Is immigration good or bad for the U.S. Economy?

Immigration and its effect on economy is one of the most observed areas
in economics. Whether immigration is good or bad for the U.S economy, it
becomes one of Washington’s most asked questions. There is a surge of
immigration which poses questions among some U.S. citizens in matters
concerning economy. Proponents affirm that whether immigration is legal
in the country or not, the debt owed to the immigrants is huge. Few
percentages of immigrants are legal, but ironically the larger
percentages of illegal immigrants still pay their taxes on a national
and state level (Simon 45). The immigrants escaped from countries with
the hope that after passing their fresh ideas to the U.S., they will
manage to create a more fulfilling life. This was at the time of
Industrial Revolution.
On the other hand, opponents have mainly been paying attention to
employment and wages effects. Besides, there is a frequent perception
that competition in the labor market is one major force that drives the
approach of the public concerning immigration. Opponents also state the
fear that immigrants might bring burden to public finance through
problems like unemployment or intensive use of public services. This
paper supports the claim that immigration is good for the U.S. economy.
To effectively deliberate on the statement, the researcher presents
arguments put forth in relation to the claim that immigration is good or
bad for the U.S. economy.
Section A
There was a publication by the San Francisco Federation Reserve on how
the economy boosts due to the increase in immigration. Social security
is kept afloat and immigration could also get to the bottom of the
housing crisis in the U.S. Statistics shows that the productive capacity
of the U.S economy is increased by the immigrants. They promote
specialization and stimulate investment, which in the end boosts the
level of productivity (Borjas 1697-1723). No evidence is shown in
earlier research that there is job competition for United States born
workers. This poses the inquiry of why the anti-immigrant regularly
discuss on points regarding jobs and economy.
Some scholars worry on the other hand is that other rich countries,
United States being one of them will benefit too much through
immigration. He found out that there was a disproportionate benefit in
the wealthier countries. The per capita income of the U.S and other
wealthy countries increased to 18 or more times due to immigration in
comparison to middle-income countries. In turn, these middle-income
countries gain double on what the low income countries get. This show
how much there is global inequalities, with countries like the U.S.
benefiting more despite the claims that immigration affects it
negatively. This is likely to happen since wealthy countries have the
capabilities to accommodate immigrants which in turn it benefits through
their labor at a lower wage. Evidently, immigration is advantageous to
an individual.
There was a list published by the Brookings Institution of 7 ordinary
immigration myths that bring contest on both sides. This may help to
explain the disagreement between the economy and the acceptable attitude
concerning immigration and lessons findings. One of the myths is that
there is a balance in the stories emerging concerning immigration. News
coverage is twice most probably expected to cover the immigrations costs
than its benefits. This is response to the studies of broadcast coverage
and mainstream print found in recent years.
There is an accepted notion that the type of immigrants determines the
immigration costs. This notion is verified through a nationwide
representative research that shows that when there is Latino immigrants
featured, there is a boosts in white opposition regarding cost of
immigrations than when the immigrants are European.
Labor standards enforcement could achieve more for recognized and
unrecognized workers alike in the areas where wages pull down due to the
existence of unrecognized workers in low paying jobs than incurring
billions of dollars for border militarization and anti-immigration
enforcement legislation (Scheve & Slaughter 133-145). In the 1930s
before the victory vulnerable native-born workers were at employer’s
mercy in the same way that unrecognized workers are under the modern
law. Historic triumphs detachment makes it simple to not recall that
when non immigrants and immigrants are empowered in the same way, wages
increase and work quality improves since they have a common interest
which makes them stronger than the false circumstances that separate.
Banishing immigrants by spending a fortune does not make a nation
wealthier or manage labor movements which are stronger in protection of
low-paid citizens either.
According to proponents, immigration would result in growth in the
economy. For instance, it is estimated that in duration of ten years,
eleven million immigrants would result in over 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars
added to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). The World Bank
defines U.S. GDP as the output produced by property and labor. This
implies that the immigrants would result in greater outputs, thus
amplified amounts of finances circulating in the U.S economy. Therefore,
the economy would have the capacity to support an increased number of
jobs.
New workers result in the country’s growth and the growth of GDP. This
is a clarification that for the economy to grow, it needs more workers.
, Hinojosa-Ojeda three scenario researches shows that there would be a
creation of a pathway to legalization, deportation of unrecognized
immigrants and a short term employment program with no alternative to
permanent official Class. The conclusion he made was that immigrant
legalization will benefit the economy more through increase in
consumption, generation of extra taxes and permitting immigrants to
ascend the professional ladder, along with additional things. On the
contrary, it is likely be more costly to drive out immigrants, for a
period of over 10 years, the GDP estimation would be $2.6 trillion
without including the deportation cost. Customs Enforcement and U.S.
Immigration state that the government incurred a cost of $8,318 for
every person deported. As an illustration and a representation of how
legalization of immigrants would have effect on the economy, His study
took the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRFA) in the year 1986
(Borjas 1697-1723).This amnesty program legalized around 3 million
immigrants at the period of Reagan administration.
Section B
One of the major claims put forth by opponents is competition in the
labor market. For instance, the Federation for American Reform (FAIR) is
among those against the legalization of immigration. FAIR arguments are
based on issues like illegal crossing through the border by foreigners
who would affect the U.S. economy which was already below par. According
to FAIR the immigrants would increase the competition with the U.S. born
workforce and drain programs funded by the government. The spokes person
for FAIR, Kristen Williamson, stated that the immigrants are a
population with limited skills and attaining low wage.
The second claim is imposing burden on public finance. A report in the
year 2011 by FAIR stated that unrecognized immigrants resulted in a
fiscal burden to the government incurring a cost of $113 billion for
welfare programs annually (Dustmann & Preston 1). The report affirmed
that welfare programs were utilized more by the immigrants than the U.S.
born citizens. There is an argument in the United States by the
opponents of immigration that the U.S economy will be weakened by the
flood of foreign workers who are lowly paid.
The third claim is that creation of citizenship pathway to millions of
unrecognized people will be evident. This is an issue that most
opponents find it difficult to deal with since they state that the
unrecognized immigrants benefit more than the U.S. born people and they
still manage to stay there irrespective of having broken the
regulations.
Laura Hill did not agree with FAIR’s ideas regarding the unrecognized
immigrants. He reported that the unrecognized immigrants filed their
regional taxes, payroll taxes and pay sales. This shows that
unrecognized immigrants result in the country’s growth by adding
economic value to the country. He stated the likely hood of immigrants
working more than that of the natives and that there would be a neutral
economic impact if the unrecognized immigrants are legalized. Workers
with high skills will have an advantage of getting better wages and
employment since the low skilled workers wouldn’t be in a position to
claim for the same (Borjas 1697-1723). As per the argument in the United
States by the opponents of immigration that the U.S economy will be
weakened by the flood of foreign workers who are lowly paid, the
opposite is true since the more the workers the more the economic
growth.
Section C
The country’s growth will depend on new workers. This is a
clarification that for the economy to grow, it needs more workers that
when non immigrants and immigrants are empowered in the same way, wages
increase and work quality improves since they have a common interest
which makes them stronger than the false circumstances that separate.
The World Bank defines U.S. GDP as the output produced by property and
labor. This implies that the immigrants would result in greater outputs,
thus amplified amounts of finances circulating in the U.S economy.
Therefore, the economy would have the capacity to support an increased
number of jobs. Statistics shows that the productive capacity of the U.S
economy is increased by the immigrants by promoting specialization and
stimulating investment which in the end boosts the level of
productivity. Unrecognized immigrants also filed their regional taxes,
payroll taxes and pay sales.
Conclusion
The paper has focused on the effects of the immigrants on the U.S
economy. It analyses the proponent’s views and those raised by the
opponents. It focuses on the contributions that immigrants have brought
to the economic stability of the U.S through various factors like the
labor market in terms of skills and wages and the federal taxes.
Works Cited
Borjas George. The economic analysis of immigration. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science, pp. 1697-1760, 1999. Print.
Dustmann Christian and Preston Ian. Racial and Economic Factors in
Attitudes towards Immigration, CReAM discussion paper No. 1. 2004.
Scheve Kenneth and Slaughter Matthew. Labor market competition and
individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and
Statistics vol. 83, pp. 133-145, 2001.
Simon Julian. The Economic Consequences of Migration. Oxford: Blackwell,
1989. Print
Surname PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1