Can Immigration Solve our Economic Problems?

[npts2020]

America has long been idealized as a place where oppressed people could go to begin a new life in freedom, recently exhibited xenophobia notwithstanding. The recent problems, if economists can be trusted, are in no small part related to real estate values falling. If America was to not have any numerical limit but were to allow any qualified individual to become a citizen, what would be the economic effect? IMO it would not take long to both increase real estate values and raise tax revenue to a level closer to what we are spending.

[big314mp]

It depends more on whether the total number of jobs increases or not. If immigrant A comes and displaces citizen B from his job, then we haven't changed anything (actually, we added an unemployed person).

 

However, if immigrant A comes and gets a job, and citizen B also keeps his job, then we have real progress, as we now have another taxpayer, and another person to (hopefully) buy a house to help soak up the excess supply in the housing market.

 

I read something a while back (as in before this mess) that suggested that the latter scenario was far more common. I don't know how (or if) that would change in the current economic situation.

[Pangloss]

If America was to not have any numerical limit but were to allow any qualified individual to become a citizen, what would be the economic effect?

 

What numerical limit?

[ecoli]

We wouldn't be able to pay for the entitlements programs that they would probably be eligible for.

[jackson33]

The US has a limit for Legal Immigration, just over a million per year. The folks are sponsored, a place to go and usually a job lined up. Depending on the country, these are picked from 1 of 5 to as much to 1 of 25 of those applicants to migrate. Illegal Immigration, from those that enter legally and stay or that enter illegally to begin with have many estimations, but probably an additional million per year and usually have an idea where to go for work or simply work the same seasonal jobs year and year, generation after generation, and returning to where ever. I don't doubt there are 12-15 million in this country today that are undocumented, but an accumulation of years (1990-today) and probably less than the legals that have entered.

 

There is no secret that getting segments of society into the economy, has increased the total. The 'Equal Rights' Act's of Johnson (1965-68) added a great deal, the Reagan Amnesty Act in the 1980's added a great deal and the much defiled Illegal Immigration since has had positive effects. The negatives that have happened (Rights of persons) have likewise grown and you will note some of the hardest hit areas (So. California, Florida and Las Vegas) are also home to millions of illegals.

 

IMO; And up front admit its arguable, total amnesty to all current illegals would have prevented or certainly diminished this so called crisis. I don't know the actual stat, but for every 100 new people it creates out of necessity so many jobs.

 

I will also add; Like it or not, the US population is an aging one, under those of 1960-1990. In the next 20 years, if not for immigration, we would soon have more people dependent on less and less of a work force or the producers to economy/society. This already showing up in Social Security or any of the Welfare Programs.

[Pangloss]

I don't think it's an overall limit, I think it's a set of criteria for each country of origin. But if I'm wrong, let's see it. What federal law or regulation governs that?

 

But getting back to the point of the OP, I reject the premise that we are xenophobic and anti-immigration as a general bent, and that we need to turn that around in order to resolve the economic crisis. That premise is false -- according to the well-sourced Wikipedia articles on immigration, we bring in more people each year than any other country on the planet, and there are more people in this country who were born elsewhere than in the entire populations of many if not most European nations.

 

The idea that we're a closed society that could solve all of its problems if we were only more progressive is ludicrous and partisan.

[npts2020]

big314mp...the idea would be for those asking for citizenship have a job lined up i.e. working in their cousins dry cleaning business, opening a widget making plant, professorship at M.I.T. etc. This should displace few jobs.

 

ecoli...part of being "eligible" could be to collect nothing for at least some period of time say 25 years just for sake of putting a number on it

 

Pangloss...it is a limit with each country assigned so many spots as Jackson33 describes (thank you Jackson33). I am sure if you google and go to the Immigration and Naturalization Sevice website you can find out what the limit for each country is. No country that I am aware of has fewer applications than slots allotted.

What I meant by "recently exhibited xenophobia" was the behavior covered in the mass media over immigration reform and the apparent victory of xenophobia over logical reform and in no way is meant as a commentary on the midset of any majority (imo few people even think about it much anyway). As you yourself point out, the vast majority in this country has a recent forefather from outside of the Americas. This gives me hope that those xenophobic tendencies can be overcome, at least enough to give a subject like this rational discussion.

Your last sentence actually gave me a pretty good laugh. Which partisan side are you talking about? I only gave what I thought would be the effect and asked what others thought the outcome would be. BTW I failed to note what you thought the effect would be.

[jackson33]

Its a bit more complicated; We accept applications from every country via our Embassy's for entrance into this country. What is accepted varies according to those groups (ethnic/nationality) that ARE NOW IN THE US. Until 1921, there was no quota and entrance pretty much wide open. There had been restrictions or total denial fro certain groups over the years.

 

Congress is charged with Immigration policy; In 1921 they Passed the 'National Quota Act', which allowed 3% (estimation) of each current US ethnic group from elsewhere to migrate to the US, with the restrictions mentioned. This was reduced to 2% in 1924 and remains that today. Until 1980 (Refugee Act), the US allowed people from ANYPLACE where immanent harm would result if they returned to or were forced to return. Cubans for instance entered this country at will until 1980, from anyplace (Mexico/So America), but after this act could/would be turned back, short of being on US territory, then coming directly from Cuba.

[Realitycheck]

It depends more on whether the total number of jobs increases or not. If immigrant A comes and displaces citizen B from his job, then we haven't changed anything (actually, we added an unemployed person).

 

However, if immigrant A comes and gets a job, and citizen B also keeps his job, then we have real progress, as we now have another taxpayer, and another person to (hopefully) buy a house to help soak up the excess supply in the housing market.

 

I read something a while back (as in before this mess) that suggested that the latter scenario was far more common. I don't know how (or if) that would change in the current economic situation.

 

I've had a chance to see a lot of this up close. Job creation is really the key and is entirely dependent on the popular belief that investment and growth is required to accomplish it. However, the influx does not necessarily spur investment and growth.

 

I am accustomed to seeing lots of Mexican-Americans around, which Pangloss should be familiar with. They definitely fill the niche for lower-income jobs that some people don't want to do. That doesn't necessarily make them a shoe-in candidate for mortgages, but renting a property essentially fills the same function. The more is definitely not the merrier. They have to survive somehow, which opens routes to crime, of any kind. These lower income people simply don't pay taxes, for the most part, which is entirely understandable when subcontractors owe twice as much payroll tax for the same benefits that we all receive. Lots of negatives associated with pushing the envelope.

 

When it comes to people who are higher educated, the outlook dramatically changes. This is somewhat expected from people from any other country since access is not so easy and requires some level of organization rather than just swimming across a river.

[Pangloss]

Sure, that's why I'm learning Spanish -- so I can tell the lady how to cut my hair. But how does increasing what is already an extremely large number of immigrants save the economy? Is there a shortage of hairdressers and janitors where you live?

 

Also, I've never quite understood why it's actually desirable for these jobs to generate less income. If there weren't anybody willing to do those jobs for that pay, wouldn't that actually result in a larger amount of money being spent on those jobs? Why is it a bad thing if it costs me $100/month to get lawn care instead of $50/month?

[Realitycheck]

But how does increasing what is already an extremely large number of immigrants save the economy? Is there a shortage of hairdressers and janitors where you live?

 

I was not necessarily advocating this position. The subject was regarding excess property management. With 3/4 million jobs lost, I would say that we need our people working first, even if they are having to sweep up dust at construction sites for minimum wage.

 

There is a common belief that Mexican-American laborers perform much work that spoiled people on welfare refuse to do, that are above doing. This might be outdated, as I don't really know what the status of the Welfare program is today with this administration.

 

Also, I've never quite understood why it's actually desirable for these jobs to generate less income. If there weren't anybody willing to do those jobs for that pay, wouldn't that actually result in a larger amount of money being spent on those jobs? Why is it a bad thing if it costs me $100/month to get lawn care instead of $50/month?

 

I am not saying that it is desirable for anybody to get paid any less than they deserve. Skilled laborers generally get paid very well. The going rate for day labor at the corner is about 50 dollars a day, regardless of what you have them do. Just don't expect them to install a marble floor that is level and smooth.

[Pangloss]

You're starting to sound like quite the conservative, agentchange, advocating the benefits of low-wage labor! Just kidding, I understand your point.

 

Sure that's true about better labor costing more, but I'm just wondering why it's necessarily wrong to pay more for the cheap labor. If that's so bad then why do we keep raising the minimum wage?

[npts2020]

If one really wanted to keep less educated and unskilled laborers from immigrating the rules could be constructed in such a way that they stay illegally if they are here at all. What I am wondering is at what point would an influx significantly effect the economy and would it be positive or negative, thus my speculation about the effect on real estate at the beginning of the thread.

BTW I believe the increasing of minimum wages has something to do with a "war on poverty" begun in the 1960's.

[big314mp]

On the minimum wage point:

I have to wonder how many of these jobs aren't doomed, since countries such as china and india don't have a minimum wage. This automatically makes their workers more competitive than ours. I'm thinking that the only minimum wage jobs that will remain, are those that can't be outsourced (lawn care, construction, etc).

 

On the immigrations point:

Customs and Immigration is notoriously hard to get through these days. It took my cousin quite a while to get a student visa to get his graduate degree here. Even for educated people, it is very difficult to get through, even if you have a place to stay, proof that you aren't taking anyone's job, a good reason to come to the US, and a citizen family to vouch for you (and said citizens need a plainly obvious reason to vouch for you also).

 

IMO, if the economy can get back on its feet, then immigrants should be more than welcome. This only works if they are legal, and therefore pay taxes. More workers to fill jobs is never a bad thing.

 

And to address one last point:

Some american citizens will always be unemployed. It is unreasonable to say that we should employ all americans before we give jobs to immigrants. IMO, give immigrants a reasonable path to citizenship, and then let them compete with everyone else.

[Pangloss]

Customs and Immigration is notoriously hard to get through these days. It took my cousin quite a while to get a student visa to get his graduate degree here. Even for educated people, it is very difficult to get through, even if you have a place to stay, proof that you aren't taking anyone's job, a good reason to come to the US, and a citizen family to vouch for you (and said citizens need a plainly obvious reason to vouch for you also).

 

Yes, customs and immigration is more serious these days, but as posted earlier in the thread, we allow in more people each year than any other country on the planet.

 

IMO, if the economy can get back on its feet, then immigrants should be more than welcome. This only works if they are legal, and therefore pay taxes. More workers to fill jobs is never a bad thing.

 

They already are more welcome than on any other planet on Earth, and more workers is only a good thing if unfilled jobs are actually available. Is there demand that is not being met? I don't know. Do you? Let's see some numbers. All I see at the moment are assumptions.

[big314mp]

Yes, customs and immigration is more serious these days, but as posted earlier in the thread, we allow in more people each year than any other country on the planet.

 

They already are more welcome than on any other planet on Earth, and more workers is only a good thing if unfilled jobs are actually available. Is there demand that is not being met? I don't know. Do you? Let's see some numbers. All I see at the moment are assumptions.

 

It is silly to think assume that since we let in more people than anyone else, that the border policy is open.

 

Consider: Why would the illegal immigrants show up in the first place if there wasn't demand for workers?

 

I'm getting together some numbers/reports/info ATM, and will post them here later.

 

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=491

 

This is a good one. On the whole, it suggests that immigrants bolster the economy by filling demand for workers and by paying taxes. On the flip side, it suggests that wages are pulled down some for native workers.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001711.html

 

This one suggests that overall, immigration does not hurt US unemployment levels, but does have an effect on unskilled native laborers.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DD1F3AF937A25755C0A964958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

This one suggests that the previous one was wrong about the negative impact on unskilled laborers.

[Pangloss]

It is silly to think assume that since we let in more people than anyone else, that the border policy is open.

 

I didn't say it was open, I said it was more open than any other country, which flies in the face of the supposition that it isn't open enough. And I said that if you want to make a case that opening it further will help the economy, then you need to show that need, not just complain about the border not being open enough.

 

Where is the evidence that there aren't enough lawn care specialists and house maids? I'm not saying it's not out there, I'm saying I've not heard it.

 

 

Consider: Why would the illegal immigrants show up in the first place if there wasn't demand for workers?

 

What I'm suggesting is that there is demand for lower-paid workers, not for more workers. I pay the guy who does my lawn $50/month for two visits. If another guy shows up tomorrow offering three visits for the same rate, I'm going to take that deal. If he doesn't, I'm stuck with what I have.

 

 

This is a good one. On the whole, it suggests that immigrants bolster the economy by filling demand for workers and by paying taxes. On the flip side, it suggests that wages are pulled down some for native workers.

 

This one suggests that overall, immigration does not hurt US unemployment levels, but does have an effect on unskilled native laborers.

 

These seem to support my point. Can you expand further on that last one you mentioned, in so far as it may address my question above?

[big314mp]

The premise that I am using here is that if some immigrant came and offered to mow your lawn 3x a month instead of 2x, the other lawn guy would be would be out of a job. Since an increased unemployment rate is not observed in states with high immigration, the above scenario must not be happening.

 

Maybe the other lawn care guy had to take a job at McDonald's, and as a result, faces reduced wages. But can you really argue that we should protect him like that?

[Pangloss]

Well first of all, that doesn't follow. As you say, you don't know where they're going to work, so you can't say that they're putting each other out of work. More information is needed. And even if it's true, that doesn't mean it will continue to be true. Presumably there's a finite number of lawns needing care (especially given the fact that no new houses are being built at the moment).

 

As for the second paragraph above, it suggests backwards reasoning. Is this about finding jobs for everyone, or bringing in every immigrant? If it's the latter, don't tell me it's the former. That's why your argument isn't working, because you're starting from an assumption and working your way backwards. Find me some apprpriate data first, then we'll talk.

[Realitycheck]

And I will tell you one thing for sure. 95% of people who do lawns independently don't pay taxes.

[npts2020]

One point and one question. Question first, what is the purpose of having limits on immigration to begin with when anyone who is not native American is an immigrant or directly related to one anyway? A point, nearly everyone who lives in America pays taxes even if the IRS cant keep track of them, eg. I defy you to buy a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. without paying any federal or state taxes on it.

[Pangloss]

One point and one question. Question first, what is the purpose of having limits on immigration to begin with when anyone who is not native American is an immigrant or directly related to one anyway? A point, nearly everyone who lives in America pays taxes even if the IRS cant keep track of them, eg. I defy you to buy a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. without paying any federal or state taxes on it.

 

Okay well at least we've finally uncovered the true purpose of this thread. It's unfortunate when people hide an ideological message within a question that they aren't really willing to seriously discuss, and I'm glad that you're willing to discuss it.

 

Every single developed nation on this planet controls immigration. The primary purpose of controlling it is to ensure that infrastructural systems are not taxed beyond their capabilities. Education, water, sewage, emergency response, criminal enforcement, all these things have to respond to increases in population. If they can do so at a measurable, predictable rate, the expense is much lower and the quality of service is maintained at an acceptable level.

 

These aren't just minor convenience issues, they're important problems. That's why the majority of Americans support controlling the border (and most of them favor decreasing the current rate). This article in the Wikipedia contains several sourced articles for studies showing the relative popularity of various aspects of immigration in the US.

 

It's worth noting, by the way, that neither US presidential candidate favors an "open border". And while many feel the Democratic candidate (Obama) is more favorable towards immigrants, he does support the idea of securing the border more fully, and saying so is a regular part of his stump speech. This is a regular part of the Democratic Party platform as well.

 

Regarding your last point, yes, visitors to this country pay taxes, and that's true whether they want to stay here as citizens or not. The issue of whether we want them to become permanent citizens is really a separate issue from whether or not they pay taxes.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Pangloss

[bombus]

Sure, that's why I'm learning Spanish -- so I can tell the lady how to cut my hair. But how does increasing what is already an extremely large number of immigrants save the economy? Is there a shortage of hairdressers and janitors where you live?

 

Also, I've never quite understood why it's actually desirable for these jobs to generate less income. If there weren't anybody willing to do those jobs for that pay, wouldn't that actually result in a larger amount of money being spent on those jobs? Why is it a bad thing if it costs me $100/month to get lawn care instead of $50/month?

 

Hit the nail on the head there! It's counter productive in the end to fill low wage jobs with ever more desperate people. It keeps wages low for the benefit of the rich(er) but ulitimately does not help the economy as poor people pay less tax, need more state help, are more likely to need to turn to crime, and all the other issues associated with poor neighbourhoods.

 

Norway is a country where just about everyone gets a pretty good wage. Prices are generally higher (£7.50 for a beer!) but they have a very well educated, law abiding and healthy population.

[npts2020]

to Pangloss: I am not sure what ideological message you are referring to. Of course every nation controls immigration, where has anyone on this thread proposed not controlling it? What I have suggested is that it might be too controlled, maybe an affirmative statement to you but not meant as one. As you yourself point out, more immigration is not popular among the majority of Americans, so why would either candidate stick their neck out on this issue in a close race? Your talking points seem right off usillegalaliens.com but really are only applicable to illegals and not naturalized citizens. I could be wrong (I have had trouble finding some actual numbers) but it has been my impression that naturalized citizens generally had better upward mobility and lower crime rates than the general population. Finally, if paying taxes is not an issue why worry about whether any of them collect any of the things you mention?

 

to Bombus: You, like Pangloss, are so bogged down in the "immigrants only fill the lowest paying jobs" mindset that you cannot consider any scheme that would only allow mostly entrepreneurs and skilled workers to immigrate. I am glad you mentioned Norway, unlike America, not known as a nation of immigrants. In 2004 abou 7.3% of Norways population was foriegn born (according to the Norwegian government) vs. the U.S. at around 7.9% in 1990 (according to the U.S. census). Some other countries with higher percentage of foriegn born residents; Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Luxembourg with the last 3 being 2-3 times the American rate. Obviously civilization as we know it is about to end in all of those countries......not.

 

You both assert that immigration causes insurmountable problems but have shown zero data for your reasoning. IMO you have illegal immigration confused with legal methods of staying in America and have used the actions of illegals (who are probably not too concerned with laws anyway since they are breaking it by being here) to infer the behavior of all immigrants.

[Pangloss]

I never said that immigration causes insurmountable problems. I don't oppose immigration, and I don't even oppose increasing it slightly, as deemed appropriate once all factors are analyzed.

 

What I don't do is advocate its unequivocal expansion for ideological reasons.