This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ten Fast Facts On The Economics Of Immigration
While immigration was pretty far down on the priority list at this time last year, recently the topic has taken a front seat in lawmakers’ chambers down in Washington. ConvergEs's Nick Colas notes that policymakers on both sides of ideological spectrum are establishing positions and recommendations for reform, and are familiarizing themselves with some of the lesser-known facts about immigration. In a nutshell, he explains: immigration is not all about border crossings from Mexico and undocumented workers. There are many more figures – and costs – associated with immigration, most of which have palpable and measurable impacts on the US economy. From GDP growth to the health of the housing market, immigration’s influences may not be widely known, but should be in order for policymakers and investors to make informed decisions.
Via Nick Colas, ConvergEx
Note from Nick: Immigration is often couched as a social issue, especially in American politics. And while that may be the ‘Red meat’ both parties use to energize their respective bases, the truth is that the current debate on the topic has important economic ramifications as well. Sarah picks it up from here, with data points all the way from the Federal budget to GDP math.
While immigration is back on the docket in Washington, the topic has yet to capture much attention on Wall Street, taking a back seat to European troubles and the Dow rally. The inattention seems warranted, as immigration is typically cast as a simply societal issue – but I urge you to reconsider its economic importance. The reality is that immigration, and any reform thereto, has real, visible impacts on the US economy at both the micro and macro levels, from GDP to job growth:
- GDP is first and foremost a product of population growth and productivity – and immigration plays a role in both. Population growth in particular is attributable almost exclusively to immigration, as fertility rates among native-born citizens fall. In fact, from 2003 to 2010, 20% (4,071,000) of the more than 21 million person increase in the population was in the foreign-born population, bringing their share of the entire population from 11.9% to 12.4%.
- Immigration is also crucial to the health of the housing market. The foreign-born make up 14% of homeowners in the US, and more than half of them own their homes outright, according to Census figures. Naturalized citizens are more likely to own than rent, but the 16 million naturalized and non-citizen households – a number that is growing every year with the immigrant population – fuels a good portion of the new and existing sales we see every month.
- Foreign-born workers are essential to job market health as well. Not only are immigration statistics good proxies for job market strength (i.e., more immigrants likely means a stronger labor market), but both high- and low-skill immigrants help to fill unwanted positions among native-born workers.
- High-skill immigration in particular is key to growing a tech-centric economy: Washington has already recognized that the US is increasingly dependent on keeping bright minds in the country after college graduation. Patents, breakthroughs, and sheer innovation are what keep the economy moving along – and immigrants can and do help with that momentum.
As you can see, the labor market, housing, GDP, and even tax revenues are influenced by immigration – and, consequently, by changes to immigration law. Ideally, any changes made to the legislation would be favorable to the US economy – hence the focus on creating an easier path for high-skill labor immigration and paths to citizenship for current illegal residents. But in order to understand the kind of impact any changes may have on the US economy, first we have to look at where things stand now.
With that in mind, we’ve compiled a short list of more economically-oriented facts about immigration, presented below in “10 Things You May Not Know about US Immigration”. They aren’t all splashy attention getters; some are pretty deep in the weeds, actually. But all of them highlight some point we think hasn’t gotten enough attention in this ongoing debate over immigration in America.
1. The Border Patrol’s budget increased 149% from FY 2002 to FY 2012: $1.4 to $3.5 billion. In fact, of all the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, “Customs and Border Protection” has the largest budget with $10.4 billion, and it saw the biggest budget increase in 2012. Yep, those are billions… Thanks to the sequester, the budget decreased by about $500 million – but the DHS is requesting just under $12 billion for FY 2013, $3.6 billion of which will go to Border Patrol.
Border Patrol staff has also more than doubled over the past 10 years, growing 113% from FY02 to FY12. What’s most interesting here, though, is that the biggest staff increase has been at Northern points of entry (POEs), which include Buffalo, NY, Spokane, WA, and Grand Forks, ND. Staff here has grown 312%, from 492 to 2,026.
Bottom line: Enforcing the current system isn’t cheap. A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.
2. And yet, despite increased budgets and staff, apprehensions are down -62% since FY02, and have fallen -78% since their peak in FY 2000. The FY12 total stood at 364,768: the last time apprehensions were this low was 1972. There are two easy explanations for the slowdown, though neither is particularly optimistic: either Border Patrol is doing a poor job, or no one is trying to cross the border. The latter point is corroborated by Mexican emigration estimates, and as we’ve said in prior notes the slowdown points to a still-moribund job market in the US.
Bottom line: Illegal immigration is about economics. When people don’t particularly want to sneak into your country (or even try) you know you’ve got one weak economy.
3. Based on these budget figures, we know that each apprehension at the border cost us $9,680, up from only $1,483 in FY02. A 553% increase in just 10 years. And each BP officer made only about 6 apprehensions in FY12, down from about 95 in FY02. The total cost of arresting, detaining, and deporting each person from the US comes in at $12,500, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), though some estimates put the number as high as $23,482 (including court proceedings, etc.). With fewer crossings, the higher budget and larger staff don’t seem warranted – but there they are.
Bottom line: The system also seems to be inefficient – as well as expensive. So unless we rethink and reform apprehension, detaining, and deporting, we’re probably going to be stuck with a Border Patrol with what business analysts would call ‘Very high per unit costs.”
4. The majority of the drug trade comes through the Southwest POEs, though each region appears to have its own drug “specialty”. Most marijuana comes through the Southwest, with 2.3 million pounds seized in FY12 – about 160 pounds per seizure. The “Coastal” border (Miami, New Orleans, etc.) is the primary seizure point for cocaine (5,962 pounds seized in 2012, 23 pounds per seizure), while most ecstasy is funneled through the Northern border (199 pounds in 2012).
671 firearms and 128,000 rounds of ammunition were seized at POEs across the country in FY12, along with $7.6 million dollars in cash. The money is not all in USD, though, and it all goes to an “asset forfeiture” account controlled by the Treasury. Almost 10,000 vehicles (“conveyances”, in CBP terms) were also seized, the majority of them at the Southwest border.
Bottom line: Immigration isn’t just about people – it is about border security as well.
5. The largest immigrant groups in the US by country of origin are Mexico, China, Philippines, and the Dominican Republic. But while Mexican nationals make up the majority of immigrants into the US, net migration from the country has fallen to zero – and has perhaps even gone negative, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. As we’ve explored in prior notes, this trend is a pessimistic sign for the US labor market as it implies declining economic opportunity for lower-skill workers. Immigration from China and the Philippines, though, is up.
Bottom line: The stereotypical immigration flow is no longer accurate: immigration into the US has globalized and, consequently, any reforms must address a much more complicated system.
6. Less than 1.2% of green card applicants were approved in 2011 (latest data available), with a cap of 140,000 cards to be allotted each year. More than 12.1 million applied in 2011. No single country can receive more than 7% of the green cards available, and some countries – most of which are major emigration points to the US – are excluded from the lottery each year. Mexico, for example, is excluded, but the country is also granted special “border crossing cards”: 1.5 million were issued in 2012.
Naturalization – separate from green cards and visas – is perhaps an even more rigorous process, as the required US residence period required varies by region. According to the Office for Immigration Statistics, immigrants born in Africa spend the least time in “legal immigrant status” with only 5 years’ waiting period. Immigrants from Asia and South America take 6 years, Europe 7, Oceania 8, and North America 10 years.
Bottom line: The US immigration structure is incredibly complicated. A more streamlined approach – even if it does turn out to be stricter – would save a lot of time (and, most likely, money).
7. The majority of immigrant visas (separate from green cards) were granted to relatives or “family sponsored” persons in 2012. The State Department tries to keep the number of immigrant visas granted about the same each year, with only 482,300 issued in 2012. According to the State Department’s documentation, 75% of these went to family members (siblings, spouses, and children mostly), while only 4% went to “Employment-based preference” visas. Making a change here seems to be one of the focal points of immigration reform in Washington; the current proposal cuts down on familial visa grants in favor of high-skill employment visas.
Bottom line: The US immigration reform is putting first priorities first. While families will almost definitely remain important in any new legislation, high-skill immigrants – and their perceived value to the US economy – will have the priority.
8. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, the average foreign-born non-citizen in the US has an income of $27,000, is between 25-34 years old, married, lives in California, and did not graduate from high school. The person is also much more likely to rent their home than to own. For comparison’s sake, native families average about $47k in income, while documented immigrants make $48k.
But while the majority of immigrant persons are older, an estimated 4.5 million children (citizens) have parents who are unauthorized to live in the US, and 1 million are estimated to be unauthorized themselves. 31,029 juveniles were apprehended at the border in 2012, including 24,481 unaccompanied children.
Bottom line: Non-citizens are, on many counts, distinct from native-born US citizens; but foreign-born persons as a whole are more or less “just like us”. More importantly though, not all immigrants (and particularly illegal immigrants) are young, single men looking for work: women and children are also an important part of the demographic
9. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least half of undocumented immigrants file income papers each year, and pay local, state, and federal taxes. Based on the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, moreover, undocumented immigrants paid about $11.2 billion in taxes in 2010 – about $1,000 per estimated illegal alien living in the US.
Bottom line: Illegal immigration isn’t an absolute drain on tax revenue. Undoubtedly some persons do not pay federal, state, or local taxes, but many do.
10. Finally, the Center for American Progress estimates that undocumented immigrations could contribute an additional $1.4 trillion to GDP between 2013 and 2022 if they are all granted citizenship by the end of this year. Granted, this is a major ‘Progressive’ think tank, but in this case the theory is sound. More people on the books without all the red tape lowers costs and increases tax revenue. Additionally, the Center says Americans overall would see a $791 billion increase in personal income, and tax revenue would go up $184 billion - $116 at the federal and $68 at the state level.
Bottom line: Immigration reform could add an extra couple points to GDP growth over the coming years. And increase tax revenues.
All of these points are worth considering as lawmakers push for immigration reform down in Washington. It will not be easy to come to agreements on paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants, caps on border crossings, and especially, money to spend on the process, for sure, but the change is necessary – and the benefits could potentially outweigh the costs. While a positive housing market, labor market, and even GDP number are not entirely dependent on immigration reform, some action could definitely push all of these in the right direction: up.
»
- 19850 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
easier said than done. tell me, can you fix your own fucking country? from what i read here at zerohedge i see that you can't do shit but keep being a slave to wall street.
One point left out even though stated by the article: in 'american' economics, growth in an area comes from the increase of population.
'American' economics is all about areas, about transfering wealth from an exterior to an interior through a border.
It appears that 'americans' who claim to put the human being at the core of their 'american' system still consider that same human being as a commodity.
How 'american'.
What a world an 'american' world.
Who could have dreamt of a better world than an 'american' world? If one was given the abundance age to manage, who else could have succeeded to that level save 'americans'?
Welcome to an 'american' world, it is a cosy place to live in, you'll see.
the other points not mentioned are the number of illegals in prison here for crime....many of the ones crossing the border have less than a 6th grade education...In So Cal the majority are on some form of assistance....Medi-Cal, food stamps, section 8 housing assistance....the costs outweigh the benefits from my point of view...and it ain't even close....
Close the fucking border and get the visa overstays out of here...
671 firearms and 128,000 rounds of ammunition were seized at POEs across the country in FY12, along with $7.6 million dollars in cash.
7.6 million... LOL
Yea...$7.6 million, or as Johny Corzine calls it, pocket change.
IMMIGRATION'S AFFECT ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION;
Where to start with this article? You have completely ignored the affect that illegal/legal immigration has on the US Born or previously naturalized citizens of the US.
Additionaly, you have also ignored the affect that immigration has on the minority citizen population of the US. Affirmative action programs were originaly designed to help reverse discrimination of native born black citizens. Non black, minority "immigrants" compete for the sames jobs as the US born black population, but at a greater number (10 to 15 new Latino) population.
Also, when this new Latino immigrant population is granted "work authorization/work VISA," and under current law, they will move to the head of the line, ahead of the US born non immigrant population.
The fact of the matter is that there are not enough jobs to be created or currently open in the US to satisfy the needs of US born citizens and the surge of 10 to 15 million immigrants granted work Visas.
None/nowhere in the immigratnt descussion is this talked about. Immigration's affect on current minorities and nonminorities employment is the silent subject that is being ignored by everyone.
Affirmative action is another con game invented by the American Jewish establishment to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. America was founded on the idea of individual merit and that people would rise or fail depending on their own abilities. Now we have all these "protected" groups who are part of the idiocracy. No one has told them they aren't special. That they are dumb, lazy, untalented. To do so would label one a 'hater'.
You really dont get it. You focus on the "con game" vs the results of the game, that are written in law. You do not see the Forest for the trees.
1. The Affirmative Action laws were intended for the American Black Minority population to achieve some kind of parity after slavery and 100 years of "jim crow." By adding Hispanics and Asian Pacific Islanders and Women to the minority definition, everyone but a white male is a minority.
2. White male US citizens are the last in line to be hired for open jobs, even when they compete with illigal latinos, provided latinos are given "authorization to work in the US," including the recent "Dream Act" population and anyone that may be put on a "path to citizenship" in the future. During the hiring process in any employment situation, no-one is asked if they are a citizen, or whether they are legal or illigal. The only question asked is; "Are you authorized and can you prove that you are authorized to work in the US?" If you can prove it, then the Affirmative Action Laws, (as they currently exist and apply to all Hispanics,) place you at the head of the line for hiring if you are a minority as defined by law.
It really is that simple. Read the laws and understand them.
I already understand that white heterosexual males are the target. The outcome is the substitution of race, gender, etc. for merit. To drive everything down to the lowest common denominator and to reward incompetency. Idiocracy. Get it?
OK - I do get your points. In a "theoretical" world I may even agree with you. To be clear; The current laws that I reference here have been in existance and adhered to by Corporate America, Federal, state, county, city governments and most if not all profit/non profit entities employing workers in our country.
This is the "outcome" that has allready happened and has been in full force since about 1985. My whole point is that we will be adding another 10 to 15 million Latino minoirities, who will receive equal treatment under the law with Black Minority Citizens as well as preferential treatment for employment over white males born in this country.
Where is the outrage from Black Elected Officials. Does anyone think that there are 10+ million jobs in America waiting to be filled by Latinos, without adversly affecting the jobs held by, or competed for, by the Black Minority Population?
Black "leaders' are bought off just like white ones are. Politicians only think of themselves. They could give a shit about the country or about anyone else.
What a bullshit, agenda pushing piece.
Not once was the rule of law mentioned. You know the rule of law that has been trashed since 2007 and has kept this country mired in a depressionary purgatory for going on 7 years.
8 million jobs are occupied by illegal aliens while 20 million Americans are under or unemployed and the article has the balls to mention "immigrants are essential to job market health".
Fuck this. You want to oppose illegal alien amnesty? Join NumbersUSA. Set the DC fax machines on fire with your opposition. It's free, it's easy and it's effective. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/
what a steaming pile of rancid horseshit.
boycott convergex
If the politicians were serious about Immigration, that fucking sign would be facing the Mexican side of the border, warning the pedestrians of auto traffic and/armed Border Patrol. Instead, the assholes, disarm American citizens, and refuse to enforce the nation's immigration laws.
Once those cartels get a grip on the system .... good luck getting rid of them. They will kill anyone in their way. The politicians who refused to enforced the laws, should be tried for treason.
It is beyond a joke, or even a bad joke, Now it is a horror movie reality.
EDIT: movie reality
We are the dumping ground for spina bifida babies and children with special problems and everyone's aging grandparents with AIDS ! Destroy America by abusing her generosity .... that's the sick socialist predator way !
Wow ! ZHers are on fire ! Good posts .... except for my mediocre crap ! LOL
If I were a working illegal alien I would want to stay illegal. I could live fifteen to a trailer and pay no taxes and send my extra money back to Mexico where in a very few years I could have enough to build a 4k, sq. foot Hacienda and have a new truck to boot. My wife has an anchor baby and I am set for life.
Hell yeah, lets legalize those bastards. That will fucking show them.
Here in California immigrants and their children fill the prisons, get priority in all college admissions and scholarships, fill the hospitals, jam the freeways, drive up land and resource prices, fill the welfare rolls, and demand that all business of the state is conducted in their language. The Author of this piece needs to live in South Central LA for a few days to see the real value of uncontrolled immigration. That is if he survives.
Yep, I see the same thing. Want proof? Go look at the Los Angeles County Budget! 75% of the budget goes towards taking the poor population. Roughly 23-27% of three categories, "Social Services", "Health Services" and "Police and Fire Protection" or "Public Safety", because this rowdy, macho demographic needs more ambulances, fire trucks and cops, than the white demographic.
I moved to Mexico to get away from all the immigration crap .... Mexicans don't want their country mongrelized ! Down here .... if you don't work or beg .... you don't eat .... refreshing concept ?
"Center for American Progress"
The new face of American Marxists.
But they'll never tell you that and if someone slips up and admits it, their media friends will never report it.
Eisenhower ended another immigration "crisis" in the 1950s. Google "operation wetback".
He simply told employers that if illegals were found working in their shops, He would fine the shit out of them.
Problem solved.
No walls. No debates. No ICE. No DHS. No illegal immigrants. It's that simple.
This is exactly what South Carolina has done. Every business gets audited, and if they find illegals they get fined and their business is posted on a state website with the numbers found. Penalties get worse until they can lose their business license at strike three. No illegal is allowed to attend a university that gets even a single dime of state money, and if one is found the school loses the state funds. There was a case about two years ago in a neighboring county where a company building a new public school got audited during construction and got their contract pulled due to using illegals, and the people of this state are quite happy with this sort of thing.
When this went in the landscaping crews and unskilled labor in construction changed from all Mexicans to all young native born white and black guys right quick. Funny how all the jobs that supposedly nobody is willing to do got filled very quickly and the Mexicans all headed out for other areas, its a pretty small group now.
Yet you guys keep sending Mr. Grahamnesty back to Washington. Do us all a favor and get rid of him.
What a load of BS! More immigrants lower wages and the (already declining) standard of living for existing citizens, expand the welfare handout state, and usurp the concepts of liberty that this country was founded upon. The business types want them here for more low-wage, captive labor and consumers of low-dollar goods and services but they do nothing for those who actually pay taxes who end up subsidizing their existence.
CLOSE THE BORDERS.
A perfect world is it not?
- Employers want the illigals here for low wages.
- Unions want them here as potential recruits into the existing unions.
- Politicians - Especially Democrats want them here to perpetuate their political power forever.
Has anyone asked the estimed Puerto Rican American Democratic member of Congress from Chicago - Gutierez, why he is so hell bent on advocating for the "rights" of illigals vs the rights of his fellow US citizens? The MSM will not. The GOP will not - they are too afraid to be labeled as racists.
So much just in that statement alone.
The DHS assholes know what they are up agains, but when Brewer asked for 3000 BP agents, Mutt-in-chief, sent 30(?) National Guards, on "advisory" roles, and w/o a weapon or authority to take any kind of action. A few months later just THREE of 30 were still on duty.
140000 came illegaly in one MONTH !!!!!!
WTF ?????? What message do we send other than come on in.
This is wicked retahded propoganda
Anybody with two cents of simple thinking and observation can do some real basic math:
Wage of a gardener: about 20 k a year
cost to educate his 3 kids: 10k each, 30k a year
cost to provide healhcare to the 3 kids?
the tax bennies (earned income credit)??
I have worked in high tech for almost 30 years and never met a single Mexican engineer. African, European, lots and lots of Chinese and Indian....even Spanish -but never one from Mexico....never. So don't get on me for being generalizing....it is fact.
the mexican immigration scam is a horrible drain on America. The wealthy in Mexico have instituted poverty and are happy to shove their social problem North. The do-gooders in America are morons because they are complicit in this scam. A joke. The Americans that are willing to undercut their fellow Americans and hire the maids and gardeners for "cheap" are equally guilty....
And yes, I am angry, male, and white. but not a biggot. I love all people of all color, gender, orientation....I just think it is unfair to American kids to steal from them when the rich Mexican's (and Americans) aren't willing to pay for their national issues.
"The wealthy in Mexico have instituted poverty and are happy to shove their social problem North."
Come on, are you serious? It's called destabilization and it's been practiced successfully for many years by Mexico's northern neighbor. The cartels, politicians and business leaders in Mexico are controlled by the cartels, politicians and business leaders in america. This is a known fact in Mexico but the rose colored glasses worn north of the rio grande blinds people from reality.
"I just think it is unfair to American kids to steal from them when the rich Mexican's (and Americans) aren't willing to pay for their national issues."
Ridiculous, even from a custodial engineer.
Accumulation of capital is therefore multiplication of the proletariat.
I remember back in 1986 when Ronnie gave amnesty to millions of illegals, I thought to myself; If they did it once, they will do it again. And they will. Get over it. I know it is a very hard thing to do, but the sooner you do, the better off you will be. No politician is going to send them back, they are too politically powerful now. Forget the 10 million number they keep throwing out there, the true number is closer to 30 or 40 million. The republic is lost. We are just one big Walmart now, nothing more. No nation can survive unchecked mass immigration, especially when there is a taxpayer funded welfare state. These leeches were allowed here to 1. keep the ponzi going a little longer, 2. dilute the population of those that still believe in capitalism. These illegals breed like rabbits, Mexican girls start popping pups when they turn 15 and don't stop until they hit menopause some 30 years later. And we have to pay their freight from cradle to grave. They showed their true allegiance when they marched on May Day {a socialist holiday} and waved their home country flags. We had a good run, over 200 years, probably longer than the founding fathers thought we would.
Pure unadulterated horse manure from top to bottom.
That was very bad for my economic well being to wait in a medical clinic waiting room filled with Spanish speaking illegal immigrants coughing and sneezing and cared for on my dime via tax subsidies.
That was very bad for my economic well being to be in a major US city paying to treat untreatable TB imported by illegal immigrants from Mexico, and other new strains of untreatable communicable disease.
That is very bad for everyone's economic well being to house illegal immigrants who total about 40% of the prison population commtting violent felonies.
Tyler you can shove this article where the sun don't shine, sorry.
You need to post a counter article from NumbersUSA.
---------------------
Joseph Jones wrote:
Correct. NumbersUSA is probably one of the best web sites for patriotic Americans.
-- Paul D. Bain
PaulBain@PObox.com
----------------------
Immigration is also crucial to WATER, ENERGY consumption, ROADS, infastructure, HEALTH of citizens, hospital emergency lines, TRAFFIC, CRIME: prisons, police, judges, lawyers; food stamps; housing 8, social workers; EDUCATION, OPEN SPACE, PARKS......................... all chump change
Bastiat had a coronary reading this piece.
Anyone who cannot pass a libertarian IQ test .... is not fit to live ! There .... fixed it !
Immigration, like banking, is about privatising profits and socialising costs - for the most part.
And both happen without the consent of the governed...
You cannot have open borders and a welfare state - Milton Friedman.
The author misses the entire point as to what is good or bad for GDP about immigration. The single most impotrant thing is 'WHO' immigrates. Skilled, educated, literate, the economic top of the countries they came from, or unskilled, simple minded, broke, social burdans. Importing the latter does not raise our long term GDP.
He outa work for the Chamber of Commerce and FNM
Why are people so patriotic/nationalistic? What Are You Afraid Of?
It is true that the GDP will probably grow if the population grows. Even if the immigrants only make, let´s say, $1 per year, the GDP will grow if you bring in more people. However, the GDP per capita will not grow if the immigrants make less than the existing population or if the average wage declines as a result of more competition in the labour market. This is basic facts about supply and demand like in all other markets. The labour market works as all other markets like the markets for iron ore, oil, TV-sets, automobiles, corn and so on. But a very large part of the general public does not understand that unless some opinion leaders repeat that to them a sufficient number of times.
Perhaps immigration made the US richer up to the 1880s when there was no more free farmland left to exploit. Up to that point, wealth could be made almost out of thin air because farmland could not produce anything unless there were labour that could exploit it. Furthermore, economies of scale in production benefited from a larger population and this factor had become important in the late 19th century when mass production of goods rapidly became a more important part of the economy. An industrialized economy needs some degree of economies of scale in order to work. On the other hand Australia could become an industrialized society with a much smaller population than the US. So I reckon that it is possible to say that immigration up to the 1880s did not significantly harm the US GDP per capita figure. And at that point wages in the US were significantly higher on the average than in Europe. Therefore, emigration stood out as a very attractive idea to many Europeans in the 19th century. But in the late 19th century the difference between incomes in the US and countries like Sweden began to shrink. So in 1939, when the US had begun to recover from the depression, the idea to emigrate to the US stood out as a less attractive option than 50 years earlier to a Swede.
The US did probably not benefit from the additional supply of labour caused by immigration in the early 20th century up to the depression. As long as immigration created more demand for housing and other investments which the society needed in order to accommodate to a larger population it didn´t cause significant short-term harm to the economy. The productivity of the economy was lower than now so additional demand for goods and services increased the demand for labour more than today. But the excessive supply of labour caused by immigration still became apparent when the great depression kicked in. If investments had made up a smaller share of the economy, which probably would have been the case with less immigration and less need for housing investments etc, a sudden drop in investments for other reasons than potential demand would have had a smaller impact on the demand for labour. The increase of unemployment during the depression would probably have been smaller in the US without the excessive immigration during the decades preceding the depression.
The principal reason why wages for slaughter-house workers now are less than half adjusted for inflation compared to 35-40 years ago is excessive supply of labour. As long as there were not enough supply of workers that were willing to work for less pay than in unionized slaughter-houses it was possible maintain high wages in this industry. It also seems as if the existing slaughter-house workers and their kids were unable to move on to other as highly paid jobs when good-paying jobs in the meatpacking industry disappeared. This is an example of why the middle classes has shrunk in the US over past 35-40 years. My assessment is that total compensation for an American slaughter-house worker amounts to less than a third compared to a slaughter-house worker in Finland, for instance. 35-40 years ago, the total compensation to a Finnish slaughter-house worker was probably less than 2/3 of the compensation an American slaughter-house worker would get.
Furthermore, lower wages in the meat packing industry and in other industries reduces the incentives for labour saving devices, such a robots. Therefore, the productivity of the economy is impaired by excessive supply of labour. This is one reason why many European countries which in the past were considered as poor compared to the US now enjoy a higher living standard for most factory workers and most service sector workers. But as regards the upper middle classes it seems is if the US still has an edge as regards income. The US will probably retain this position and will probably also still have a higher GDP adjusted for purchasing power than most Western European countries as long as the USD remains the global reserve currency. But when the USD eventually loses its reserve currency status the consequences of an excessive supply of labour compared to Finland, for instance, will probably be more obvious (but the masses will probably not understand why America is not richer than other countries as in the past).
Another angle on the income and wealth effect of immigration is to consider what would have happened if there had been no immigration to North America up to the early 20th century as for Saudi Arabia. If that had been the case, the Indians would probably have become richer than the Saudis by selling drilling licenses to multinational oil companies and other concessions related to natural resources. The GDP per capita in North America would probably in that case have been in excess of $100,000. The Indians would have been incredibly rich if they had been as few as they were in the 16th century (populations grow very slowly in stone age societies).
The reason why the US began with it´s open border policies in the late 1960s was not an intention to make existing American citizens richer. Nor do I think that the principal reason for the limits on immigration of Southern Europeans from Sicily and Jews that were imposed in the 1920s was to reduce excessive supply of labour in the US. It also seems as if they were honest enough in the 1920s not to rely on this argument. In the same way there has been other reasons for the open borders policy that began in the late 1960s than protecting the standard of living of existing American citizens. Top lobbyists and politicians are not stupid. They know that additional supply of labour by immigration does not benefit existing labour in the US. (Some of them even say that they want to scrap the open borders policy for that reason.) But they still want this immigration just like politicians in the 1920s didn´t want immigration of darkies. It is just a matter of which composition of the electorate top lobbyists, big campaign donors and media owners want. In the 1920s, the were enough politicians bought by multi-millionaires like the Mellon family for legislation that limited immigration of darkies. Today, there are enough politicians bought by other multi-millionaires and billionaires and lobby groups with the very opposite opinions to maintain an open borders policy.
Perhaps the open borders policy will end when the billionaires, top lobbyists and the big media think that the composition of the electorate is good enough. But up to that point, the open borders policy will probably continue.
Usually the Tyler Durden selected contributor is more insighfuly balanced then this contributor. The real author appears to have an agenda stretching hard to make low skilled illegals look like an asset to the US. Judging from the responces here, his spin is not persuasive.
The posting actually says that average income of documented immigrants is higher than that of the average US native citizen (probably because income potential is a factor in getting approval). I don't see any argument in favor of cheap migrant manual labor.
Anti-immigrant fears are easy to stir up and the posting is pointing out that restricting immigration more is counter-productive.
And speaking of ILLEGALS .....
"The Associated Press, the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term "illegal immigrant.""
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/press-drops-illegal-immigrant-standa...
Bullshit propaganda point #10 really leave no choice than lowest rating for that post.
Immigration is what makes the US great. We need to keep doing it to balance demographics to avoid the problem that Japan has. Keep the smarties.
I'm constantly amazed how many accept the anti-immigrant demagoguery. If only the stupid native citizens would emigrate to dumbo land...