Thread: Immigration, both legal and illegal, puts huge strain on the

Immigration, both legal and illegal, puts huge strain on the country

By: STEVEN A. CAMAROTA - Commentary

Dec 15, 2007

The debate over immigration has become one of America's most heated. In a new report published by the Center for Immigration Studies, we provide a detailed picture of the nation's immigrant population. Our conclusions will probably not surprise most Californians: First, legal and illegal immigration is at record levels. Second, immigrants are generally hardworking, yet they create enormous strains on social services. Why? Put simply, many are uneducated.

Looking first at the raw numbers, the Census Bureau data we analyzed showed that the nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached nearly 38 million in March of this year. This is the highest number in the nation's history. No nation has ever attempted to incorporate 38 million newcomers into its society. As a share of the population, one in eight U.S. residents is now an immigrant (legal and illegal), the highest level in 80 years. About one-third of immigrants are illegal aliens. Moreover, 1.5 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) continue to arrive each year.

We found that immigration has a very large effect on the low-skilled labor market. Immigrants comprise between one-fourth and one-third of workers in cleaning, construction and food service occupations. Roughly half of these immigrant workers are estimated to be illegal immigrants. In contrast, just 9 percent of journalists and 6 percent of lawyers are immigrants, and almost none are illegal immigrants. This partly explains why the argument that "immigrants only do jobs Americans don't want" is widely accepted in the media and among elites in general. But the fact is, the overwhelming majority of low-wage jobs are done by less-educated native-born Americans not immigrants.

Unemployment and non-work has grown significantly among less-educated Americans. In 2007 there were more than 22 million adult natives (18 to 64 years of age) with no education beyond high school either unemployed or not in the labor market. Wages and benefits for such workers have also generally stagnated or declined in recent years. Most Americans do not face significant job competition from immigrants, but those who do are generally the poorest and most vulnerable.

The low-education level of many immigrants not only means that they compete with less-educated natives, it is the primary reason so many immigrants live in or near poverty, lack health insurance and use the welfare system. This is true even though a larger share of immigrant households compared to native households have at least one worker. If this problem was put on a bumper sticker it would read: "There's a high cost to cheap labor."

In California, immigrants and their young children comprise nearly 60 percent of the uninsured. Illegals alone are 27 percent. The latest data also show that almost half of those in the state's public schools are either immigrants or the child of an immigrant. We also found that 39 percent of immigrant-headed households in the state used at least one major welfare program, twice the rate for native households.

Because 38 percent of adult immigrants in California have not completed high school, six times the rate for natives, even immigrants who work full time often end up poor, lacking health insurance and accessing social services. Our welfare system, particularly food assistance, and Medicaid/Medi-Cal are geared to help low-income workers with children, which describes a very large share of immigrants.

We can see just how important education is to economic success in two different ways. First, we found that immigrants with a college degree have incomes and use of social services similar to natives. Second, when we look at legal immigrants who have very little education we found that their rates of poverty and welfare use are as high or higher than illegal immigrants. For example, we found that 56 percent of households headed by a legal immigrant who lacked a high school diploma used at least one major welfare program, triple the rate for natives. This is important because an estimated 57 percent of illegal immigrants have not completed high school. Therefore, legalization would not solve the problem of low income and heavy use of social services.

Immigrant use of social services might not be a problem if they generally paid more in taxes than native-born Americans. But the median income of immigrant households is 21 percent lower in California than that of native households, and immigrant households are 36 percent larger on average. The household is the primary unit by which taxes are assessed and services paid. This means immigrants will tend to pay less in taxes than natives and tend to use more in services. This is not the same as saying immigrants do not pay taxes. In fact, even illegal immigrants pay some taxes. However, it does mean they will be a fiscal drain.

If we want to avoid these problems we are going to have to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed in who have relatively little education. We are also going to have to enforce the law and cause illegal immigrants to go home. Of course, the immigrants themselves clearly benefit by coming to America. And this could be used to justify continuing current policy. But the latest data show that less-educated American workers, public schools, health care providers and taxpayers will feel the effects if we continue down our present path.

Steven A. Camarota is director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C.

The debate over immigration has become one of America's most heated. In a new report published by the Center for Immigration Studies we provide a detailed picture of the nation's immigrant population. Our conclusions will probably not surprise most Californians: First, legal and illegal immigration are at record levels. Second, immigrants are generally hard working, yet they create enormous strains on social services. Why? Put simply, many are uneducated.

Looking first at the raw numbers, the Census Bureau data we analyzed showed that the nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached nearly 38 million in March of this year. This is the highest number in the nation's history. No nation has every attempted to incorporate 38 million new comers into its society. As share of the population, one in eight US residents is now an immigrant (legal and illegal), the highest level in 80 years. About one-third of immigrants are illegal aliens. Moreover, 1.5 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) continue to arrive each year.

We found that immigration has a very large effect on the low-skilled labor market. Immigrants comprise between one-fourth and one-third of workers in cleaning, construction and food service occupations. Roughly half of these immigrant workers are estimated to be illegal immigrants. In contrast, just 9 percent of journalists and 6 percent of lawyers are immigrants, and almost none are illegal immigrants. This partly explains why the argument that, "immigrants only do jobs Americans don't want," is widely accepted in the media and among elites in general. But, the fact is, the overwhelming majority of low-wage jobs are done by less-educated native-born Americans not immigrants.

Unemployment and non-work has grown significantly among less-educated Americans. In 2007 there were over 22 million adults natives (18 to 64 years of age) with no education beyond high school either unemployed or not in the labor market. Wages and benefits for such workers have also generally stagnated or declined in recent years. Most American do not face significant job competition from immigrants, but those that do are generally the poorest and most vulnerable.

The low education level of many immigrants not only means that they compete with less-educated natives, it is the primary reasons so many immigrants live in or near poverty, lack health insurance and use the welfare system. This is true even thought a larger share of immigrant households compared to native households have at least one worker. If this problem was put on a bumper sticker it would read: "There's a high cost to cheap labor."

In California, immigrants and their young children comprise nearly 60 percent of the uninsured. Illegals alone are 27 percent. The latest data also shows that almost half of those in the state's public schools are either immigrants or the child of an immigrant. We also found that 39 percent of immigrant-headed households in the state used at least one major welfare program, twice the rate for native households.

Because 38 percent of adult immigrants in California have not completed high school, six times the rate for natives, even immigrants who work full time often end up poor, lacking health insurance and accessing social services. Our welfare system, particularly food assistance, and Medicaid/Medi-Cal is geared to helping low-income workers with children, which describes a very large share of immigrants.

We can see just how important education is to economic success in two different ways. First, we found that immigrants with a college degree have incomes and use of social services similar to natives. Second, when we look at legal immigrants who have very little education we found that their rates of poverty and welfare use are as high or higher than illegal immigrants. For example, we found that 56 percent of households headed by a legal immigrant who lacked a high school diploma used at least one major welfare program, triple the rate for natives. This is important because an estimated 57 percent of illegal immigrants have not completed high school. Therefore, legalization would not solve the problem of low income and heavy use of social services.

Immigrant use of social services might not be a problem if they generally paid more in taxes than native. But the median income of immigrant households is 21 percent lower in California than that of native households, and immigrant households are 36 percent larger on average. The household is the primary unit by which taxes are assessed and services paid. This means immigrants will tend to pay less in taxes than natives and tend to use more in services. This is not the same as saying immigrants do not pay taxes. In fact, even illegal immigrants pay some taxes. However, it does mean they will be a fiscal drain.

If we want to avoid these problems we are going to have to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed in who have relatively little education. We are also going to have to enforce the law, and cause illegal immigrants to go home. Of course, the immigrants themselves clearly benefit by coming to America. And this could be used to justify continuing current policy. But the latest data shows that less-educated American workers, public schools, health care providers and taxpayers will feel the effects if we continue down our present path.

Steven A. Camarota is Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C.

www.nctimes.com

Note, this author is a CFR member.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-58407-wayne.html+cornelius
~~
Immigration study misleading, negative

By: WAYNE A. CORNELIUS - Commentary

Like all reports emanating from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., the latest one, by staff researcher Steven Camarota, offers a relentlessly negative view of the most recent wave of immigration to the United States. The economic benefits of immigration ---- even illegal immigration ---- to the average American are barely acknowledged, while the costs are estimated in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety.

Camarota's estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States is within the range accepted by most academic specialists in this field. However, he implies that the stock of illegals is continuing to grow at an undiminished rate. This is contradicted by another analysis of the same data source used by Camarota ---- the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. Senior demographer Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center has found that growth of the undocumented immigrant population peaked at the beginning of this decade and the growth rate has been moving downward since then. Camarota notes that there is "some evidence that immigration may have dipped after 2001," but then goes on to dismiss this evidence.

The report's conclusions about "welfare use" are misleading, because in Camarota's analysis food assistance (mainly food stamps) is lumped together with cash-assistance welfare programs. Camarota even classifies immigrant kids getting subsidized school lunches as "welfare." Only in this way can he conclude that immigrant-headed households are twice as likely to use "welfare programs" as native-headed households (33 percent vs. 19 percent).

However, when "welfare usage" is disaggregated, as Camarota does in a table near the end of his report, we see that food assistance is the only category in which there is a significant difference between immigrant- and native-headed households. Immigrants are significantly less likely than natives to use Medicaid, and they use subsidized housing and cash assistance programs at about the same (low) rate as natives. Camarota finally admits that "most households, immigrant or native, do not use the welfare system," but most casual consumers of his report will focus on the huge difference that it reports between immigrant and native households that use "any welfare program."

Camarota's report blurs the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, and for good reason: the CPS survey that is his primary data source does not ask respondents about their legal status. Using these data, there is no way to determine, in a direct way, the rate at which illegal immigrants use welfare programs, health care or any other public service. Nowhere in his report does Camarota explain precisely his methodology for assigning "illegal" status to respondents in the CPS survey, which asks no question about immigration status. No matter; his basic message is, "We're being overwhelmed by immigrants, they're failing economically and abusing tax-supported services, and it doesn't matter whether they're legal or illegal."

When researchers have collected direct evidence on health service utilization by undocumented immigrants, they have found that such immigrants underutilize the health care system, given their health needs. I have found this in my own research among Mexican immigrants in San Diego County. Similarly, a very careful study recently published in the respected journal Archives of Internal Medicine found that illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are 50 percent less likely than U.S.-born Latinos to use hospital emergency rooms in California. The undocumented are also less likely to seek primary care outside of emergency rooms. They are less likely to have health insurance (as Camarota reports for the entire immigrant population), but they are also less likely to seek medical attention.

The Camarota report paints an essentially pessimistic picture of the economic prospects of recent immigrants. But it focuses only on first-generation immigrants, ignoring the very significant intergenerational mobility that occurs, in terms of educational attainment, occupational status and income levels, especially from the first (foreign-born) generation to the second. Even among first-generation immigrants, the gap between them and the native-born population on these measures of economic success closes after 26 years of residence in the United States, according to Camarota's analysis.

Focusing on the fact that most first-generation immigrants will have lower lifetime earnings and income than native-born Americans obscures the very significant economic progress that immigrants' children and grandchildren typically make. This is not a contribution to reasoned debate on U.S. immigration policy; it only feeds fear of immigrants as a "permanent underclass" whose members are destined to fail in the U.S. economy and become a burden on the (native-born) taxpayer.

Wayne A. Cornelius is a distinguished professor of political science and director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego.

Like all reports emanating from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., the latest one, by staff researcher Steven Camarota, offers a relentlessly negative view of the most recent wave of immigration to the United States. The economic benefits of immigration ñ even illegal immigration ñ to the average American are barely acknowledged, while the costs are estimated in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety.

Camarota's estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States is within the ranged accepted by most academic specialists in this field. However, he implies that the stock of illegals is continuing to grow at an undiminished rate. This is contradicted by another analysis of the same data source used by Camarota ñ the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). Senior demographer Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center has found that growth of the undocumented immigrant population peaked at the beginning of this decade and the growth rate has been moving downward since then. Camarota notes that there is "some evidence that immigration may have dipped after 2001," but then goes on to dismiss this evidence.

The report's conclusions about "welfare use" are misleading, because in Camarota's analysis food assistance (mainly food stamps) is lumped together with cash-assistance welfare programs. Camarota even classifies immigrant kids getting subsidized school lunches as "welfare." Only in this way can he conclude that immigrant-headed households are twice as likely to use "welfare programs" as native-headed households (33 percent vs. 19 percent).

However, when "welfare usage" is disaggregated, as Camarota does in a table near the end of his report, we see that food assistance is the only category in which there is a significant difference between immigrant- and native-headed households. Immigrants are significantly less likely than natives to use Medicaid, and they use subsidized housing and cash assistance programs at about the same (low) rate as natives. Camarota finally admits that "most households, immigrant or native, do not use the welfare system," but most casual consumers of his report will focus on the huge difference that it reports between immigrant and native households that use "any welfare program."

Camarota's report blurs the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, and for good reason: the CPS survey which is his primary data source does not ask respondents about their legal status. Using these data, there is no way to determine, in a direct way, the rate at which illegal immigrants use welfare programs, health care, or any other public service. Nowhere in his report does Camarota explain precisely his methodology for assigning "illegal" status to respondents in the CPS survey, which asks no question about immigration status. No matter; his basic message is, "We're being overwhelmed by immigrants, they're failing economically and abusing tax-supported services, and it doesn't matter whether they're legal or illegal."

When researchers have collected direct evidence on health service utilization by undocumented immigrants, they have found that such immigrants underutilize the health care system, given their health needs. I have found this in my own research among Mexican immigrants in San Diego County. Similarly, a very careful study recently published in the respected journal Archives of Internal Medicine found that illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are 50 percent less likely than U.S.-born Latinos to use hospital emergency rooms in California. The undocumented are also less likely to seek primary care outside of emergency rooms. They are less likely to have health insurance (as Camarota reports for the entire immigrant population), but they are also less likely to seek medical attention.

The Camarota report paints an essentially pessimistic picture of the economic prospects of recent immigrants. But it focuses only on first-generation immigrants, ignoring the very significant inter-generational mobility that occurs, in terms of educational attainment, occupational status, and income levels, especially from the first (foreign-born) generation to the second. Even among first-generation immigrants, the gap between them and the native-born population on these measures of economic success closes after 26 years of residence in the U.S., according to Camarota's analysis.

Focusing on the fact that most first-generation immigrants will have lower lifetime earnings and income than native-born Americans obscures the very significant economic progress that immigrants' children and grandchildren typically make. This is not a contribution to reasoned debate on U.S. immigration policy; it only feeds fear of immigrants as a "permanent underclass" whose members are destined to fail in the U.S. economy and become a burden on the (native-born) taxpayer.

Wayne A. Cornelius is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UCSD.

www.nctimes.com

Boy does that CFR list ever need updated

You know, I don't doubt that second generation immigrants don't do better than their parents - every generation, even Americans - should do better than their parents.

The fact is, however, if the first generation immigrants are a burden on working Americans, then will our children be able to do better than we did?

I don't have a problem with immigration - legal immigration. I think we need to make decisions based on the need for immigrants - we are a pretty populated country now and we need to think more about bringing in those who will already have skills, a job, etc.

If we want to help poor people in other countries, let's do it in their own country. Let's stop paying tribute to bad governments, euphemistically called foreign aid, and get the help directly to the people. It would cost us far less money to help them in their own country, than it does to bring them here. WE could build hospitals far cheaper most anywhere than we can provide healthcare for them here.

If we help people in their own country - real help - not guns to kill each other with, but real help, we will be making their countries better and the world better.