Thread: IMMIGRATION STUDY IS MISLEADING, NEGATIVE

Immigration study misleading, negative


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


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.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/12 ... _15_07.txt

POST OF THE DAY

jsc wrote on Dec 21, 2007 11:01 PM:

Since NC Times printed Camarota's article, printing Cornelius' article would be giving "equal time" to a different viewpoint. I agree with about 90% of Camarota's figures and 10% of Cornelius'. The reason? I have worked 40 years here, 28 in private industry, 10 in social services (Medi-Cal), 2 in public schools. Call it like it is: whether it's food stamps, Medi-Caid, subsidized housing, WIC, cash aid, Earned Income Credit, SSI, etc. it's all welfare. It's about one person receiving something for nothing that a taxpayer ultimately pays for. California provides more benefits to illegal aliens than required by federal assistance program guidelines. We must pay for pregnant illegal aliens' childbirths. California decided to pay for prenatal care as well, justifying it by saying that since the babies will be U.S. citizens, we should do everything possible to ensure their well being. The solution is simple! Deny citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens! If that is too difficult to pass, then just don't allow an illegal alien to be the payee on a cash aid or food stamps case. Vendor pay the rent, utilities, etc.directly to the provider. Give them coupons for clothes at Goodwill or Salvation Army. Restrict food item choice on food stamp BICs--no junk food. No cash whatsoever. Then when the lying clients , claim to earn only $300 a month to support their family of 5, who claim to live alone, but share the rent with 20 others, who sell their Medi-Cal cards for $600 to other illegals (then request a replacement card), trade food stamps for ? etc. find they aren't living the lifestyle they want, maybe they'll go home. La Raza, ACLU, Southern Law Poverty Center, etc. are trying to perpetuate a myth dating to the 50's and 60's where the hard working Mexican or other alien comes across the border to work. The majority of men who come alone to the U.S. do work, and don't receive aid. But those who bring their families with them or create new families here definitely receive far more in benefits than they provide in taxes or economic productivity. I would rather pay more for my produce and meat, restaurant meals, hotel stays, etc., than to subsidize welfare of any type to illegal aliens. When I worked in the Escondido office, most of my Medi-Cal clients were Spanish speaking. About 45% were amnesty aliens from 1986-ish, about 50% were illegal aliens, a few were sex slave trafficking or domestic violence victims who were given 1 year stays; about 4% were law abiding immigrants who filled out the paperwork and waited their turn. Illegal aliens, amnesty aliens are a drain on our economy. I support increasing the quotas dramatically to allow more legal immigration, especially amongst skilled or educated or English speaking immigrants, as well as immigrants willing to work in agriculture for a minimum of 5 years or other fields where we have a labor shortage. Legal immigrants only!! Fill out the paperwork and wait your turn!

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/12 ... _15_07.txt

Immigration study misleading, negative

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

By: STEVEN A. CAMAROTA - Commentary

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/12 ... _15_07.txt

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

Sure, I guess that's why when I go to see my primary care doctor, whose office shares a waiting room with the local free family health services clinic, I'm the only one there who speaks English and isn't pregnant with a dozen little kids. And in the parking lot, half the cars have Mexico license plates.