Innocuous Immigration Information
The purpose of this article is to act as a guide through the politics of immigration and assist in reaching conclusions that serve the best interests of all stakeholders.
First, let’s recognize that people and therefor immigrants-both legal and illegal-cost money. One report suggests annual costs around $113 billion ($29B Feds; $84B State/Local). Another report, from the Heritage Foundation, suggests annual costs around $54.5 billion. The Hamilton Project, finds that (legal/illegal) immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. However, it is difficult to give much authority to any particular analysis since they necessarily contain a number of assumptions as highlighted quite thoroughly in a report from Politifact (i.e. whether to count the children born to illegal immigrants in this country as citizens). Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that (illegal) immigrant households run deficits in the tens of billions annually (roughly a third from education) and that, if they stay, those costs may be recovered.
With regards to the economy, a study from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, finds that immigration, on a whole, has an overall positive impact on long-term economic growth. And while first generation immigrants tend to cost more in services than they pay in taxes, that trend is reversed by the 2nd generation.
However, the effects on the economy is still an issue of debate. While the Hamilton Project concludes, “based on a survey of the academic literature, economists do not tend to find that immigrants cause any sizeable decrease in wages and employment of U.S.-born citizens, and instead may raise wages and lower prices in the aggregate.” Others, like George J. Borjas, professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, cites the negative consequence that hit particular segments of the economy and workforce, “Age trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent… According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.” He concludes that while immigration may have positive or negligible effects across the economy as a whole, it ignores the fact that specific groups, who are competing with immigrant labor, are bearing the brunt ofthe ill effects and labels this a sort of redistribution of wealth from employee to employer.
On immigration costs there is a need to differentiate between lawful and unlawful immigrants. Most notably, lawful immigrants tend to have higher levels of education while unlawful immigrants tend to lack basic levels of education. This education gap is the primary driver in costs incurred by the government. Note that this doesn’t solely apply to immigrant households but natives as well. The Heritage Foundation confirms this in their analysis:
The education gap between lawful and unlawful immigrants is understandable when one considers the immigration process. The estimated backlog for immigration is about 4 million people. The process itself can take up to 25 years. Typically those multiple decade timelines are applicable for people coming from countries that have higher immigration rates (i.e. China, India, Phillipines, Mexico, etc.). Those inordinate wait times are due to quotas that limit immigrants per country rather than treating them all the same or otherwise. The effect of this bureaucracy is a preference for a more affluent class of immigrants since those are the groups who presumably can afford to wait.
While we recognize that more affluent people are typically the ones immigrating legally, we fail to address the reasons immigrants leave their native country. Such data could prove useful in stemming the tide of immigration. What is quite troubling is that there is almost no data available as to why immigrants come to America apart from generic assertions (i.e. fleeing poverty, seeking education, etc). In fact, polling data of immigrants is almost exclusively views from Americans (about what to do about immigration). This might be considered an emergent property of an ethnocentric society, but it certainly is not helpful in addressing the bigger issues posed by immigration. I digress. What is important to realize is that there is certainly value in collecting such data if we want to undertake this issue in a meaningful way.
Onto yet another subject of concern — enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security’s 2017 budget includes about $9.3 billion for border security and migration interdiction services. Another $5.4 billion will be spent on apprehension, detention, and legal services. It is difficult to track down comparable figures over time (since DHS was created in 2002 and has had some poor reporting standards), but the US Border Patrol Budget has increased dramatically from 1990 to the present (with the largest gains between 2006 and 2011).
It is reasonable to conclude that the increases in manpower, fencing, and revenue for border security should be, at least partially, credited with reversing the trend of entry without inspection over the southern border (EWIs) versus overstaying of temporary VISAs.
It would be technically impossible to repeat the same decade long reduction in EWIs through such activities as substantially increasing patrol agents or further expanding barriers. In other words, there comes a point where further investment yields diminishing returns. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation acknowledges that more manpower and barriers are ineffective at addressing the issues faced by border security. Instead, they advocate for better training facilities to deal with the influx of new officers, updating and repairing deteriorating barriers, the selective use of barriers (physical ones for urban environments; virtual for rural), and offering DHS the flexibility to bring on contractors when conditions warrant it. This approach to border security is mindful of costs and benefits in a way that political rhetoric is often not.
The subject of enforcement is typically not as simple as enforcing current law. The implications of immediately and fully enforcing current law would cost somewhere between $400-$600 billion dollars and reduce real GDP by $1.6 trillion. Such solutions are disproportionately riddled with costs while doing very little to inhibit the influx of illegal immigration. Solutions need to be dynamic, vigilant, and make use of up-to-date (or predictive) data. As seen in the figure above, individuals overstaying their VISAs has become a major, if not the predominant, source of illegal immigration despite the fact that 99%+ of VISA holders leave as prescribed by law. From this, a more balanced approach to border security ought to be advocated. Currently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes those convicted of violent crimes, and those in violation face additional penalties for re-admission. While reform or resource allocation could be passed to expand ICE, perhaps the obvious solution involves a biometric entry/exit system, which has been passed in law but not fully funded. The cost is 1/1,000th the amount of full enforcement of current law — coming in at around $400–600 million dollars.
One last issue is the immigration costs with respect to the native countries of immigrants. The home country necessarily experiences a decreasing population, which in turn reduces productivity and economic spending. Economic growth is adversely affected as more affluent individuals immigrate away. This is evident by their disproportionate contributions toward intellectual property and business startups here in America. This cost is revisited upon the host country when immigrants repatriate home. Some 70–80% of Asian and Indian immigrants who leave cite improved opportunities (their odds for upper level management almost quadruple), better health care, and stronger family values in their home countries as many decide to return. These issues of repatriation should warrant appreciable attention as the costs to provide societal benefits, such as education, will likely not be recouped should they leave. This should be discouraged for their biological and technological distinctiveness must be added to our own. Resistance is futile. We are the Borg.
