Immigrant labor doubted as benefit

The Washington Times ^ | 2-24-05 | Stephen Dinan

[Aetius]

By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 24, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The annual Economic Report of the President, released last week, said that taken together, research shows immigrants have a slight net positive benefit. "Summing up the economic benefits and costs of immigration shows that over time, the benefits of immigration exceed the costs," the report said, though it also acknowledged that adjusting to the effects of immigration is not easy for native workers "and the adjustment period can present challenges." The report also found that immigration has been shown to have a small effect on wages, but particularly for those at the lower end of the wage scale -- often other recent immigrants.

[Aetius]

It is the last few paragraphs that are most interesting, as even Bush's economic team doesn't dare claim the net effects of immigration to be anything other than slightly positive.

It then goes on to say that the effect on native workers is hard to gauge --- and this is the key, because it is the effect of immigration policy on the native-born that should carry the most weight in determining immigration policy. Maybe it should be the only consideration, but certainly it should be the most important one.

[Marine Inspector]

Ping.

[texastoo]

This article is about 10 years too late.

[PRND21]

Bump

[HiJinx]

Their (the administration) eyes are open to the problem, but the solutions aren't being executed quickly enough.

[junta]

Its real effect is for moral snobbery, and of course cheap labor

[HiJinx]

Thanks for deleting the double post at #6...

[skeeter]

Interesting - I've always accepted that legal immigration was a clear economic benefit to the country.

According to the administration's own statisticians, and societal benefits notwithstanding, turns out the economic benefits are slight.

[skeeter]

and societal benefits impact notwithstanding...

[dennisw]

Interesting - I've always accepted that legal immigration was a clear economic benefit to the country.

This article was about all immigration. Legal and illegal

According to the administration's own statisticians, and societal benefits notwithstanding, turns out the economic benefits are slight

[skeeter]

This article was about all immigration. Legal and illegal

Right - I understood illegal ones were a net drain. What surprises me is legal ones in general aren't much more of a bargain.

[TexasCowboy]

"Together, those factors created a $68 billion net loss to native workers in 2002, according to Donald R. Davis and David E. Weinstein, both economics professors at Columbia University."

Exrapolate that to 2004.

[Aetius]

Well the National Academy of Sciences did perhaps the largest study of this back in the mid-late 90s, and it put the net effect of immigration (not sure if it included illegal w/ legal) as a positive, though only to the tune of about one tenth of one percent of GDP (which today would be about ($10 billion in a $10 trillion economy), hardly the picture presented by some who put forth the notion that the economy would collapse w/o large-scale immigration.

I don't think the premise that most of the benefits of immigration are captured by the immigrants themselves would be seriously disputed by most academics.

[Vigilanteman]

The authors said it doesn't matter whether the immigrants are legal or illegal.

They lost me right there. The authors should have said they were too damn lazy to separate legal and illegal immigration for their study.

The typical legal immigrant (A group) will (a)have a police background check, (b)possibly be married to a U.S. Citizen, (c)possess a marketable skill and (d)a desire to adapt to American society. I say typical because there are idiotic legal immigration programs (B group) such as the diversity visa lottery or refugees from third world countries which, only by sheer luck (or a first-hand experience with and loathing for communism in action), might meet one or more of the foregoing criteria.

Then there are the illegal immigrants (C group) who have even less chance at clearing even one of the basic (a), (b), (c) or (d) hurdles.

It is idiotic to study all three such immigrant groups as a monolithic group. It is equally idiotic to state that the costs and benefits of inviting all three groups to live in America cannot be separated.

A sane immigration policy would exclude those in the C group, maximize those in the A group and winnow those in the B group into those likely and those not likely to make a net contribution to American society. Sometimes, such a distinction is impossible, but not nearly so much as the open border crowd claims. In these cases, B group immigrants could be admitted on a slot available, probationary basis-- i.e., one year residence and work permit renewable if the immigrant shows themself to be productive and adaptable to American society, after 5 years or so, extendable for three years at a time, then eventually leading to permanent residence.

Japan has such a sane immigration policy in place. They also have a small number of illegal immigrants and minority groups demanding that the majority reshape society to fit them.

[SandRat]

Yep like trying to get an Eleph-onkey to pass a kidney stone.

[citizen]

Good find bump...

[citizen]

1st two paragraphs from the article:

The net effect of immigration to the United States is a drain on U.S. native workers of about $70 billion per year, according to a new study by two Columbia University professors and the Center for Immigration Studies.
The study challenges the assumption that immigration is like trade in that it is a net benefit both to the U.S. economy and immigrants' home nations.

[goldstategop]

If you drop the Open Borders Lobby padding, it turns out illegal immigrants are a LIABILITY to the economy. What's crazy is politicians going out of their way to pander to them with a slew of taxpayer subsidized goodies.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[citizen]

More:

"American workers are better off competing with foreigners if the foreign workers stay in their own countries and don't have access to American technology," the professors concluded. "By allowing the foreign workers into the United States, Americans face competition with foreign workers equipped with American technology."