THE DEBATE OVER RESTRICTIONS
Despite the fact that almost all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, American history is characterized by a never-ending debate over when to pull the ladder in. The debate over how many and which kinds of immigrants to admit has been and remains heated and is often tainted with racial (if not racist) overtones.
Two arguments are typically used to justify immigration restrictions. The first is that immigrants have an adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of native-born Americans. The People’s Party platform of 1882, representing the populist movement of that era, stated. “Wу condemn . . . the present system, which opens up our ports to the pauper and criminal classes of the world, and crowds out our wage earners.” It may seem that little has changed in the last hundred years, since the same accusations are hurled today at illegal aliens, at boat people originating in Southeast Asia and Cuba, and at other unskilled immigrants.
Second, it is argued that immigrants find it hard to adapt or assimilate in the United States because of their very different cultural, political, or economic backgrounds. This view, in turn, raises fears that a large number of unassimilated immigrants will splinter the country’s national identity.
It may well be that these are valid hypotheses. Proponents of these views, however, often base their arguments more on perceptions or ad hoc theorizing than on solid empirical evidence. Surprising as it may seem, until very recently, virtually no systematic empirical research had been carried out to clarify the issues at the core of the debate over immigration policy.
The modem view of the immigrant experience differs from the earlier, racially tainted portrait by containing both and unfavorable impressions of the Immigrant. Among the axioms of the current conventional wisdom are the following:
• Immigrants have a significant adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of the native-born. By crowding out natives from the labor market, immigrants take jobs away from natives.
• Legal immigrants are, on average, highly skilled and hardworking people and tend to be relatively successful in the labor market.
• There may be as many as 10 million illegal aliens in the U.S. They tend to be single men working in agricultural jobs, and they have an adverse impact on the labor market opportunities of less skilled natives.
• Current U.S. immigration policy is a ticking population time bomb. By allowing current immigrants to sponsor the entry of their relatives, who in turn can sponsor the entry of additional relatives, practically everyone in the world could qualify for entry into the United States.
These impressions about the immigrant experience are widespread. They are also false.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
GEORGE J. BORJAS is Professor of Economics at the University of California at San Diego. He is author of «Friends or Strangers» published by Basic Books