Why the United States needs Immigration Reform
APRIL 27TH, 2022-Pandemic
STAPLES CONSULTING
ECONOMIC NEWS OF THE 1ST QUARTER, 2022
WHY THE UNITED STATES NEEDS IMMIGRATION REFORM NOW FOR THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC WELLBEING OF AMERICA!!
?IMMIGRATION HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Note: The term “immigrants” refers to people residing in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. This population includes naturalized citizens, lawful immigrants, refugees and asylees, legal nonimmigrants (including those on student, work, or other temporary visas), and persons residing in the United States illegally.
All of the nations in the Americas are the land of immigrants since everyone’s ancestors in the Americas come from someplace else. St. Augustine, Florida that was founded in 1565 by Spanish explorers, became the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in what is now the contiguous United States. It was not until 1607 that the first successful English colony was established in Jamestown, Virginia. The records that we have of the first English settlement show that coming to America was a highly risky proposition. Of the original 150 settlers who landed in 1607, only thirty-eight survived the first winter, just 25%. In 1609 there were about 500 settlers, but only 60 or 12% survived the winter of 1609-10. Between 1617 to 1623 over 5,000 people had immigrated to Jamestown; by 1625 only 1,300 were living, a 26% survival rate. And between 1625 to 1640 15,000 settlers had arrived, but only 8,000 had survived, a 53% survival rate. You had to be quite a risk-taker to make a new life in the American colonies.
Even though, in the beginning, colonies were largely started by immigrants, the real growth of the population was from a high birth rate. Most of the new settlers were farmers and expanded their work force by having large families. It is believed that prior to the first United States census of 1790 an estimated 950,000 settlers came to the United States including 360,000 slaves from Africa and about 425,000 from the British isles. The 1790 census found that there was around 3,900,000 people living in the United States, including less than 100,000 Native Americans. The total estimated Native American population of the continental United States in 1500 was between 1-3 million.
This puts the American Revolution in a rather different light when you realize that more than 90% of the colonials were native born and had never seen England. It would have been much easier for the revolutionary leaders to arouse the local population when so few had lived or even seen England or had direct ties with those who were ruling over them. This would explain why it is estimated that less than 65,000 Loyalists left the United States after it gained its independence.
On average between 1625-1790 only around 5,500 new immigrants, each year,?would come to what would be the future United States. This was largely due to the difficulties in transportation and the cost of leaving one’s native country and coming to a completely new nation. It is estimated that only 1% of the population of the United States between 1790 to 1830 were immigrants.
One of the first acts of the first Congress of the United States?established the rules for immigrants to obtain U. S. citizenship (Naturalization Act of 1790). This allowed any “free White person(s) (meaning males over the age of 21) … of good character” and had lived in the United States at least two years, to file a Petition for Naturalization with “any common law court of record.” This excluded free Black people, indentured servants, Native Americans, slaves, and later Asians and some Hispanics.
Starting in the 1840s and 1850s when steam ships began to cross the Atlantic, particularly once the screw-driven propelled steamship was developed, immigration greatly increased into the United States. The percentage of the total United States population that were immigrants increased from 1.6% in 1830 to 9.7% in 1850.
One of the lesser-known benefits of immigration to the United States occurred during the American Civil War (1861-1865). One of the first strategic military moves by the Union was a naval blockade of Confederate ports; this became more effective as the war continued as the Union navy expanded and Confederate ports were taken. This meant nearly all immigrations to the United States ended up in Union States; over 800,000 immigrants came during this period and replaced many of the Union war dead in the military and added workers in factories, greatly aiding the Union cause.
?Between 1860 to 1920 was the real boom of immigration to the United States with immigrants representing on average 13.8% of the population (about one in seven residents were immigrants). One of the biggest draws to new residents to the United States was free land. In Europe, much of the land was still owned by nobility and land had been handed down among farmers for multiple of generations, often going to the eldest son. The idea of owning their own land was a major draw for new arrivals. Starting with the Homestead Act of 1862, millions of acres (eventually totaling more than 270 million acres to 1.6 million households) were given away for free to any adult, including women, and immigrants who had applied for citizenship. This homestead was usually 160 acres and was granted to any applicant willing to live on the designated land, build a home, make improvements, and farm it for a minimum of five years. About 40% of the applicants who started the process were able to complete it and obtain title to their land.
In 1875, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that immigration was the responsibility of the Federal Government; this led to the first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875. This outlawed the importation of East Asian (particularly Chinese) contract labor, any East Asian (particularly Chinese) woman who engaged in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own country.
In 1882, these restrictions were expanded in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which excluded immigrants from China; other Asian immigrants were excluded by the Immigration Act of 1917, also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act, which also banned homosexuals, people of intellectual disability, and people with an anarchist worldview. Also, for the first-time immigration from Mexico was formally regulated. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 went further and restricted total immigration to less than 165,000 per year, setting quotas for all nations, the entire continent of Africa quota was just 1,200 immigrants. This Act would prevent many Jewish refugees fleeing from Nazi’s repression to immigrate to the United States prior to World War Two.
During the Great Depression (1929-1939) the United States started a process of repatriation and deportation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to Mexico. The arguments for this focused primarily on competition for jobs, and the cost of public assistance to the poor. (Sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it!) Also, the proximity of most of this population to the Mexican border, their physical distinctiveness, and the concentration of the population to clusters of populations made the relocation easier. The estimated number of those forcibly removed ranged from 350,000 to 2 million and of these between 40 to 60 percent were U.S. citizens!
These restrictions slowly lowered the percentage of immigrants in the total population of the United States from a high of 14.7% in 1910 to just 4.7% in 1970. This overall trend was changed with the passing of the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965, which abolished the system of national-origin quotas. The 1965 Act created preferential categories based upon family ties and what human capital the immigrant brought to the United States and was deemed critical by the U.S. Department of Labor. This Act generally allowed more immigrants to move to the United States and the percentage of immigrants in the total population increased again and by 2019 was 13.7%.
The last major immigration reform was passed in 1986; it was the Immigration Reform and Control Act. This Act, for the first time, created penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants (which was loosely enforced, and few penalties ever levied). At that time, the Act was to grant amnesty to about 1,000,000 illegal immigrants, in reality about 3,000,000 were granted amnesty in the United States.
In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIR) was passed. It focused on the reforming the process of admitting and removing undocumented immigrants, and created new barriers for refugees seeking asylum in the United States. It redefined what public benefits each class of person living in the United States could obtain; these classes were citizens, legal immigrants, refugees, and illegal immigrants. ?
DISPELING SOME MYTHS ABOUT IMMIGRANTS
IMMIGRANTS COME TO THE UNITED STATES TO LIVE OFF OUR BENEFITS!
Let’s be clear here, this is just a false statement!
Illegal or undocumented immigrants and people on temporary visas have never been able to claim benefits from any federal public programs (in modern history). This includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), formerly known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). After IIRIR was passed in 1996, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer. You can only claim Social Security benefits if you have a valid Social Security Number and have contributed to the Trust Fund for at least 40 quarters or 10 years, before receiving any benefits at all. Immigrants come to the United States to work and seek opportunities they don’t have in their own countries, they don’t come here to live off of our system.
IMMIGRANTS DON’T PAY TAXES!
First, let’s be honest here, everyone that works and lives in the United States pays taxes. If anyone buys anyone else’s production or rents a place to live, they will be paying either sales taxes directly or property taxes indirectly. Opponents of immigrants think that they get a free ride by sending their children to American schools. But not only do they pay taxes through their rent (all 50 states charge property taxes and many apply a higher rate on rental income property) they give a property owner a return on their investment (which is usually a local investor). ?
IMMIGRANTS TAKE AWAY JOBS FROM “REAL” AMERICANS!
A number of studies have shown that immigrants might harm some classes of Americans and take their jobs away or drive down wages. Overall, it seems that in the long-term immigrants tend to benefits other classes of Americans more than take away from the total labor force. Nearly 40% of the Fortune 500 firms were founded by immigrants or their children (2012). Although the foreign-born are only 13.7% of the population, a quarter of high-tech start-ups have an immigrant founder. By one estimate for every job created in the high-tech sector, another 4.3 jobs emerge over time in the local economy. 17.0% of the United States labor force are immigrants, which means that immigrants work more often the native-born Americans. If this was a “real” problem the solution is rather simple; the federal government needs only to create a national labor ID card and system that requires all workers to register to work. At the same time have real enforcement against businesses that hire illegal immigrants. If there are no jobs immigrants will not come to the United States looking for work. The problem is that this solution goes against the ideology of those who want tighter immigrant controls.
领英推荐
WE WOULD LOSE OUR “AMERICAN CULTURE” IF WE LET IN TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS.
There are some people in the world who would argue that the United States doesn’t have any culture to begin with! Also, this is a rather odd argument for a nation that prides itself on being a great “melting pot” of people and a land of immigrants. If we look at other nations, we will come to believe that this not much of a problem at all. Currently, migrants make up about 13.7% (2019) of the United States total population. We have had a higher percentage in the past and we can’t see any harm done to our culture. If we look at other nations today, they have greater percentage of immigrants in their countries and with the exception of the opinion of a few nationalist groups their cultures have been enhanced by their presence. Some of these nations with a higher immigrant percentage include: Australia 28.8% (2017), New Zealand 24% (2018), Canada 21.5% (2017), Austria 19.0% (2017), and Sweden 17.6% (2017). ?
NATIONS WE MIGHT FOLLOW!
AUSTRALIA: Until 1973, Australia’s immigration policy was largely restricted to people of European descent; this was known as “white Australia” policy. Since then, the policy has been to open its borders to new immigrations, but selective of who is allowed in. Since 1973 Australia’s population has doubled; its economy has grown 21-fold; and it has enjoyed 28 years of continuous economic growth (the longest period of growth by any developed country in modern history 1992-2020). Australia has allowed in more than twice as many migrants per capita as the United States, but has displayed no evidence of harm by allowing so many more immigrants into their country. Currently, net immigration contributes about 60% of the population growth and that natural increase-when births exceed deaths-accounts for the remainder. Another interesting note is Australia’s open policy of allowing foreign students to study in Australia. In 2019, Australia had 420,000 foreign students, so in any given year this makes education the third or fourth largest export sector (depending on the year) of their economy. This also allows them to tap into a talented work force for their future labor needs.
Some point to the fact that Australia’s more selective immigration policy is the reason for their success over the United States. The United States use what is called family-based migration, where immigrants with family ties, already established in the United States, are given preferential treatment. The problem with this is the United States family-based migration represents 71.8% (2015) of all immigrants allowed into the country; this number for Australia is 63.7% (2015). It’s difficult to image that this 8% difference would have that much of an impact.?
CANADA: Since 2000, Canada has been one of the top performers economically in the G7 group of nations (other members are: England, European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States). It has been able to grow its economy without massive amounts of deficit spending. Economic growth over the long-term normally comes from two sources: a growing workforce and increased productivity. When your labor force grows, they produce more goods and provide more services. They in turn earn and spend more, creating more demand, growing the economy (the virtuous cycle). Canada has been able to do both and one of the key elements of their success is importation of human capital in both numbers and quality.
Recently up to 80% of their population growth has come from immigration. With this Canada has become one of the superstar destinations for skilled immigrants attracting even more than the United States on a per capita basis. Canada has been able to do a better job of selecting immigrants with higher human capital traits than the United States. As stated before, the United States family-based migration represents 71.8% of all immigrants; in Canada this is 58.6% (2015). This would seem to indicate that the Canadian system does a better job of granting entrance to more skilled workers than the United States.
BAD ECONOMIC POLICY, LEADS TO BAD IMMIGRATION NUMBERS, LEADS TO WAR???
Recent events on the world stage might reveal future concerns for the major economic powers in the area of economic growth and immigration policy, particularly in the larger economic areas such as China, European Union, Japan, and the United States. One could consider the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia in terms of a failed economic system and immigration problem. After the break-up of the Soviet Empire, starting in 1992 the population of Russia was at 148.5 million, by 2021 the population had fallen to 146.2 million. (Compared to the United States that had 256.5 million in 1992 and grew to 329.5 million by 2020.) This figure would have been even lower if it wasn’t for the invasion of Crimea in 2014, that added 2.4 million more people to Russia. In 27 of these 30 years more Russians migrated out of Russia than immigrants coming into the country.
Russia has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world, and yet cannot attract new citizens and continues to lose its young and most talented as they emigrate to other countries. This and a low birth-rate have made Russia one of oldest populations, with a median age of 40.3 years (2019).
Vladimir Putin wants to return Russia’s status as a great world power; he can’t do this with a shrinking population and the only way, he might believe, to reverse this trend is by conquering areas that have large Russian minorities. This could have led to the invasion of the Ukraine and should raise concern to neighboring countries such as Belarus, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
REFORMING NAFTA-A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
On July 1, 2020 NAFTA was replaced by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA); this new law was largely seen as making few changes to the old agreement and took tiny steps backwards from free trade (according to most experts in the field of international free trade). This would have been a great opportunity for the United States to tackle its immigration issues and dealt a blow for free trade rather than retreating from it.
?If Canada, Mexico, and the United States had modeled the new agreement to look more closely like the European Union (EU), the United States could have created not only the largest free trade region in the world, but could have solved most of the immigration and demographic problems it is facing now and in the not-so-distant future.
European Union Model is based on the principles of the “Four Freedoms.” The free movements of goods, free movement of capital, freedom to establish and provide services and the freedom of movement of people. The USMCA could have created a marketplace of over 490,000,000 people (2020 est) versus the EU’s population of 447,000,000 people.
The United States could have had access to the highly skilled workers of both Canada and Mexico and the large pool of unemployed in Mexico to fill business needs here in the United States labor market. Also, it could have had a much easier securely established border for immigration that was 2300 kilometers further south (along the Mexico border with Guatemala and Belize) and would have been over two-thirds shorter in length from 3,145 kilometers down to less than 1,000 kilometers in length.
REAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS FACING AMERICA AND THE FAKE CRISIS AT ITS BORDERS
The United States is facing the same demographic problem that most developed countries are experiencing and that is a declining population growth rate. Economic growth normally has two sources: an expanding labor market and increases in productivity. When more people are employed, they produce and provide more goods and services, which then creates demand for more workers (the virtuous cycle again). In the year ending July 1st, 2021 the United States added just 393,000 people to its population. This included 148,000 more births than deaths and just 245,000 net new immigrants coming into this country. This is the first-time immigration added more to the total population than the natural increase by births since the establishment of the Republic in 1791. Population growth had been slowing since before the pandemic; it had averaged more than two million a year over the past decade. The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has been falling since 2007, when the rate was 2.12 (Replacement Total Fertility Rate is 2.1, this is the average number of children a woman must have to keep the long-term population stable.) to 2020 when the rate reached 1.64.
There has been no comprehensive study that has been accepted as the reason for this drop in birth rates, which has occurred in many developed countries and a wide range of cultures. But it is a demographic shift that needs to be addressed by all nations on to foster growth in our economy without one of its major drivers.
As population growth has slowed so has the number of immigrants entering the United States. In 2016, more than one million immigrants came into the United States, by 2019 this had dropped to 477,000, and during the past year ending July 1st this had dropped to 245,000, despite a record number of attempts to cross our southern border illegally. A common misconception is that nearly all illegal immigrants cross the border illegally. Most studies have found that between 40% to 50% of all illegal immigrants have entered into the country legally, often by student or visitor visas and have just stayed and never returned home.
Currently there are nearly 11.3 million jobs available here in the United States and just 6.3 million unemployed to fill them. Businesses are desperate for workers and yet we know that there is a pool of people, in other countries, who want to come here to work and yet Congress is unable to pass any type of immigration reform. It seems that it is more important for politicians to have a campaign issue to run on than to actually sit down and come up with a solution that would work for the various interest groups.
Respectfully submitted:
Christian M. Staples MBA
Member of the American Economic Association
756 Worden Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49048
?3617