased it seems plausible that the net effect of mass low skill immigration is not overwhelmingly positive. I also think that his comments about unionization are positive not normative, i.e. even though we don't like it under current conditions low skill immigrants will not find nice union-controlled jobs.
All this does not mean it is beneficial to rapidly reduce the US labor force through mass deportation and it especially does not mean it is beneficial to "unshakle" immigration authorities and detain elderly French professors and American citizens with muslim names at airports.
I think what gets mixed up is the benefit of new immigration which Borjas seems to be referring to vs the effect of mass deportation. Even though some of the arguments and data of Borjas seem somewhat biased it seems plausible that the net effect of mass low skill immigration is not overwhelmingly positive. I also think that his comments about unionization are positive not normative, i.e. even though we don't like it under current conditions low skill immigrants will not find nice union-controlled jobs.
All this does not mean it is beneficial to rapidly reduce the US labor force through mass deportation and it especially does not mean it is beneficial to "unshakle" immigration authorities and detain elderly French professors and American citizens with muslim names at airports.
1
Borjes’ proposal that immigration should serve the interest of America, that immigration perhaps be capped at 550,000 immigrants per year and that a policy of benign neglect should be applied to the current illegal immigrant population is not unreasonable per se. In fact most people would probably agree. However President Trump was not elected on those nuanced views, but on his mad rant about the Mexican government sending rapists and other criminal to the U.S, building a wall and deporting everybody.
Borges example on H1B abuse is cherry picking, but if he is serious about bringing in 550,000 high skilled immigrants a year to the US, how is going to fill those number if not by using H1B in some form?
Finally as an immigrant himself he should know that immigrants and their children do learn English and there is not nothing more cherished than blending in, fitting in. I am not sure where he doesn’t see assimilation because even in Miami American culture is thriving.
Borges example on H1B abuse is cherry picking, but if he is serious about bringing in 550,000 high skilled immigrants a year to the US, how is going to fill those number if not by using H1B in some form?
Finally as an immigrant himself he should know that immigrants and their children do learn English and there is not nothing more cherished than blending in, fitting in. I am not sure where he doesn’t see assimilation because even in Miami American culture is thriving.
3
uh....
So what happened to the data that 87% of job loss was due to automation NOT immigration?
What about the ridiculous growth of 1%'s asset and income, while others stagnate or even decrease?
So what happened to the data that 87% of job loss was due to automation NOT immigration?
What about the ridiculous growth of 1%'s asset and income, while others stagnate or even decrease?
7
The "many," as Prof. Borjas, puts it, in the academic community, media elite, and high tech industry who "recoil" from Trump's "America" and "Americans" first policy engage in good faith debates every day when it costs them nothing. Debates are an occupational skill; scholarship and tech research, the culture of debate. But clashes in viewpoints there are mostly skewed to a cost-free consequence of losing one's argument, or reversing a past editorial view. Academic debates are not ones where what's at risk are usually mortal losses.
So it's hard, very hard, as the history of scientific community resistance to new discoveries show us, for the elites to admit that Pres. Trump, AG Jeff Sessions and Prof. George Borjas have scored a winning point in this debate. But in time the elites usually embrace the truth, as history shows, and chalk up their former view to just a misunderstanding of the other side. Acceptance comes when they find a stake in the new truth.
So it's hard, very hard, as the history of scientific community resistance to new discoveries show us, for the elites to admit that Pres. Trump, AG Jeff Sessions and Prof. George Borjas have scored a winning point in this debate. But in time the elites usually embrace the truth, as history shows, and chalk up their former view to just a misunderstanding of the other side. Acceptance comes when they find a stake in the new truth.
Finally, numbers! I will be studying all your data.
I want to address two issues: 1) assimilation, 2) e-Verify
I'm a liberal Democrat, second generation American (so you know where I"m coming from.) I don't understand your statement "the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations." Really? Then governments are doing something wrong. My grandparents, and my husband's grandparents, couldn't speak English. Our parents were high-school educated and bi-lingual. My husband and I hold advanced college degrees and can't speak our original European tongues. That's the normal progression of "assimilation." Why it no longer happens is a separate issue that governments everywhere should talk about more openly. Yes, I know, it's a big liberal thing to preserve and celebrate "native" culture, but it sadly just creates a citizen underclass. We need to be more honest about this. It only takes two generations to turn an immigrant into an American.
As for e-Verify--it's not universally mandated. Anyone interested can go to the website and review it. Unless all employers are required to implement the program, they will continue to turn a blind eye to the fake ID's they're handed. It's utter hypocrisy to call 11 million illegal immigrants "bad hombres" for coming here and working for paltry wages. Some "benign neglect" is certainly in order for these folks.
I want to address two issues: 1) assimilation, 2) e-Verify
I'm a liberal Democrat, second generation American (so you know where I"m coming from.) I don't understand your statement "the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations." Really? Then governments are doing something wrong. My grandparents, and my husband's grandparents, couldn't speak English. Our parents were high-school educated and bi-lingual. My husband and I hold advanced college degrees and can't speak our original European tongues. That's the normal progression of "assimilation." Why it no longer happens is a separate issue that governments everywhere should talk about more openly. Yes, I know, it's a big liberal thing to preserve and celebrate "native" culture, but it sadly just creates a citizen underclass. We need to be more honest about this. It only takes two generations to turn an immigrant into an American.
As for e-Verify--it's not universally mandated. Anyone interested can go to the website and review it. Unless all employers are required to implement the program, they will continue to turn a blind eye to the fake ID's they're handed. It's utter hypocrisy to call 11 million illegal immigrants "bad hombres" for coming here and working for paltry wages. Some "benign neglect" is certainly in order for these folks.
5
The most thoughtful and informational piece in memory on this issue to slip into NYT . There is more to the issue than the constant twang of heart strings from those who broke the law to be here illegally. The effects on Americans, especially those dancing with poverty should be front and center.
Of course we need Immigrants! Especially those who can compensate for the failures of our education systems -some of which can be traced to the strain on schools overwhelmed with non-english speakers.
But the selection should be based first on the needs of our Nation.
Of course we need Immigrants! Especially those who can compensate for the failures of our education systems -some of which can be traced to the strain on schools overwhelmed with non-english speakers.
But the selection should be based first on the needs of our Nation.
16
This article had me fooled for a while. It's conclusions semed to have some factual basis. The first clue that it might be more spin than fact, was the use of the oil industry as the norm regarding the laws of supply and demnd; the fact is, the oil industry is an anomaly when it cones to supply, demand, and price.
The second clue was the enclaves and assimilation argument. When in our history did immigrants not gather in enclaves? When in our history did immigrants not assimilate, and our nation not be the richer for it? Never. The author's assume that this time, things will be different, has no factual basis.
The third clue was his mention of the difficuty that immigrants will have in finding unionized manufacturing jobs as a means of gainingnupward mobility. Apart from being an (unconscious?) indictment of the Republican Party's disastrous economic and union-busting policies, this argument fails to address the obvious- that this isn't an immigration issue, this is an issue for all American workers that must be addressed to maintain upward mobility.
But in the end, it was the author's divisive final question that really gave him away- asking his readers to chose between "them" and "us." Well, I refuse to choose.
Who am I rooting for? Everyone. All of us.
Oh, and, btw, E Pluribus Unum isn't dead; it is the very principle that those of us who oppose Trump's policies are fighting to preserve.
The second clue was the enclaves and assimilation argument. When in our history did immigrants not gather in enclaves? When in our history did immigrants not assimilate, and our nation not be the richer for it? Never. The author's assume that this time, things will be different, has no factual basis.
The third clue was his mention of the difficuty that immigrants will have in finding unionized manufacturing jobs as a means of gainingnupward mobility. Apart from being an (unconscious?) indictment of the Republican Party's disastrous economic and union-busting policies, this argument fails to address the obvious- that this isn't an immigration issue, this is an issue for all American workers that must be addressed to maintain upward mobility.
But in the end, it was the author's divisive final question that really gave him away- asking his readers to chose between "them" and "us." Well, I refuse to choose.
Who am I rooting for? Everyone. All of us.
Oh, and, btw, E Pluribus Unum isn't dead; it is the very principle that those of us who oppose Trump's policies are fighting to preserve.
13
As a Canadian, I can only wonder why our experience of immigration (economic and otherwise) has been so different.
10
Canada's experience is different because the Canadian government actually enforces its imagration laws.
9
I know many immigrants, highly skilled and college educated, who have been unable to find work in the U.S. because the immigration procedures are so difficult and expensive. Canada makes it much easier to immigrate if you come with a skill. Many international graduates that studied in the U.S., often cannot find work here, and many opt to relocate in Canada. Canada's gain is our loss. I'm willing to bet many of our highly talented and hard working Dreamers will end up in Canada as well.
Um, because Canada enforces its immigration laws against illegal immigration and because its legal immigration system is skills based, perhaps?
4
My family immigrated to California to work the orchards; ask us about jobs Americans do not want to do. I was able to get a free education to become a scientist; ask me if the H-1B program harms competing native workers. I grew up during the largest influx of immigrants to California in the 20th Century; ask me about the benefits of multiculturalism. I married a foreigner and moved to Europe; ask me about the real challenges of assimilation.
We can quibble about logistics, but Immigration is a net positive, full stop. Talking about immigration policy now is yet another distraction from the central problem that is tearing apart the fabric of Western Civilization. People are deeply unhappy because they are no longer sharing in the gains. (You know the story in the US; things are rapidly becoming just as uneven over here.) As wealth further concentrates, an increasing share of the population is fighting each other for a diminishing share of prosperity. And they are lashing out at the most convenient "other" while being egged on by a political class that is more than happy to stoke hatred and vilify and punish a vulnerable group of people for votes. Rationalize all you like, but it is simply not possible to have a dispassionate, fact-based conversation about immigration without a healthy and prosperous middle class.
We can quibble about logistics, but Immigration is a net positive, full stop. Talking about immigration policy now is yet another distraction from the central problem that is tearing apart the fabric of Western Civilization. People are deeply unhappy because they are no longer sharing in the gains. (You know the story in the US; things are rapidly becoming just as uneven over here.) As wealth further concentrates, an increasing share of the population is fighting each other for a diminishing share of prosperity. And they are lashing out at the most convenient "other" while being egged on by a political class that is more than happy to stoke hatred and vilify and punish a vulnerable group of people for votes. Rationalize all you like, but it is simply not possible to have a dispassionate, fact-based conversation about immigration without a healthy and prosperous middle class.
223
I agree with your core point that immigration is just a part of the central conversation on how to structure the economy that CAUSES a healthy and prosperous middle class that encompasses at least half the population.
What POLICY have you heard from ANY Democrat from Carter onward that addresses the core economic issue of a declining middle class and more importantly the optimism that hard work yields a middle class lifestyle. The go to Dem policy is more education. 50 year old workers do not want to hear that the solution to their crisis is a return to school for the potential of a job paying half of their old wages. STEM graduates do not want to hear that half their class won't find employment in their field and half of those that do will be timed out in STEM careers wiithin 10 years.
In this environment, Restriction-ism makes enormous sense to me until the core issue is addressed. The aggregate benefits were not discussed by Borges and are real but don't address the core issue. We need an integrated policy of economics and immigration where hard work yields a middle class life for a majority of the country.
What POLICY have you heard from ANY Democrat from Carter onward that addresses the core economic issue of a declining middle class and more importantly the optimism that hard work yields a middle class lifestyle. The go to Dem policy is more education. 50 year old workers do not want to hear that the solution to their crisis is a return to school for the potential of a job paying half of their old wages. STEM graduates do not want to hear that half their class won't find employment in their field and half of those that do will be timed out in STEM careers wiithin 10 years.
In this environment, Restriction-ism makes enormous sense to me until the core issue is addressed. The aggregate benefits were not discussed by Borges and are real but don't address the core issue. We need an integrated policy of economics and immigration where hard work yields a middle class life for a majority of the country.
4
I find it to be interesting that so many of my fellow economists take for granted the right of those who own the other major "factor of production" - capital - to move it anywhere on the globe at any time - but want to restrict the movements of workers. Certainly the movement of capital overseas via FDI (foreign direct investment) has hurt American workers much more than the influx of immigrants. Does Borjas also favor capital controls? If not, there is a certain level of, shall we say, bias here . . . .
14
As Americans, we cling to a once useful mythology of ourselves. A Mythology that was only truthful for a short half-century or so. A Mythology that blotted out the earlier version of ourselves, also little more than half-truth....and a mythology that ignores the heritage of at least 30% of todays Americans.
I see we have need for an updated, revised, more truthful American Mythology....
We are the "Rejects". The people the rest of the World did not want. Our ancestors questioned the rigid state order, the intolerant state religions, the static tribal order......and they got rid of us!
ALL our ancestors....white, black, otherwise......we simply put on a one-way ticket to America......
Once here...via Plymouth Rock, via Jamestown, via Sullivan's Island, via Ellis Island......we set about SHEDDING the old world identities, voluntarily and also somewhat INvoluntarily.
Four Instrinsic American Values:
1. Work Ethic.
2. Pioneer Spirit.
3. Pragmatism.
4. INDIVIDUALISM. (rugged).
Every single True American understands these four values.
But the 21st Century poses new challenges. With the tool of instantaneous electronic communications.....its no longer a one-way ticket to America. Tribal Bonds are re-inforced. There is no break from the past.
Yet Americans still welcome the new arrivals as "immigrants" not as "invaders"
The other path for us is to EXPAND the United States....make NAFTA work to our advantage.
ie....."Make Mexico America Again"....."Make CUBA America Again"...
I see we have need for an updated, revised, more truthful American Mythology....
We are the "Rejects". The people the rest of the World did not want. Our ancestors questioned the rigid state order, the intolerant state religions, the static tribal order......and they got rid of us!
ALL our ancestors....white, black, otherwise......we simply put on a one-way ticket to America......
Once here...via Plymouth Rock, via Jamestown, via Sullivan's Island, via Ellis Island......we set about SHEDDING the old world identities, voluntarily and also somewhat INvoluntarily.
Four Instrinsic American Values:
1. Work Ethic.
2. Pioneer Spirit.
3. Pragmatism.
4. INDIVIDUALISM. (rugged).
Every single True American understands these four values.
But the 21st Century poses new challenges. With the tool of instantaneous electronic communications.....its no longer a one-way ticket to America. Tribal Bonds are re-inforced. There is no break from the past.
Yet Americans still welcome the new arrivals as "immigrants" not as "invaders"
The other path for us is to EXPAND the United States....make NAFTA work to our advantage.
ie....."Make Mexico America Again"....."Make CUBA America Again"...
1
Damage was done by the twisting of words in this debate, and blame falls widely among our elite media and Democratic politicians.
I wanted to see an end to illegal immigration, a violation of our laws that leads topain among poor struggling Americans, yet the cogniscenti immediately turned the words into opposition to 'immigrants'. Headlines trumpeted 'Immigrant Bashing' when anyone called for enforcement of our existing laws.
This cynical twisting of words suggests strategy, as though our elites care more about illegal immigrants that the American who swings a hammer to make a living.
I wanted to see an end to illegal immigration, a violation of our laws that leads topain among poor struggling Americans, yet the cogniscenti immediately turned the words into opposition to 'immigrants'. Headlines trumpeted 'Immigrant Bashing' when anyone called for enforcement of our existing laws.
This cynical twisting of words suggests strategy, as though our elites care more about illegal immigrants that the American who swings a hammer to make a living.
16
AS in the USA, Mexico also had a wave of immigration, ending roughly in the 1930s, when Mexico slowly emerged from carnage and chaos......and closed itself off from the outside world.
Why are we not encouraging MEXICO to open its own borders once again, to immigration????
As required by NAFTA, Mexico is obligated to bring its Civil Code up to North American standards.
Little progress has been made in Mexico towards the guarantee of INDIVIDUAL rights, the guarantee of fair trial by peers, the protection of private property.
The problem as I see it...is not the USA.......it is Mexico....which is on the cusp of great prosperity if it only can abandon the chains of the past.
Likewise for CUBA. In 1900, the last American Military Gov of Cuba, Leonard Wood, reported to Congress, "Give Cuba 100 years....and it STILL will not understand democracy".....has proven remarkably prescient!! Here we are in 2017, and Cuba still dont have a democracy....though Fidel was very convincing at the "promise" elections "next time".
The final push is to accept Cuba into NAFTA on that one condition.
Why are we not encouraging MEXICO to open its own borders once again, to immigration????
As required by NAFTA, Mexico is obligated to bring its Civil Code up to North American standards.
Little progress has been made in Mexico towards the guarantee of INDIVIDUAL rights, the guarantee of fair trial by peers, the protection of private property.
The problem as I see it...is not the USA.......it is Mexico....which is on the cusp of great prosperity if it only can abandon the chains of the past.
Likewise for CUBA. In 1900, the last American Military Gov of Cuba, Leonard Wood, reported to Congress, "Give Cuba 100 years....and it STILL will not understand democracy".....has proven remarkably prescient!! Here we are in 2017, and Cuba still dont have a democracy....though Fidel was very convincing at the "promise" elections "next time".
The final push is to accept Cuba into NAFTA on that one condition.
5
The subject of "Immigration" is nothing more than a "Stalking-Horse" argument over the fact that some groups in America aren't happy with the status-quo. They are nationalist, isolationist, racist, xenophobic, and afraid of change; therefore they want simplistic answers to complex problems. Blaming immigrants for all their problems is the easy way to rationalize their problems.
Of course, even if we managed to remove all the groups they target, none of their real problems would disappear. The result would be yet-another list of groups responsible for their problems as they tighten the circle of who is included in their group of pure individuals.
These arguments are not economic or legal, they are emotional outbursts about why they feel left out and not getting their birthright privileges.
Of course, even if we managed to remove all the groups they target, none of their real problems would disappear. The result would be yet-another list of groups responsible for their problems as they tighten the circle of who is included in their group of pure individuals.
These arguments are not economic or legal, they are emotional outbursts about why they feel left out and not getting their birthright privileges.
2
Some might call Borjas the perfect example of he 'Entitled One' who now shoves a huge STAY OUT OF 'MY' COUNTRY sign in the faces of others who dare attempt to come after him. Glibly he disregards those others who came from other nations who did not get th elitist treatment in consequence of his ethnicity and geo-political exceptions allowing him the gold path to Harvard and others the muddy path to welfare.
As to his assertion that arriving at Ellis Island was some glorious experience where once vetted the new immigrants were welcomed with opened arma and others' deep pockets, that is simply propaganda and yet another myth-like Washington and the cherry tree.
Borjas and others should be reminded that all, except the indigenous peoples, are immigrant here-whether first or eighth generation. They also need reminding that in arriving others were either killed or pushed out of their territories and later placed in reservations where the majority still reside, kept in poverty by the 'Great White Father' , the latest who is numbered 45.
Welcome, welcome emigranté to 'my' country never was and most likely never will be unless it benefits the sitting government to admit some while keeping others out. And by the way, the Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French for being welcomed (in style) to a new nation; the propagandist Lazarus poem came much later.
Incidentally, the so-called borders between nations do NOT exist except in closed minds mired in geo-politics.
As to his assertion that arriving at Ellis Island was some glorious experience where once vetted the new immigrants were welcomed with opened arma and others' deep pockets, that is simply propaganda and yet another myth-like Washington and the cherry tree.
Borjas and others should be reminded that all, except the indigenous peoples, are immigrant here-whether first or eighth generation. They also need reminding that in arriving others were either killed or pushed out of their territories and later placed in reservations where the majority still reside, kept in poverty by the 'Great White Father' , the latest who is numbered 45.
Welcome, welcome emigranté to 'my' country never was and most likely never will be unless it benefits the sitting government to admit some while keeping others out. And by the way, the Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French for being welcomed (in style) to a new nation; the propagandist Lazarus poem came much later.
Incidentally, the so-called borders between nations do NOT exist except in closed minds mired in geo-politics.
49
Borders don't exist? Really, the median US family income is $55,000. The median world income is $9,500. Without borders income like water would find it's own equilibrium and the US would become just another third world nation. You may be okay with paying that price for some fanciful global utopia without borders but it puts you in a tiny majority in this country whether Republican or Democrat.
9
This column is a breath of fresh air. I think the folks disputing Professor Borjas's points must not feel they are impacted by the job loss and salary depression being caused by illegal immigration and the misuse of the H1B program. Once they feel the impact, they'll change their position.
11
We, as a nation, must find a way to bring into our society those newcommers from other lands....they are our future.....how fllast we help them to assimilate will ease their and our burden....the loss of low wage jobs is not more people, it is robotics....there are many jobs going unfilled....we need to find a way to marry those jobs with the newcomers and those native Americans who are now underemployed.....
Thank you Mr. Borjas for a clearheaded discussion of the immigrant issue. We need to start with honest language by calling illegal immigration exactly that. As an immigrant, I appreciate the opportunities that America as given me and can attest to the importance of integrating into American culture. Without this integration, we cannot truly call ourselves American citizens. America is a place where one can still celebrate his or her origins and for that we immigrants are fortunate and grateful. America has embraced us, but we must also embrace America and do what is best for our country and our workers.
12
If you are a citizen of the Philippines, Nigeria, Poland, Bangladesh, etc. and want to migrate to the USA, well, good luck to you. Even with loads of good luck it will take years to gain a green card let alone citizenship.
If you're Mexican, according to many Americans, it's okay if you walk over the border whenever you feel like it and settle in.
Illegal immigration is to legal immigration as shop lifting is to shopping.
If you're Mexican, according to many Americans, it's okay if you walk over the border whenever you feel like it and settle in.
Illegal immigration is to legal immigration as shop lifting is to shopping.
17
Yes, this "hunger games" immigration policy of favoring those who can walk the furthest and hide the longest is cruel isn't it.
Thank you for an objective laying out of the present-day economic tradeoffs in immigration. I do take issue, though, with mention of America as a 'melting pot' being considered a microaggression at UCal. It is as much codswallop as claiming that label for the expression 'American as apple pie' when apple pie might not be the traditional dessert of choice in someone's native culture.
5
More of the same from Borjas, who has spent his entire adult life looking for reasons to limit immigration. He selectively picks his data -- so for instance he cites the fiscal impacts of the 1st generation in the NAS report, which is certainly negative, but leaves out the positive 2nd generation impacts and extremely positive 3rd generation impacts. The fiscal impacts, in short, are actually positive over the longer term, and negative over the shorter term. Surely an economist understands the concept of short term loss for long term gain.
He also asserts that immigrants use health care subsidies more than the native born, but there is zero evidence of that, and a lot of very good evidence that immigrants use health care subsidies less than the native born.
Finally, the whole, "if the supply of labor increases, prices for labor (wages) must fall" is such an elementary mistake that it boggles the mind. That would mean all additions to the supply of labor (from, say, natural population growth and children growing into working age adults) would reduce wages. So population growth=wage declines? This is profoundly stupid and obviously not true.
The overall wage impacts of immigrants are pretty much nil, because immigrants are consumers as well as workers. So they demand labor as much as they supply it. There are distributional questions in immigration: some gain and some lose. And we should recognize and deal with them. But Borjas's not the debate we should have.
He also asserts that immigrants use health care subsidies more than the native born, but there is zero evidence of that, and a lot of very good evidence that immigrants use health care subsidies less than the native born.
Finally, the whole, "if the supply of labor increases, prices for labor (wages) must fall" is such an elementary mistake that it boggles the mind. That would mean all additions to the supply of labor (from, say, natural population growth and children growing into working age adults) would reduce wages. So population growth=wage declines? This is profoundly stupid and obviously not true.
The overall wage impacts of immigrants are pretty much nil, because immigrants are consumers as well as workers. So they demand labor as much as they supply it. There are distributional questions in immigration: some gain and some lose. And we should recognize and deal with them. But Borjas's not the debate we should have.
166
No, the debate should be on "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION." And it costs the U.S. taxpayer billions a year. Let the registered socialistic democrats pay as the independents and republicans choose not to pay. Thank you.
7
Well because of less millennials entering the workforce and 10000 boomers a day hitting 65, 7000 of whom are retiring from jobs. It is estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that we will need 50 million new and replacement workers by 2022 with two-thirds needing post secondary education.
Where are they going to come from?
Or are they already here.
Where are they going to come from?
Or are they already here.
2
Facts--just what I have been missing most in the New York Times. Thank you for publishing this fact-based analysis. I was about to cancel my subscription because of the never-ending emotional, People-magazine type of articles.
12
There is an ecological aspect to immigration as well. An immigrant from a poor country has a small carbon footprint. When they move here, that increases and eventually reaches the carbon footprint of the average American, the worlds highest. More immigrants equal more pollution, more trash, more highway congestion, more crowded cities and less water. There is a reason why the Sierra Club supported a highly restrictive immigration system until recently.
15
With all due respect, you make a lot of claims that sound like they are fact-based, but are really suppositions.....
For example, you refute the well known claim that immigrants do jobs others won't do with one outlier--the Disney issue. I can easily refute that with an incident of my own. A friend's factory is floundering now that he cannot hire illegals. His new legal workers are lazy, unreliable and most of all HARD TO FIND. So much so, he turned an order away last year and now is moving his factory to Mexico. A relative is a builder--who moved from NJ to Minnesota. He cannot expand his business because he cannot find suitable framers--the sort averrable here in NJ who are mostly immigrants. For your one anecdotes, there you have two of mine.
You don't point out the contributions that undocumented immigrants make to social security, or state budgets...numbers in the billions. Nor do you talk about the percentage of the economy supported by undocumented workers with their purchases of goods, real estate and services.
You assume that these enclaves will prevent assimilation and ignore the fact that similar claims have been made against the Germans, Italians, Irish in the past. What--do brown people now deserve different treatment? As a second generation hispanic, I FLY against what you write. My parents came here forty years ago, my three siblings and i are now married to Americans and are indistinguishable from other white Americans.
For example, you refute the well known claim that immigrants do jobs others won't do with one outlier--the Disney issue. I can easily refute that with an incident of my own. A friend's factory is floundering now that he cannot hire illegals. His new legal workers are lazy, unreliable and most of all HARD TO FIND. So much so, he turned an order away last year and now is moving his factory to Mexico. A relative is a builder--who moved from NJ to Minnesota. He cannot expand his business because he cannot find suitable framers--the sort averrable here in NJ who are mostly immigrants. For your one anecdotes, there you have two of mine.
You don't point out the contributions that undocumented immigrants make to social security, or state budgets...numbers in the billions. Nor do you talk about the percentage of the economy supported by undocumented workers with their purchases of goods, real estate and services.
You assume that these enclaves will prevent assimilation and ignore the fact that similar claims have been made against the Germans, Italians, Irish in the past. What--do brown people now deserve different treatment? As a second generation hispanic, I FLY against what you write. My parents came here forty years ago, my three siblings and i are now married to Americans and are indistinguishable from other white Americans.
5
I also find it troubling that he refutes the well known claim that immigrants do jobs Americans won't do. He assumes "supply and demand" will raise wages enough that our natives will be willing to do it, but that turns out not to be true. I recommend you read this article from Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-09/why-americans-wont-do...
There are cultural reasons why Americans won't go into the fields to pick tomatoes, not to mention that hand picking crops is back-breaking work. They'd just rather work at McDonald's.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-09/why-americans-wont-do...
There are cultural reasons why Americans won't go into the fields to pick tomatoes, not to mention that hand picking crops is back-breaking work. They'd just rather work at McDonald's.
Where has Dr Borgas been all my life?? Great piece with unflinching economic analysis of this critical issue for all of us! The comments are some of them hilarious, as if the column had scrambled the readers' brains. Especially the one complaining that Borgas only talks about money! Um ... Borgas is an Economist ... Economics is about money, You want a touchy-feely, get a theology prof, But in fact the piece deals in detail about the human costa of current trends in our present system. NYT should hire Borgas as a regular. Paul Krugman shouldn't have to carry this load alone!
12
Finally, an opinion which makes whole lot sense to me. First thing first, Cubans should be treated equally! I believe the solution is to limit immigration only to H1B visa applicants. I also believe the concept of living wage. If a job pays well, there will be takers. Equally important, people should be wiling to walk the walk by doing their shares. For example, lawn is the stupidest thing! Without it, there will be a lot less low skilled immigrants coming. Lawns suck up water, chemicals and give many undocumented workers jobs. Also people should boycott fast food restaurants hiring undocumented workers. And they should be willing to pay higher prices. Unfortunately, I am not sure most people are willing to pay the right price to keep undocumented immigrants out and to bring jobs back . Sad!
3
Listen to the Harvard economist! The flood of illegal immigrants from 1983-2006, followed by the Great Recession that threw so many middle aged Americans permanently out of the workforce, enabled the rise of Trump and his bigoted minion Bannon. We need a sensible immigration policy, including e-verify.
7
Think back to the 1920s.
The Yanks had returned from overseas, having just helped tie the Kaiser's tail in a knot.
America's Industry was geared up and forging ahead full steam(literally).
The Ellis Island Era came to a close, a 40 year chapter of a giant wave of European Immigration).
We were AMERICANS, and proud of it. USA, a player on the World Stage.
Cuba was interested in joining the USA. WE turned our backs on them.
The Yucatan Peninsula was in revolt and anxious to be annexed by the USA. WE ignored them.
Nicaraugua, Honduras...the fabled banana republics had nascent movements to join the USA....WE discouraged them.
Only the strategic Panama Canal Zone was allowed to consider itself American Territory.
And now Cubans, Mexicans, Central Americans swarm our borders.
We may have missed an opportunity to reform the North American Continent in the 1920s.....
Perhaps, now, we have another chance.
The Yanks had returned from overseas, having just helped tie the Kaiser's tail in a knot.
America's Industry was geared up and forging ahead full steam(literally).
The Ellis Island Era came to a close, a 40 year chapter of a giant wave of European Immigration).
We were AMERICANS, and proud of it. USA, a player on the World Stage.
Cuba was interested in joining the USA. WE turned our backs on them.
The Yucatan Peninsula was in revolt and anxious to be annexed by the USA. WE ignored them.
Nicaraugua, Honduras...the fabled banana republics had nascent movements to join the USA....WE discouraged them.
Only the strategic Panama Canal Zone was allowed to consider itself American Territory.
And now Cubans, Mexicans, Central Americans swarm our borders.
We may have missed an opportunity to reform the North American Continent in the 1920s.....
Perhaps, now, we have another chance.
1
During the 1900 Presidential Election it was predicted that in 2000 the US would extend from Cape Barrow, Alaska to Cape Horn, Chile. It would be interesting to imagine the results of such a change.
2
While on the topic of some sort of Business Case Analysis and Costs vs Benefits, we should apply that to the construction of the "wall". Is it possible that this big expensive wall will have little to no effect on our southern neighbors ability to get into the U.S.?
3
This op ed reminds me of NIMBY and movements in many towns, supported heartily by the newest residents, to curtail any new development. Once they are in and enjoying the benefits of their new homes, they decry any changes because those changes would destroy the character and content of the town. Cubans enjoyed the privileged status that wet foot, dry foot policies gave them, but speak against the Haitians and those from Central America.
86
The population of the world does not have a "right" to immigrate to the US, any more than I have a "right" to an all expenses paid villa in St. Moritz. US immigration policy should be based on our country's needs, not some twisted ideology centered around the vague concept of diversity. The Cubans got a pass (an unfair pass in my estimation) due to the luck of being in the middle of a political and ideological maelstrom. That's is finally coming to an end. Claiming that the Haitians, Hondurans, or Venezuelans should be offered the same consideration because the Cubans got favorable treatment is a poor argument for their acceptance to the US.
11
Thomas Nast had a great cartoon back around 1880 criticiying fellow German and Irish immigrants for their anti-Chinese agitation: "Throwing down the ladder by which they rose."
3
Reality check on immigration.
Too many people not enough jobs.
A we look at the continued onslaught of digitalization of the economy in the US (driverless trucks anyone?) and the world the hard fact is that we are awash in a sea of labor (read overpopulation) which drives down wages for all but the highly educated or lucky.
Good luck Millennials.
Too many people not enough jobs.
A we look at the continued onslaught of digitalization of the economy in the US (driverless trucks anyone?) and the world the hard fact is that we are awash in a sea of labor (read overpopulation) which drives down wages for all but the highly educated or lucky.
Good luck Millennials.
21
Geroge Borjas 2013 The key words for me being sizable redistributive effect. How much longer can people call themselves liberals and ignore this?
"Applying the standard textbook model to illegal immigration shows that illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. As before, this “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.
The above estimates are generated by the presence of additional workers in the labor market, not by the legal status of those workers."
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/popular/CIS2013.pdf
"Applying the standard textbook model to illegal immigration shows that illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. As before, this “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.
The above estimates are generated by the presence of additional workers in the labor market, not by the legal status of those workers."
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/popular/CIS2013.pdf
3
Dear CNNNNC. If that is the case (I do not know if it is true or not) then lets bring in another 50 or 100 million illegals in the next six months, and it will create a balanced budget in the US this year
2
Great article, with important points, but still barely distinguishes legal and illegal immigration and refugee status. The author almost makes a case for restraining immigration, but if we restrained only illegal immigration and the various visa abuses, we would not have to worry about lack of diversity creating enclaves of low assimilation, and waves of immigrants with low literacy, education and skills, distorting the labor market.
7
The issue of immigration is the preeminent issue of our times. It is not an issue for just this country but a world wide issue. In that sense it's similar to the issue of slavery 200 years ago. And so it's time to conclude that we should all be abolitionists; we should all declare that all human beings have a human right to live wherever they want.
I happen to think our country will benefit from increased immigration, particularly because we have an aging population and a decreasing birth rate. But it's beyond economics, it's about human rights. Many thousands are dying trying to exercise that right. We are all accomplices in their deaths; it's time to put an end to it.
I happen to think our country will benefit from increased immigration, particularly because we have an aging population and a decreasing birth rate. But it's beyond economics, it's about human rights. Many thousands are dying trying to exercise that right. We are all accomplices in their deaths; it's time to put an end to it.
5
You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state. The combination is both unsustainable and destructive to society.
Forty percent of the population of Guatemala is living in the US, mostly as illegal aliens, and a majority are working age men. Is it any wonder that Central American countries are in chaos after the majority of middle class working men moved to the US?
Forty percent of the population of Guatemala is living in the US, mostly as illegal aliens, and a majority are working age men. Is it any wonder that Central American countries are in chaos after the majority of middle class working men moved to the US?
7
"Regardless of the allocation, employers should not walk away with all the gains, and workers should not suffer all the losses. We need to ensure a more equitable sharing of the gains and losses among the American people." ... This article reads like the mathematician's cartoon blackboard, full of formulae, and an answer that follows the critical gap: "And then a miracle occurs".
As the supply of immigrants declines the wages paid to for their services - now to be performed by a smaller number of "American" workers now sitting on the bench - will rise, because the demand for those services will remain unchanged in the short term. The cost of those wages will be passed on to the consumer and, rather than the "egalitarian sharing", here comes the inflation that the author should be volubly fretting about.
The percentages will work in Trump's favor in the short term, but only because most people do not ask "a percentage of what"? The innovation economy will still find a way to do without many of the displaced immigrants in the long term and the original problem remains unsolved, the cartoon mathematician's answer bogus.
The new problem we will have created, however, defies solution. The ethnic cleansing that the Trump policies, writ large by Bannon, Miller, and their loathsome ilk, are bringing to these shores damages unquantifiable by math or any useful art or science, because the losses are to hearts and minds. That is how wars start.
As the supply of immigrants declines the wages paid to for their services - now to be performed by a smaller number of "American" workers now sitting on the bench - will rise, because the demand for those services will remain unchanged in the short term. The cost of those wages will be passed on to the consumer and, rather than the "egalitarian sharing", here comes the inflation that the author should be volubly fretting about.
The percentages will work in Trump's favor in the short term, but only because most people do not ask "a percentage of what"? The innovation economy will still find a way to do without many of the displaced immigrants in the long term and the original problem remains unsolved, the cartoon mathematician's answer bogus.
The new problem we will have created, however, defies solution. The ethnic cleansing that the Trump policies, writ large by Bannon, Miller, and their loathsome ilk, are bringing to these shores damages unquantifiable by math or any useful art or science, because the losses are to hearts and minds. That is how wars start.
5
What ethnic cleansing?
2
Unions used to be the champions of the working class. Republicans, including Trump are obliterating them. Trump refused to let his hotel workers unionize - until the election. His "university " robbed people of their mony. Companies manufacturer overseas because it's cheaper - to please Wall Street. There are not enough educated Americans to fill skilled jobs. Graduate schools are filled with foreign students - Asians make up almost half of prestigious university enrollment. The Latino workers are not on welfare - they make American business profitable.
7
Unions were the champions of the white working class. They were established to keep women and minorities out of the workplace. You had to know someone to get a job.
2
Raymond Brunyanszki
February 23 at 1:05pm
"Decline in international travel. On the web, flight searches for trips heading to the U.S. out of all international locations was recently down by 17%. The prestigious Travel Weekly magazine ) has set the decline in foreign tourism at 6.8%. A drop of that magnitude, if continued, would reduce the value of foreign travel within the U.S. by billions of dollars. And the number of jobs supported by foreign tourists and their expenditures in the United States—and thus lost—would easily exceed hundreds of thousands of workers in hotels, restaurants, transportation, stores, tour operations, travel agencies, and the like. This phenomenon is called the Trump-Slump and direct result of Trump's immigration program."
February 23 at 1:05pm
"Decline in international travel. On the web, flight searches for trips heading to the U.S. out of all international locations was recently down by 17%. The prestigious Travel Weekly magazine ) has set the decline in foreign tourism at 6.8%. A drop of that magnitude, if continued, would reduce the value of foreign travel within the U.S. by billions of dollars. And the number of jobs supported by foreign tourists and their expenditures in the United States—and thus lost—would easily exceed hundreds of thousands of workers in hotels, restaurants, transportation, stores, tour operations, travel agencies, and the like. This phenomenon is called the Trump-Slump and direct result of Trump's immigration program."
9
"But" the economist is not the humanitarian.
The "real debate" for the author appears to be the immigrant's threat to economic well being, especially to those who are benefitting "enormously" from America's bounty.
He also favors his president's "winners and losers" language theme (which suggests to me the audience for whom he is writing). It is the same president whose family businesses have abused and continues to abuse the H-2B program. http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2016/12/23/trump-winery-under-fire-aft...
I could take his praise for RNC words spoken ("considerate and compassionate to everyone") if not for the hypocritical claims about creating more American jobs (per above) and the ill-conceived and implemented travel bans and deportations of innocents.
The point is well-taken that unskilled immigrant labor affects low-skilled American workers. Why not take up the cause of educating those Americans so they may obtain higher skills? (yes, I know it is a separate topic, but no less relevant).
How does a Cuban refugee become an America First nationalist, such that he claims sympathy yet lacks empathy.
I am a first generation natural-born American. However, I identify as human before gender, race, nationality, socio-economic, sexual or culinary preference. Through that filter, what value does an economist offer.
The "real debate" for the author appears to be the immigrant's threat to economic well being, especially to those who are benefitting "enormously" from America's bounty.
He also favors his president's "winners and losers" language theme (which suggests to me the audience for whom he is writing). It is the same president whose family businesses have abused and continues to abuse the H-2B program. http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2016/12/23/trump-winery-under-fire-aft...
I could take his praise for RNC words spoken ("considerate and compassionate to everyone") if not for the hypocritical claims about creating more American jobs (per above) and the ill-conceived and implemented travel bans and deportations of innocents.
The point is well-taken that unskilled immigrant labor affects low-skilled American workers. Why not take up the cause of educating those Americans so they may obtain higher skills? (yes, I know it is a separate topic, but no less relevant).
How does a Cuban refugee become an America First nationalist, such that he claims sympathy yet lacks empathy.
I am a first generation natural-born American. However, I identify as human before gender, race, nationality, socio-economic, sexual or culinary preference. Through that filter, what value does an economist offer.
4
While this op-ed makes a number of valid points about the economic implications of open border immigration, I can’t get past the fact that “illegal” immigrants are criminals. I was born here and I can’t unilaterally decide to break the law. A large segment of the country is so hypocritical in arguing that Trump’s temporary pause in travel from 7 countries is against the law, even though many constitutional experts disagree, while at the same time arguing that we shouldn’t respect the law for immigrants that snuck into the country illegally. It is a huge insult to those law abiding immigrants, especially those than came to this country out of love, respect and thirst for our freedoms. Those that became citizens deserve our respect because of the tremendous cost and effort involved. How many illegal immigrants work off the books and pay no taxes, while having their hands out for government entitlements. I was informed that a large number of illegals that do pay taxes, claim their children still living in their native country as dependents tax deductions. This is tax evasion, yet another crime. How many have fake ID’s, yet another crime? Are we supposed to be sensitive when the bleeding hearts claim that they are in hiding now or living in fear? Shouldn’t anyone that broke the law be afraid? Is it not absurd to re-label them as “undocumented” to garner our sympathy for their so-called plight when they have no documents simply because they knowing broke the law?
24
@Varitas
Trump's so-called "temporary pause" blatantly mistreated many completely LEGAL travelers arriving on fully valid issued visas. It was by all indications not just a gross and shameful incompetence administered under no credible excuse (no country where actual terrorist attacks in the US have come from were among the 7 single out as scapegoats, and there was not even a pretense at there being any imminent need for sudden and drastic action, with or without a "pause") but crassly unconstitutional as well. Most Trump fans are far too uninformed to realize this, however.
Trump's so-called "temporary pause" blatantly mistreated many completely LEGAL travelers arriving on fully valid issued visas. It was by all indications not just a gross and shameful incompetence administered under no credible excuse (no country where actual terrorist attacks in the US have come from were among the 7 single out as scapegoats, and there was not even a pretense at there being any imminent need for sudden and drastic action, with or without a "pause") but crassly unconstitutional as well. Most Trump fans are far too uninformed to realize this, however.
4
Before you accuse people of "crimes" that are actually administrative issues, you should check the law. If all those things you mention were actually crimes, the constitutional provisions for prosecuting crimes--right to an attorney, a jury trial, and fourth amendment protections--would make it impossibly cumbersome to deport many illegal residents. Most immigrants are not criminals; this kind of defamatory rhetoric is just an obstacle to any kind of satisfactory resolution that would deport appropriate numbers of people and reform the immigration rules for the future.
4
There are many sensible proposals in this piece. If a few more Republicans in the Do Nothing House of Reps had heeded them, the bipartisan "Gang of 8" immigration restructuring -which passed the Senate in 2013- might now be in place. In which case much demagoguery of the recent presidential campaign might have been directed elsewhere, perhaps taking forms more obvious to more voters.
"Integration" of immigrants is a vague concept, difficult to dissect in a short press column. Most people probably think they "know it when" they "see it," but it is more often imputed or not imputed (rightly or wrongly) than tangibly demonstrated. It becomes especially problematic in long range historical comparison.
One might make a reasonable case that "integration" of immigrants in some fairly concrete, measurable and overall sense was easier in the early 1900s than today. Most who arrived at Ellis Island never again saw the towns and villages they came from overseas; relatives back in the "old country" could stay in touch by letter, and in many cases, followed as immigrants later themselves, but connections were more limited than a click away on a hand-held screen, so new ties in America were perhaps more readily formed then. On the other hand, very similar claims (about recent immigrants being more difficult to assimilate than those of the more distant past) were repeatedly and vehemently made during immigration debates of the early 20th century USA, and later proved largely erroneous.
"Integration" of immigrants is a vague concept, difficult to dissect in a short press column. Most people probably think they "know it when" they "see it," but it is more often imputed or not imputed (rightly or wrongly) than tangibly demonstrated. It becomes especially problematic in long range historical comparison.
One might make a reasonable case that "integration" of immigrants in some fairly concrete, measurable and overall sense was easier in the early 1900s than today. Most who arrived at Ellis Island never again saw the towns and villages they came from overseas; relatives back in the "old country" could stay in touch by letter, and in many cases, followed as immigrants later themselves, but connections were more limited than a click away on a hand-held screen, so new ties in America were perhaps more readily formed then. On the other hand, very similar claims (about recent immigrants being more difficult to assimilate than those of the more distant past) were repeatedly and vehemently made during immigration debates of the early 20th century USA, and later proved largely erroneous.
5
"The McKinsey Global Institute has projected that in 2020, relative to the number of available jobs, there may be a surplus of about six million workers with a high school degree and of almost one million workers without a high school degree"
Labor surplus equals decimated wages and deteriorated, wasted lives. Why shouldn't we fight for our own workers? And why on earth should we support policies that actively destroys the personal and economic well being and opportunities for a large segment of our population?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/03/is-immigration-really-a-...
Labor surplus equals decimated wages and deteriorated, wasted lives. Why shouldn't we fight for our own workers? And why on earth should we support policies that actively destroys the personal and economic well being and opportunities for a large segment of our population?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/03/is-immigration-really-a-...
10
There's a lot to endorse in this piece. Unfortunately, it ignores a lot of the realities of the history of immigration.
The waves of immigrants who got jobs that "evolved" into high quality union jobs were part of a conscious attempt to recruit union busting labor. There was a reaction and in the 1920s new immigration laws were passed to stem the flow. The public relations that supported the new laws were obviously racist, but the groups targeted as changing the nature of the USA came from southern and eastern Europe.
The challenge is broader than a debate about immigration. The challenge is to talk seriously about how to deal with people who are hurt by the economic change that comes so rapidly today. Do we tell them they made bad choices and leave them to solve their problems in isolation? Or do we recognize that change may be beneficial in the aggregate but devastating to individuals and their communities?
I'm rooting for the latter approach. The safety net is not a hammock. It's a foundation on which to build new lives. I do not expect that people will love immigrants, history argues against that idea, but they will fear them less if they are secure in their livelihoods and opportunity for their children.
The waves of immigrants who got jobs that "evolved" into high quality union jobs were part of a conscious attempt to recruit union busting labor. There was a reaction and in the 1920s new immigration laws were passed to stem the flow. The public relations that supported the new laws were obviously racist, but the groups targeted as changing the nature of the USA came from southern and eastern Europe.
The challenge is broader than a debate about immigration. The challenge is to talk seriously about how to deal with people who are hurt by the economic change that comes so rapidly today. Do we tell them they made bad choices and leave them to solve their problems in isolation? Or do we recognize that change may be beneficial in the aggregate but devastating to individuals and their communities?
I'm rooting for the latter approach. The safety net is not a hammock. It's a foundation on which to build new lives. I do not expect that people will love immigrants, history argues against that idea, but they will fear them less if they are secure in their livelihoods and opportunity for their children.
9
When sweat shops prevailed, the business paid low wages, provided no benefits and fired people freely, especially if they were troublemakers.
When workers won the right to organize and unionize the won better wages, benefits and job protection.
The role of the companys in bringing workers in who would become the new wage slaves, destroying unions and worker protections is not examined in this essay.
When workers won the right to organize and unionize the won better wages, benefits and job protection.
The role of the companys in bringing workers in who would become the new wage slaves, destroying unions and worker protections is not examined in this essay.
13
I agree. The initial low paying factory jobs did not simply "evolve" into higher paying union jobs as stated in the article.
1
Borjas is right when he says immigration policy, like any policy, entails tradeoffs. In this case, the main question is whether continued large-scale immigration is a positive for the U.S. economy. Conservatives have traditionally argued that the answer is always yes – more people equals more economic growth, period. But as Borjas says, about a third of recent immigrants are low-skill, low-education workers. That poses a long-term fit problem in the US labor market. We live in a period when very large numbers of Americans have become casualties to globalization and automation: by some reports, more than half of males between 21 and 55 have dropped out of the work force altogether. Our need for unskilled labor has diminished drastically, and our immigration policies should reflect that fact.
But Borjas is far too politic on the question of Trump’s wall. It’s a gigantic boondoggle, a waste of money that has no chance of accomplishing its intended purpose. It won’t stop drug smuggling and it won’t stop the influx of undocumented immigrants, for as Borjas himself notes, many illegal immigrants enter this country by air, using perfectly legal short-term visas. (The usual estimate is 40 percent of the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants.) If by some miracle Trump were able to seal off the Mexican border, would-be immigrants would simply take a plane.
But Borjas is far too politic on the question of Trump’s wall. It’s a gigantic boondoggle, a waste of money that has no chance of accomplishing its intended purpose. It won’t stop drug smuggling and it won’t stop the influx of undocumented immigrants, for as Borjas himself notes, many illegal immigrants enter this country by air, using perfectly legal short-term visas. (The usual estimate is 40 percent of the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants.) If by some miracle Trump were able to seal off the Mexican border, would-be immigrants would simply take a plane.
4
This article is music to my ears even if points are cherry-picked. At least it's the beginning of a rationale discussion. I haven't heard of E-Verify before. We need to look at the employers who enable illegal immigration rather than attacking the illegal immigrants. That being said, I have had ties to the Salinas Valley for over 48 years and have yet to see anyone working in the fields who is not of Hispanic background. I give thanks everyday to the people who make it possible for me to eat strawberries and broccoli.
12
You never heard of e-Verify before? I'm sad to hear that. I often make comments in which I talk about e-Verify because Americans think we have no tools for immigration control. That is simply not true--employers just choose not to use the tools we have because they don't have to, for instance your Salinas Valley farmers. Now, employers who hold contracts with the Federal Government are required to e-Verify employees, so there's a case where it is required.
It's all a game we play here in this country, and most citizens know absolutely nothing about the rules and the tools we already have in place. That means we listen to and believe the hypocrisy we're fed instead of getting off our Facebook feeds and finding out some actual truth and real facts.
It's all a game we play here in this country, and most citizens know absolutely nothing about the rules and the tools we already have in place. That means we listen to and believe the hypocrisy we're fed instead of getting off our Facebook feeds and finding out some actual truth and real facts.
4
This column/columnist appears to make the same serious error made by the Editors a few days ago, a failure to carefully distinguish three groups:
1) 11,000,000 residents who came here from somewhere else over a period of x years (x is never mentioned and I do not know what x = here)
2) Individuals and families seeking asylum because their lives are threatened every day of their life in the countries in which they presently reside.
3) Individuals wishing to emigrate to the US who cannot at all be viewed as asylum seekers.
The author does begin by noting this about refugees (asylum seekers): "...0the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about."
Fine, then simply state up front: "This article is concerned only with ordinary immigration policy, not with policy concerning asylum seekers. I (Professor Borjas do suggest that benign neglect would be a better policy as concerns most of the 11,000,000 than Tump's proposals. Since the US took in such a miniscule number of asylum seekers from Syria, for example, that group is not worth mentioning further here."
So can we also have a separate discussion like the one that preoccupies people here in Sweden, a discussion concerned entirely with asylum seekers that want to come to the US or that might be chosen by the UN to be sent to the US?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
1) 11,000,000 residents who came here from somewhere else over a period of x years (x is never mentioned and I do not know what x = here)
2) Individuals and families seeking asylum because their lives are threatened every day of their life in the countries in which they presently reside.
3) Individuals wishing to emigrate to the US who cannot at all be viewed as asylum seekers.
The author does begin by noting this about refugees (asylum seekers): "...0the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about."
Fine, then simply state up front: "This article is concerned only with ordinary immigration policy, not with policy concerning asylum seekers. I (Professor Borjas do suggest that benign neglect would be a better policy as concerns most of the 11,000,000 than Tump's proposals. Since the US took in such a miniscule number of asylum seekers from Syria, for example, that group is not worth mentioning further here."
So can we also have a separate discussion like the one that preoccupies people here in Sweden, a discussion concerned entirely with asylum seekers that want to come to the US or that might be chosen by the UN to be sent to the US?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
3
I do not have the knowledge to argue with many of the assumptions and analyses in this article. Many of them make some degree of sense--as long as they do not blind us to the plight of so many refugees from war-torn areas and what will be increasing crowds of climate refugees. Too much focus on a nebulous national economic benefit does not guarantee attention to the needs of our own citizens. (No, we should not give everything away.)
It is impossible to believe that our president will be "concerned and compassionate to everyone." That would mean ignoring to so many of his public eruptions and private behaviors.
Although I am not theologically observant, I do believe in the concept that to whom much is given, much is expected. There is no reason to ignore our own people--cutting off health care, cutting taxes for the wealthy and social programs for the poor--in such a wealthy nation. Our own population does not deserve a "trickle-down life."
It is impossible to believe that our president will be "concerned and compassionate to everyone." That would mean ignoring to so many of his public eruptions and private behaviors.
Although I am not theologically observant, I do believe in the concept that to whom much is given, much is expected. There is no reason to ignore our own people--cutting off health care, cutting taxes for the wealthy and social programs for the poor--in such a wealthy nation. Our own population does not deserve a "trickle-down life."
5
What is interesting about this whole topic is that it seems very fashionable to blame all the economic problems of the middle and lower classes to the immigrants but yet ignore the real possibility that the problem lies with those who are the CEOS and owners of businesses. No one seems to consider that just maybe the problem lies in the reality that those who run businesses tend to focus more on their net gain than on their employees.
There is this myth in this country that anyone can become rich and wealthy. The reality is that that is not possible. Not all dreams come true. Not all people end up with six figure salaries and so on. Yes, some people defy the odds and make it big but that is not true for everyone.
Maybe we all need to come back to reality and realize that we need a huge shift in our attitudes as to how to function as a cohesive community. I am all for supporting the individual but no man is an island. Passing the blame to immigrants is a form ignoring the truth.
Somewhere in the past few decades, we went from a concept of "we the people" to "me, me and only me". And that is why we are in the economic mess we are in.
There is this myth in this country that anyone can become rich and wealthy. The reality is that that is not possible. Not all dreams come true. Not all people end up with six figure salaries and so on. Yes, some people defy the odds and make it big but that is not true for everyone.
Maybe we all need to come back to reality and realize that we need a huge shift in our attitudes as to how to function as a cohesive community. I am all for supporting the individual but no man is an island. Passing the blame to immigrants is a form ignoring the truth.
Somewhere in the past few decades, we went from a concept of "we the people" to "me, me and only me". And that is why we are in the economic mess we are in.
29
We, the people usually entails legal residents of the USA - pesky sentential logic though it is.
6
The National Academy of Sciences report cited in this article to provide key evidence of the burden posed by immigrants in fact is far more nuanced in its findings. The report's tag line is: "Immigration's Long-Term Impacts on Overall Wages and Employment of Native-Born U.S. Workers Very Small, Although Low-Skilled Workers May Be Affected, New Report Finds; Impacts on Economic Growth Positive, While Effects on Government Budgets Mixed."
This is a case of slightly tilting the findings to fit the op-ed's argument. And yet, I mostly agree with the author that there needs to be a proper public debate about immigration. How many people actually know that starting in the 1990s legal immigration rose rapidly to about one million per year? Or that that regions of origin have changed so much? Now Latin America, Asia, and Africa are the main sending regions by far, unlike Europe in the nearly century before that. I happen to think that's fine, but many apparently are uncomfortable with that. Perhaps rather than dog whistles, some real discussion would help clear the air? Unfortunately, Trump's manner of answering the fundamental question about immigration came with aspersions and racist rhetoric and a demonizing us-vs-them equation that totally ignores the role played by American employers in dangling jobs in front of needy poor illegal immigrants, their enablers in the government, and US citizens happily accepting the implicit subsidies provided by illegal labor.
This is a case of slightly tilting the findings to fit the op-ed's argument. And yet, I mostly agree with the author that there needs to be a proper public debate about immigration. How many people actually know that starting in the 1990s legal immigration rose rapidly to about one million per year? Or that that regions of origin have changed so much? Now Latin America, Asia, and Africa are the main sending regions by far, unlike Europe in the nearly century before that. I happen to think that's fine, but many apparently are uncomfortable with that. Perhaps rather than dog whistles, some real discussion would help clear the air? Unfortunately, Trump's manner of answering the fundamental question about immigration came with aspersions and racist rhetoric and a demonizing us-vs-them equation that totally ignores the role played by American employers in dangling jobs in front of needy poor illegal immigrants, their enablers in the government, and US citizens happily accepting the implicit subsidies provided by illegal labor.
19
Professor Borjas mentions an example of abuse of the H-1B program under which US workers have had to train their foreign-born replacements. In such cases, these foreign workers are not particularly well educated in STEM or bring exceptional skills to the US economy. These workers are willing and able to work for substantially lower wages, partly because the cost of education in their native countries is often only 5-10% of what the comparable US workers have had to invest in their education. All of the gains from such lower wages are accrued by employers while the US workers suffer job losses and lower income. There needs to be better definition of high skills and a more robust determination of whether those skills are truly in short supply in the US. By some estimates, the US economy has absorbed between 1-2 million foreign-born IT workers over the last 20 years but no reliable estimate exists what percentage of these were due to lower wages as compared to bringing in skills in short supply.
28
It is xenophobic to argue that immigration should be restricted in order to limit the labor supply and thereby raise wages for natives. Certainly, it would be racist to argue that minorities should be limited in their right to work in order to limit the labor supply and raise wages for whites, and it would be sexist to argue that women should stay at home to reduce labor competition for men. Implicit in that argument is that some groups of people are worthy to work and others are not.
8
It is suicidal to promote unlimited immigration with the goal if an ever expanding labor pool and ever lowering wages.
The opposite of that is some form of restriction, which you label xenophobia.
If you want to know who's to blame for Trump, look in the mirror.
The opposite of that is some form of restriction, which you label xenophobia.
If you want to know who's to blame for Trump, look in the mirror.
21
U.S. immigration police is not xenophobic. We admit about one million legal permanent immigrants per year. The issue is not whether immigrants or immigrants who are minorities or are female should be allowed to work. The issue is whether unauthorized immigrants should be allowed to work. Most illegal immigrants as legal immigrants are white. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States was 77.1 percent white in 2015, up from 74.4 percent in 2012, primarily due to immigration from Latin America. So objection to unauthorized immigrants cannot be characterized as racist.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
8
It is neither xenophobic nor racist nor sexist to control immigration levels and choices.
It is the right of a sovereign nation to control immigration and indeed - what countries all over the world do.
But it is nice to see the holy trinity of shame-words paraded out to bolster the argument.
It is the right of a sovereign nation to control immigration and indeed - what countries all over the world do.
But it is nice to see the holy trinity of shame-words paraded out to bolster the argument.
15
Many well-intention Americans think the United States is morally obligated to accept unauthorized immigrants because they come to America to escape poverty, but neither legal nor illegal immigration have significant impact on global poverty. About three billion live on less than $2 a day, and more than 5.6 billion live in countries poorer than Mexico, the country that supplies most of our unauthorized immigrants. Today, America accepts about one million legal immigrants a year. If in addition we took in 100 million unauthorized immigrants a year, we would make little impact on global poverty, but would end up impoverishing America through over population. Rather than robbing impoverished nations of the type of people most likely to effect change in their home countries, we should focus on helping impoverished nations become prosperous.
42
Net immigration from Mexican nationals is negative, instead most illegal immigrants coming from South of the border is from Central American and South American countries, far poorer than Mexico.
An important component of that help could be to provide contraception to those who want it. For many women interviewed in this article by Malcolm Potts, access to contraception was their top priority:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unmet-need-for-family-pla...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unmet-need-for-family-pla...
1
We don't need more debate about immigration. What we need is the fortitude to follow the rule of law--like other countries do.
In case it matters to Liberals, and bleeding hearts who want to throw open our borders and let all come in--Canada and Mexico have laws similar to ours--but actually enforce them.
It is estimated that Canada has 350,000 illegal aliens. Their population is a little more than a tenth of ours. If their immigration policy was a unenforced as ours, they would have nearly 1.5 million illegals living amongst them.
Because their stance is much stricter, it ends up Canada has 75% less illegal immigration than we do.
A call out to all Liberals who believe Canada provides a great model for emulation: lets make a deal! We'll adopt Canada's single-payer system--only if we can adopt their immigration policies. Before you agree, consider this: it would mean deporting almost 10 million illegal immigrants. Do we have a deal?
In case it matters to Liberals, and bleeding hearts who want to throw open our borders and let all come in--Canada and Mexico have laws similar to ours--but actually enforce them.
It is estimated that Canada has 350,000 illegal aliens. Their population is a little more than a tenth of ours. If their immigration policy was a unenforced as ours, they would have nearly 1.5 million illegals living amongst them.
Because their stance is much stricter, it ends up Canada has 75% less illegal immigration than we do.
A call out to all Liberals who believe Canada provides a great model for emulation: lets make a deal! We'll adopt Canada's single-payer system--only if we can adopt their immigration policies. Before you agree, consider this: it would mean deporting almost 10 million illegal immigrants. Do we have a deal?
62
Can't we adopt the single payer system, their immigration policies, and find a way to compromise on deporting 10 million people who are hear working hard?
I don't think most of us liberals want open borders. And we know that illegal immigration is bad for everyone, including the undocumented workers themselves: they have no protections while they are here. We could learn to improve our immigration policies and system of enforcement, while have compassion for those who are already here, obeying the law, and working hard to better themselves and their families?
I don't think most of us liberals want open borders. And we know that illegal immigration is bad for everyone, including the undocumented workers themselves: they have no protections while they are here. We could learn to improve our immigration policies and system of enforcement, while have compassion for those who are already here, obeying the law, and working hard to better themselves and their families?
2
Trump's draconian immigration policies don't promote adherence to the rule of law, they undermine it. Law enforcement isn't the motivation behind these policies; it's scapegoating immigrants to divert people's attention from the anti-worker economic policies of both the old Republican Party and the new Trump Party.
By all means let's pass and enforce immigration laws. Just, compassionate, and sensible laws and enforcement of those laws. Because we sure don't have any of that now, nor will we if Trump and Bannon get their way.
By all means let's pass and enforce immigration laws. Just, compassionate, and sensible laws and enforcement of those laws. Because we sure don't have any of that now, nor will we if Trump and Bannon get their way.
3
While we are talking about broken law, failed enforcement, and negative economic consequences, we could take on a comparable problem with a decided net gain. Speeding. Happens continuously and is quite deliberate, though often rationalized. Kills people...lots of them, in addition to other economic costs. (People are surprisingly stubborn about 'statistical deaths. No one likes to admit that the 2nd Amendment and human error entails lots of dead children, or that state failure adopt certain ACA provisions killed people. Funny, that. Perhaps some sort of moral squeamishness. Peril of the soul and such.) Anyway, a back of the envelope lifetime payment of fines for the US driving population would be upwards of 2 trillion dollars. Better yet, it would go to the states! Decided conservative win. Estimated payments would indeed be unfair to some, but...well it is certainly not an issue with illegal immigration responses, so why worry about that here? Deal?
One can't help but notice the skew toward low-wage workers. Combine that with the author's suggestion that we establish some reforms for better-educated workers, and it's hard not to scratch your head.
Why?
Because, while many undocumented people are low-wage workers, most are mainstream earners and employees. Some are even employers. Added to which, a Visa preference already exists for well-educated entrants.
The author is right that a meaningful debate is needed. That debate should start on level ground, without preconditions and without core premises that are not, in fact, based on fact.
Why?
Because, while many undocumented people are low-wage workers, most are mainstream earners and employees. Some are even employers. Added to which, a Visa preference already exists for well-educated entrants.
The author is right that a meaningful debate is needed. That debate should start on level ground, without preconditions and without core premises that are not, in fact, based on fact.
14
Yes we need a thorough discussion of these issues and a hard look at the future of this nation. How can we improve the lives of Americans who can't find decent jobs? How can this or any nation ensure enough job opportunities to put everyone to work at a so-called living wage? Businesses must focus on doing more with fewer workers to be successful. Capitalism is wonderful for those involved, but the private sector cannot provide enough job opportunities to employ all who need decent jobs. Some blend of some form of socialism is a logical necessity. Perhaps non-profit organizations can help balance supply and demand for jobs, but there just aren't enough to go around. What are the alternatives for creating enough jobs to enable all citizens to earn a decent living???
10
I note that much is made of the supposed burden low skills immigrants pose on the public funds. But not much is made of the fact that it is employers who hire them at the low wages that force many to depend on public help. And that there has been a systematic dismantling of unions in this country that skewed the balance of power between employers and employees heavily in favor of employers. There are studies that showed that even increasing the salaries paid for certain jobs will not attract born citizens, those studies are ignored. There is also a conflation in this article between the abuse of H1B visas by some corporations and illegal immigrants, These are two completely different issues, It is an article that supposedly explodes a myth that immigration is beneficial to this country by presenting a rather biased view wrapped in complexity.
40
That is a piece of the growth of income and wealth inequality. If the supply of lower wage employees, the illegal aliens, went away, the owners of businesses would have to give up some of their wealth to entice employees to work.
There are multiple elements of problems with immigration in this country. One is low wage illegal aliens driving down the wages of meatpackers and construction work and hospitality work. Another is H-1B workers taking over Disney IT jobs, either at lower wages or training so that the entire service center can be moved to India at even lower costs. A third problem is reducing the pay for higher level STEM positions by importing foreigners who are legal immigrants. It's not as if a single change in immigration law or its enforcement would correct the problems.
What do you think the solution is?
There are multiple elements of problems with immigration in this country. One is low wage illegal aliens driving down the wages of meatpackers and construction work and hospitality work. Another is H-1B workers taking over Disney IT jobs, either at lower wages or training so that the entire service center can be moved to India at even lower costs. A third problem is reducing the pay for higher level STEM positions by importing foreigners who are legal immigrants. It's not as if a single change in immigration law or its enforcement would correct the problems.
What do you think the solution is?
5
What's a shame is that this column, or one like it, did not appear a year or two ago. Instead, we had to wait until Trump was elected.
As if there was no place for the ideas outlined here until we had a total jerk in the White House.
In fact the unwillingness of many to even listen to these ideas played a large role in Trump's rise.
As if there was no place for the ideas outlined here until we had a total jerk in the White House.
In fact the unwillingness of many to even listen to these ideas played a large role in Trump's rise.
130
Wonderful article. My people--working class whites born in this country, with Ellis Island roots--have suffered greatly under current immigration policy. So have native-born Americans of African heritage, and legal immigrants. This article begins to explain how, but the workers affected know; just ask them. The persistent disregard by white, educated, upper middle class people for working-class whites ("white trash"), and the struggles of inner city blacks, is wrong. I've lived in struggling Brooklyn, anyone who thinks the inner cities are "fine" is not paying attention. The murder rate in Chicago is a symptom of what is, at base, an unemployment and hopelessness problem. Drugs provide the best career available to too many talented young minds. The Democratic party, except for Sanders, has not been paying attention to inner cities or poor whites for decades. I voted for Hillary, but these days, I am glad Trump won the election. [Except: I am deeply concerned about the environment under Trump. However I'm not convinced anymore that the EPA has been doing a good job anyway.] Employers simply must be held accountable for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, and if our grocery bills go up because employers have to follow the law, so be it.
157
Rather than engaging in abstract economic models, Borjas and his GOP allies who are shedding crocodile for U.S. workers should consult those allegedly most harmed by illegal immigration: African Americans. According to a March 2013 Pew poll, more than eight-in-ten non-Hispanic blacks (82%) favored letting illegal immigrants stay if they meet certain requirements; about half of blacks (52%) said illegal immigrants should be able to apply for citizenship.
Commentators fearing that “real Americans” are being crowded out in the job market in the poorest states can take comfort in a fact that Borjas neglects: few immigrants migrate to these states. West Virginia and Mississippi should be optimal locations in the eyes of these 21st century Know Nothings: they have the lowest proportion of immigrant and the highest proportion speaking English only in the entire nation. It is often difficult to say which is the chicken and which is the egg, but immigration and economic progress go hand in hand. Look at California and Texas, where the GOP Congressman from the Rio Grande thinks Trump’s wall policies are unnecessary.
Commentators fearing that “real Americans” are being crowded out in the job market in the poorest states can take comfort in a fact that Borjas neglects: few immigrants migrate to these states. West Virginia and Mississippi should be optimal locations in the eyes of these 21st century Know Nothings: they have the lowest proportion of immigrant and the highest proportion speaking English only in the entire nation. It is often difficult to say which is the chicken and which is the egg, but immigration and economic progress go hand in hand. Look at California and Texas, where the GOP Congressman from the Rio Grande thinks Trump’s wall policies are unnecessary.
2
Thank you for a nuanced view of a complicated and emotional subject.
99
Politically correct apologists ignore one over-riding fact about today’s America. Look for the middle class in any community in America today. It’s gone.
Half of it has slid toward poverty. The factories and their good manufacturing jobs are gone. Men and women with enough pride and demand for self-worth work two or three low-paying service jobs just to keep food on the table and the heat on in their homes. Things their parents could afford – a new house, an occasional vacation trip, a second car – are farther and farther out of their reach.
At the same time, the other half has yielded to the constantly growing lure of government aid to support them (50 million on food stamps, double the previous number). They live as well or better than their proud neighbors without working. Their children attend the same schools, except that when it’s time for college, theirs will go to elite schools, with their way paid by the government. The worker’s children will only be able to get into state or community schools, and can only pay their way if they do with student loans that crush their economic hopes for decades after school.
Make up all your fanciful excuses for the existence of this monster. Donald Trump was the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who saw it and promised to rid the US of it. All the other candidates only intended to feed it so it grew even bigger. He got elected because of that promise.
He’s filling it.
Half of it has slid toward poverty. The factories and their good manufacturing jobs are gone. Men and women with enough pride and demand for self-worth work two or three low-paying service jobs just to keep food on the table and the heat on in their homes. Things their parents could afford – a new house, an occasional vacation trip, a second car – are farther and farther out of their reach.
At the same time, the other half has yielded to the constantly growing lure of government aid to support them (50 million on food stamps, double the previous number). They live as well or better than their proud neighbors without working. Their children attend the same schools, except that when it’s time for college, theirs will go to elite schools, with their way paid by the government. The worker’s children will only be able to get into state or community schools, and can only pay their way if they do with student loans that crush their economic hopes for decades after school.
Make up all your fanciful excuses for the existence of this monster. Donald Trump was the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who saw it and promised to rid the US of it. All the other candidates only intended to feed it so it grew even bigger. He got elected because of that promise.
He’s filling it.
98
I'm sorry, but what you say makes no sense. What does this have to do with immigration? And how exactly can someone live as well or better than their "proud" neighbors without working? These are typical things that people say when they don't understand the welfare systems. The SNAP program goes to help people eat. A family of 5 can receive up to $770 per month for food only (in NC), but I fail to understand how that is living better than the neighbors. And how exactly will the worker's children only get into community or state schools, will the non-worker's children get into elite schools? Have you even looked at the statistics of who's getting admitted to elite colleges? It is not predominantly poor people, by any measure of things.
7
I'm sorry to hear that the entire middle class of Naples, Florida has vanished. Tell me, how is it possible that the median income there is over $80,000?
As for the rest of America's communities ... perhaps you should get out more.
As for the rest of America's communities ... perhaps you should get out more.
4
The first question is: how are immigrants responsible for half of the American middle class sliding towards poverty and the other half yielding to the "growing lure of government aid support"?
The second question is how removing undocumented migrants will solve the above two issues?
Scapegoating the immigrants for US economic problems is easy and effective politically (gathers votes), but will not really solve these and other problems ailing the US middle class.
The second question is how removing undocumented migrants will solve the above two issues?
Scapegoating the immigrants for US economic problems is easy and effective politically (gathers votes), but will not really solve these and other problems ailing the US middle class.
4
And money is the author's measure of value. His throwaway mention of the quote on our Statue of Liberty combined to read like - I got mine; you don't get yours. Sad.
41
PeaceCorpsMeri - "His throwaway mention of the quote on our Statue of Liberty combined to read like - I got mine; you don't get yours. Sad."
What is really SAD is that you think you, or anyone else, should be able to get theirs ILLEGALLY!
What is really SAD is that you think you, or anyone else, should be able to get theirs ILLEGALLY!
9
Professor Borjas begins his essay with the uncontroversial statement that immigration imposes trade-offs on the American economy. The rest of his column, however, analyzes the negative consequences of the influx of new workers, with the mention of only one positive effect. Anyone reading this piece would have to wonder about the reasons for the controversy, since the economic and cultural costs seem clearly to outweigh the benefits. Liberal proponents of immigration, moreover, emerge from this essay as naive idealists who allow emotions rather than hard economic data to dictate their conclusions.
It seems possible, however, that Dr. Borjas, himself, has cherry-picked some of his statistics. He notes the fall in working-class wages over the last 30 years, without pointing out that the income of all groups below the economic elite has stagnated over that period. Should we conclude that all these workers have suffered because of the influx of low-paid competitors?
He also stresses the impact of an increase in the supply of any resource on the cost of that resource. He uses the example of gas, but he fails to point out that labor, unlike gas, is not an undifferentiated commodity. Workers from south of the border pour into a variety of low-paid service jobs, occupations which Borjas does not show native-born Americans want to fill.
Immigration is a contentious issue, but it requires a more balanced treatment than it receives here.
It seems possible, however, that Dr. Borjas, himself, has cherry-picked some of his statistics. He notes the fall in working-class wages over the last 30 years, without pointing out that the income of all groups below the economic elite has stagnated over that period. Should we conclude that all these workers have suffered because of the influx of low-paid competitors?
He also stresses the impact of an increase in the supply of any resource on the cost of that resource. He uses the example of gas, but he fails to point out that labor, unlike gas, is not an undifferentiated commodity. Workers from south of the border pour into a variety of low-paid service jobs, occupations which Borjas does not show native-born Americans want to fill.
Immigration is a contentious issue, but it requires a more balanced treatment than it receives here.
207
Much of the work that low/no skilled immigrants do used to pay a good union wage a generation ago--things like meat packing, and construction.
The wages of the middle class have been stagnant. The wages of the lower classes have plummeted.
The wages of the middle class have been stagnant. The wages of the lower classes have plummeted.
10
Absolutely true that this is far too large and complicated of a discussion to cover in one book, much less an article. Perhaps I'm just being an apologist, but I think there's been a huge deal of coverage that is at minimum just as biased on the other side. This is the first time in following the H-1B for nearly 8 years that I've seen a major publication print this view. Immigration attorneys and business owners are almost daily getting printed making economic claims, but the worker is most always never represented or at best raised then dismissed.
So while I agree this is somewhat lopsided, it is long overdue and may be indicative of following the money. The economic elite has a great deal more of the contacts and funds to get their wants promoted. Borjas is Horton to IT's who's.
So while I agree this is somewhat lopsided, it is long overdue and may be indicative of following the money. The economic elite has a great deal more of the contacts and funds to get their wants promoted. Borjas is Horton to IT's who's.
6
Just because an American doesn't want to do a job doesn't mean (a) he won't do it when it is his only option for a paycheck and (b) there is a waiting alternative job he is capable of doing. we have found that (a) will occur and (b) generally doesn't exist.
Selecting who is allowed into our country, based on a preference for skilled workers is picking winners and losers of American industries. The message is that the construction and service industries are not very important, the 15 to 25 dollar an hr. jobs in those industries don't make America Great. That the agricultural workers are not very important to our country. It would seem that allowing high wage skilled workers to enter the US, is a dodge by government, and industry to not bother equipping US citizens with the work ethic and education to fill those positions. Stealing the educational investment of other countries and neglecting equipping our youth with the tools to compete is our loss not our gain as many purport.
Immigrant's are valued by small business's in the trades because of their work ethic not their wage acceptance, a good dependable worker quickly realizes his value and is nearly always higher paid, and valued higher and in my experience paid at the top of the industry range.
Immigrant's are valued by small business's in the trades because of their work ethic not their wage acceptance, a good dependable worker quickly realizes his value and is nearly always higher paid, and valued higher and in my experience paid at the top of the industry range.
23
I'm rooting for the immigrants George, as an American citizen born and raised here. No trade offs, we need them and the skills they bring. The so called unemployed need to learn new skills and we need to raise taxes on corporations to help pay to teach them so they can finally be employable.
73
Thousands of skilled Americans like the Disneyland tech workers are being forced to train their less-skilled foreign replacements, so Disney stockholders can make more moneys. See, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/business/h-1b-visa-tech-cheers-for-fo...
Borjas is a lonely voice of reason, and support for low-wage and minority citizen workers, but he leaves out bigger arguments. Protesters today call for no borders, no fences, no deportations. What would the resulting world look like without the bordered nation state as a political community in which people develop values, laws, and trust? If every person could move to any country, our distinct, experimental cultures would wash out to a soup of commodified labor and anything-goes rules. Much that has been achieved in thousands of years of western civilization would be lost (ok, not politically correct, but where else does a woman want to live than in a western country with gender equality, tolerance, and opportunity?) And think of the conflict, civil war, poverty as capitalists exploit the REALLY global flows of labor. The boosters of open immigration have always been capitalists. Andrew Carnegie called immigration the "golden stream" and it was, for capitalists. People have the right to stay home and flourish. That's the side of the equation we should be working on. The people-exporters and their dismal societies, which the US makes worse when it invades (think Guatemala, Iraq).
Borjas is a lonely voice of reason, and support for low-wage and minority citizen workers, but he leaves out bigger arguments. Protesters today call for no borders, no fences, no deportations. What would the resulting world look like without the bordered nation state as a political community in which people develop values, laws, and trust? If every person could move to any country, our distinct, experimental cultures would wash out to a soup of commodified labor and anything-goes rules. Much that has been achieved in thousands of years of western civilization would be lost (ok, not politically correct, but where else does a woman want to live than in a western country with gender equality, tolerance, and opportunity?) And think of the conflict, civil war, poverty as capitalists exploit the REALLY global flows of labor. The boosters of open immigration have always been capitalists. Andrew Carnegie called immigration the "golden stream" and it was, for capitalists. People have the right to stay home and flourish. That's the side of the equation we should be working on. The people-exporters and their dismal societies, which the US makes worse when it invades (think Guatemala, Iraq).
11
On the high-skilled side of the debate, it's not a skills issue. NYT's coverage last year of the Disney layoffs doesn't even scratch the tip of the iceberg on how prevalent the use of the visa system is for laying off and overlooking domestic workers. This cannot be an incentive for us to pursue STEM as a nation.
10
Indeed an intelligent debate on immigration is needed, and seriously past due. The author of this article is a learned individual whose analysis of the subject should not be casually dismissed. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and several others in his administration are not as gifted, rendering them incapable of coming at this subject intelligently and dispassionately. Instead, they and many members of Congress will continue to approach immigration from their individual political aspirations rather than the needs of the country and the illegal immigrants living here. In the continuing absence of well informed, knowledgeable, and erudite discussion of immigration, the result will be either damaging changes, or continuing stagnation.
36
"Many of the Ellis Island-era immigrants got jobs in manufacturing; Ford’s work force was 75 percent foreign-born in 1914. Those manufacturing jobs evolved into well-paid union jobs, ..." shows a clear negative bias against workers organizing to achieve a power for negotiation with employers. We should ask if the first (immigrant) workers considered their jobs "well-paid" and when did the jobs "evolve" into union jobs, as well as under what circumstances (why).
I'm not an economist (biomedical scientist) but the overall analysis seems selective for information supporting a preconceived notion, i.e. biased, and poorly designed.
My sympathy for Harvard Kennedy students.
I'm not an economist (biomedical scientist) but the overall analysis seems selective for information supporting a preconceived notion, i.e. biased, and poorly designed.
My sympathy for Harvard Kennedy students.
73
I thought he was saying that there are no equivalent jobs for poor immigrants like there were at Ford in the early 20th century. Unions have been literally decimated by the conservatives and poorly fought for by the Dems.
88
I also feel sympathy for his students since even I, a retired lowly community college professor, know the difference between assimilation and a melting pot, terms Borjas uses interchangeably. Assimilation is a process, over time (often a couple of generations), whereby people give up much of their original culture and adopt a different culture. There has never been a true "melting pot" in the U.S. or anywhere else. Think for a moment and visualize that configuration - melting down people from multiple cultures - and you'll understand. When this "melted" group of people popped out of the pot, what new "melted" language would they speak? What new "melted" faith/creed would they practice? What new "melted" customs and traditions would they adhere to? This disconnect with any actual human history is why most academics choose not to use it and, instead, utilize terms that have a basis in human reality.
7
And part of the problem for unions was that the oversupply of cheap, immigrant labor helped undermine the unions.
9
Yes, this is a debate that we need but will probably never have, certainly not with the necessary rigor. However, even if there is a grain of truth in many Trump statements, he appeals to passions that make that debate impossible. Liberals often suffer from denial that defeats their striving for a more open, just society. Any policy involves trade-offs. To deny that is not only folly, but denial makes it impossible for anticipate and mitigate the damage of any new plan. When NAFTA was being negotiated, then Labor Secretary Reich wanted job retraining and other aid for those who would be displaced, but he failed to make this and other guarantees part of the agreement. Not everybody who supports Trump is a racist isolationist islamophobe & anti-semite. He claims that he's not either, but he misses the fact that many who are feel emboldened by him. He refuses to denounce the extremists among his supporters and takes any demand for solutions to increased violence as a personal insult. The result is all this is a lot of noise from folks on all sides yelling at each other but very little serious debate about the questions raised in this article.
71
Joel - "...but he misses the fact that many who are feel emboldened by him. He refuses to denounce the extremists among his supporters and takes any demand for solutions to increased violence as a personal insult."
That sentence, with a very small change, can be used to explain the problem with religion in the Middle East. How many of us miss that fact?
That sentence, with a very small change, can be used to explain the problem with religion in the Middle East. How many of us miss that fact?
4
Ah yes clearly you are an economist since you take what Trump says at face value. If it wasn't for Economists like PK I'd think ill of the entire profession.
12
And yet PK cited Dr. Borjas' research back in 2006, essentially agreeing with what was said here.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/notes-on-immigration/
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/notes-on-immigration/
64