As we assess the impact of the movement of so many undocumented workers on the economy into which they move, we need constantly to remind ourselves that immigration—legal or otherwise—has long been a key feature of the American economic story. In one sense, illegal immigration is as American as apple pie. Certainly, the first immigrants from the European mainland did not settle in the United States with the explicit permission of the Native Americans already here. On the contrary, their arrival was much resisted. It was not labeled as illegal, of course, that was not the Native American way, but it was resisted—resisted, indeed, even more fiercely than illegal immigration is being resisted now. Those first uninvited immigrants brought to these shores both the most progressive (in the English colonies) and the most backward (in the areas controlled by Spain and Portugal) of the competing sets of economic practices then prevalent in the Western Europe from which they had just departed. The economic impact of early migration to the Americas was in that sense profoundly bifurcatory.1 It helped to set the northern colonies onto a trajectory of sustained economic growth and the southern American states onto one of blocked development and international economic subordination. We do well to note the irony of our present condition. Modern illegal immigrants within the Americas move about on an uneven economic stage that undocumented immigrants, long ago, helped to call into being.
Later immigrants into the United States were less the architects of a new and uneven order than the foot soldiers of its development. The great nineteenth-century waves of more regulated immigration into the United States swelled the ranks of an emerging agrarian and then industrial labor force made necessary by that northern economic growth. Their arrival, though invariably initially disruptive, was eventually largely welcomed (it was certainly tolerated) precisely because those immigrants filled a critical resource gap created by the absence of a feudal peasantry in preindustrial America. Lacking its own rural reserve army of labor, the United States, as it industrialized, borrowed other countries’ peasantries to keep its factories running, just as initially it also borrowed other people’s capital and technology. Only in the second half of the twentieth century did industrial expansion in the American Northeast and Midwest draw predominantly on internal sources of migrant labor, and even then, that historically unprecedented internal migration of the black southern rural poor into the northern cities was accompanied initially by a steady, and then by a greater, external movement of migrants into the United States. As black Americans left the southern countryside for the cities and the North in the years after 1945, Latino workers moved in behind them, helping to fill the unskilled laboring jobs that by then even African Americans were beginning to desert.
The question before us here is whether this escalating flow of Latino labor has been, and is, as beneficial to long-term economic growth in the United States as were the flows of immigration that preceded it. It may not be. We may be in qualitatively new times that require a qualitatively different attitude to the arrival here of other countries’ “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.” Certainly many conservative commentators claim that to be the case. They tell us that the undocumented workers now entering the United States in such numbers bring no economic benefits commensurate to the cost and offense of their illegality. On the contrary, they do damage. They possess the wrong sets of skills, or no skills at all. They create unemployment. They erode the wages of native-born workers. They overburden an already heavily stretched welfare state. They add to the number of the American poor.2
But do they?
We reported on the size and demographic characteristics of both legal and illegal Latino immigration in chapter 1. What we did not comment on there, but must here, is the skill and education profile of Mexican-born labor as it arrives in the United States.
Skill levels (or at least education levels) vary between native-born Americans and Latino immigrants, legal or otherwise. Mexican immigrants arrive here with higher levels of education than the Mexican population in general, but they come with fewer years of education behind them than those possessed by the native-born workers they join. They also come with English as, at best, their second language. Illegal immigrants are particularly disadvantaged in both of these regards. As we saw in chapter 1, researchers at the Pew Hispanic Center recently compared high school dropout rates for unauthorized migrants, legal immigrants, and native-born Americans. They reported that 49% of unauthorized immigrants drop out of high school, whereas 21% of legal immigrants and only 11% of native-born Americans drop out.3 Arriving in the United States underschooled is particularly burdensome now because the educational credentials of the native-born labor force are currently rising. High school diplomas may be, at best, only an imperfect guide to educational attainment, let alone to adult skills; but such diplomas are not easy things to acquire, and their possession does tell us something of importance about the ability of their recipients to continue acquiring skills. In 1970 half the native-born labor force in the U.S. economy lacked a high school diploma. By 2004 only 6.6% of native-born workers were so ill-equipped. In 1980 only 10.9% of high school dropouts were foreign-born; by 2000 that figure had risen to 40.9%.4 There is, therefore, a genuine educational gap between Latino migrants as a group and the indigenous population as a whole, a gap larger for unauthorized immigrants than for those legally here.5 Significantly, however, for the jobs they seek, that educational gap is smallest between Latino migrants and African-Americans.
Numbers of that scale and kind affect the total supply of labor available to the American economy, and they affect the skill mix of that labor supply. Both would be a problem if indigenous population growth already exceeded the anticipated trajectory of job numbers or if the skill mix they created was out of line with known skill needs. But neither of those conditions currently applies.
Regarding population growth we know several significant facts. First, immigration has long been the primary cause of U.S. population growth. Without it, based on numbers from 1800, the population in the United States would likely have grown to fewer than 100 million by the year 2000. In fact the population in 2000 stood at 270 million.6 We also know that current birthrates among native-born Americans of all ethnic groups are low and falling. Natural population growth is presently running at 0.6% per year. In the 1960s it was running at 1.4%. Latino immigration, like immigration before it, is likely to be the great corrective here, though by itself it will still not be enough to restore U.S. birthrates in the next century to the normal rate in the last. Immigration—legal or otherwise—is not spurring a population explosion as so many critics imply: rather, as Daniel Griswold argues more fully in chapter 12, it is helping to save “the United States from a population implosion.”7 The Pew researchers estimate a 48% increase in total population from 2005 to 2050, whereas there was a 64% increase from 1960 to 2005. They also estimate that fully 82% of the population increase we can expect from now to 2050 will be immigrant-based—immigrants and their children born here—as against an equivalent figure of 51% for the years 1960–2005. The bulk of that population increase will be Latino in origin.8
Immigrant labor is clearly needed, both immediately and over the long term.9 It is needed over the long term if only to hold at bay a looming crisis in pension-provision created by the baby boomers’ retirement.10 Social Security is a “pay-as-you-go” pension scheme. Funds paid in now pay pensions now. They do not accumulate to pay the pensions of the workers who are actually contributing. The scheme worked well when the ratio of workers to pensioners favored workers. That ratio was 16:1 in 1935 as the scheme began. It is now 3:1 and falling, brought low by the prolonged longevity and diminished fertility of native-born Americans. By contrast, 84% of all unauthorized immigrants of working age (between eighteen and sixty-four) are under forty-five. The equivalent figure for native-born and legal immigrants is a mere 60%.11 In the United States, as elsewhere in the advanced industrial world, immigration is helping to hold the impending pension crisis at bay, as the Social Security Trustees openly acknowledge. Their 2007 report argued, “An additional 100,000 new immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.7% of taxable payroll.”12
The labor of undocumented immigrants in particular is currently also sustaining a significant number of key U.S. industries. In 2005 undocumented immigrants made up 24% of all workers employed in farming, 17% in cleaning, 14% in construction, 13% in hotels, 12% in food preparation, and 10% in textiles. For specific occupations the percentages were even larger: 36% for insulation workers, 29% for roofers, 27% for butchers and food-processing workers, and 26% for landscapers.13 The labor performed in these industries by undocumented immigrants then sustained more senior positions, positions disproportionately occupied by native-born Americans. As we will see in more detail later in this chapter, in general native-born workers have not lost jobs in these industries because of immigration. All that native-born workers have lost (or, more accurately, left behind) are the basic “grunt jobs” that earned the lowest wages, and there is nothing particularly new in that. Traditionally in the American immigration story, the last group to arrive took the lowest jobs, monopolizing them in spite of their best efforts until the next wave of immigrants arrived to take their place. American immigration has long been less a story of melting pots than of escalators, and it is proving to be so again.
The reliance of those particular industries on immigrant—and often undocumented—labor is itself a reflection of the changing pattern of demand and supply for unskilled labor in the U.S. economy. The demand for such labor remains high and is projected to stay that way. The Department of Labor projects a continued and expanding demand for unskilled labor: between now and 2016 some 4.1 million more occupational slots that require, at most, only short-term on-the-job training.14 Indeed fourteen of the thirty U.S. occupations with the largest projected job growth are in that short-term, on-the-job training list. When retirement patterns and labor turnover are factored in, the net replacement number required to staff these job categories may be twice that: approaching 8 million.15 Yet, at the same time, the supply of such unskilled labor from native-born households is fading fast. According to Daniel Griswold, “In absolute numbers, the number of high-school dropouts in the workforce declined by 4.6 million between 1996 and 2004.”16 There is, therefore, a serious and impending skills gap at the bottom of the U.S. labor market. Immigrant labor across the U.S.-Mexican border clearly helps to bridge that gap, and it arrives illegally in the main because so few visas are annually made available for the entry of workers with low-level skills. The Department of Labor anticipates the creation of 400,000 new low-skill jobs annually over the next decade: yet Congress currently awards only 5,000 visas for workers of that kind, and the current cap on H-2B visas (nonagricultural guest workers) is a mere 66,000.
Anyone trained in the laws of supply and demand should expect that a significant increase in the supply of any commodity, including labor, should directly reduce its price—that is, that the effect of immigration on the wages of native-born workers should be negative. Of late, the most widely cited economist making that case has been George J. Borjas. Over the years his estimate of the impact of immigration—legal or otherwise—on the wage levels of native-born workers has varied. In 1996 he argued, “Immigration may account for perhaps a third of the recent decline in the relative wages of less-educated native workers.”17 In 1999 he calculated the negative impact of immigration between 1979 and 1995 on the relative wages of high school dropouts at about 5 percentage points, writing, “Immigration reduced the income of the average black native by about $300 a year.”18 More recently, his best estimate of immigration’s impact is a reduction of 4.0% in the level of real wages of all native-born men between 1980 and 2000, with a significantly larger fall (7.4%) in the real wages of native-born high school dropouts.19
Economists using different methodologies and data have long challenged Borjas’s calculations, and “many studies continue to find no effect or only weak negative effects of immigration on low-skilled workers or workers in general.”20 David Card’s early work, for example, on the Mariel boatlift—the unexpected influx of 125,000 Cubans into southern Florida in 1980—found no adverse impact on Miami wages, even among earlier unskilled Cuban arrivals. His later research confirmed his general thesis: “Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant.”21 And Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, in a recent widely cited research paper, have the impact of immigration on American wages as actually positive. Counterintuitive as it may seem, they calculated that in the 1990s the average wage of native-born workers increased by 2–2.5% because of immigration and that the inflow lowered the real wage of native workers without a high school diploma by 1% while increasing the real wage of native workers with at least a high school diploma by as much as 3–4% overall.22 Not surprising perhaps, Borjas has recently bounced back with a counterpaper, querying Ottaviano and Peri’s methodology and insisting that we cannot yet “reject the hypothesis that comparably skilled immigrant and native workers are perfect substitutes.”23
This variation in findings is not surprising because contradictory forces as well as contradictory methodologies are in play. What has to be determined in each case is the degree to which immigrant labor and native-born labor substitute for each other or act as mutual reinforcements. Rachel M. Friedberg and Jennifer Hunt wrote, “In a closed economy model, immigrants will lower the price of factors with which they are perfect substitutes, have an ambiguous effect on the price of factors with which they are imperfect substitutes and raise the price of factors with which they are complements.”24 To the degree that immigrant labor increases the labor supply and competes with native-born labor, it seems sensible to expect a negative impact on the trajectory that native-born wages would otherwise have taken. But to the degree that immigrant labor also increases total production and pushes native-born labor up organizational ladders made more commercially sound by the growth of GDP, this incoming labor is best conceptualized as complementary and as a force for general wage growth among native-born Americans. In fact, it is possible to conceive of both impacts occurring simultaneously: with immigrant labor adversely affecting those native-born workers most similarly skilled and closest in location to the immigrants, while (via its general impact on output and demand) reinforcing, even increasing, the wages of native-born workers more “distant” from the immigrants in the production process. In practice, both those effects seem present in the available wage data.
The large-scale immigration of unskilled labor does impact the wages of the native-born unskilled. Since the labor pool of the unskilled is heavily structured by race, the main “loser” would appear to be unskilled African-American male labor. However, unskilled white labor is equally vulnerable, as are “the contingent of previous immigrants, who compete for much more similar jobs and occupations with new immigrants.”25 How big a loss is hard to quantify because the general demand for such labor remains high and growing over time and because unprecedented levels of black incarceration have significantly reduced the available supply of African-American labor of late.26 But without immigration, the supply of unskilled labor would undoubtedly be more limited and demand would pull wages up. That wage loss is more likely to be experienced by native-born African Americans and native-born Hispanic workers because they are “67% and 37% more likely respectively to be employed in the negatively affected occupations than are native-born whites.” Moreover, since those workers are low waged anyway, a wage loss here is likely to “represent a more significant reduction in the material prosperity of those groups.”27
Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon Hanson have recently estimated that “a 10-percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group is associated with a reduction in the black wage of 4%… and… among white men, reduces the wage by 4.1%.”28 Their reference to “skill groups” implies that the immigration of skilled labor is likely to have a similar effect on wages higher up the salary ladder. Again, precision is difficult given the even greater shortfall in native-born supply in certain key skills, the associated heavy demand for them, and the willingness of U.S. employers to pay premium salaries to attract foreign talent. George Borjas has recently estimated that “a 10 percentage immigration-induced increase in the supply of doctorates lowers the wages of competing workers by about 3%,”29 but this is entirely out of line with Jeanne Batalova’s findings that “for the overwhelming majority of native workers, the higher presence of immigrants in skilled jobs is not associated with a decline in earnings.” Only where skill groups contain over 35% of foreign-born workers—she estimates 5–7% of natives work in those jobs—is wage deflation likely.30
Even more difficult to isolate is the impact of illegal immigration on wage levels, particularly among unskilled workers. When flows of illegal immigration increase, both native-born workers and earlier immigrants may respond by relocating. To the degree that relocation occurs, an increase in immigration—legal or otherwise—might have no significant wage effect locally, while still possibly pulling wages down across regional or national labor markets as a whole. George Borjas has argued for the importance of this more complex impact in a number of recent publications,31 but even this complexity is contested. Card and his colleagues have found little evidence either of labor flight or of a change in the wage gap nationally between native-born high school dropouts and unskilled immigrant labor.32 Likewise, the highly prestigious report for the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenetti in 2002 recorded “the near uniform finding… that immigration has, at most, a small negative effect on wages… that a 10% increase in the fraction of immigrants in a region lowers native wages by less than 1% (often an amount not statistically different from zero).”33 Even economists who publish with George Borjas—including Gordon Hanson—are on record as arguing that “there is little evidence that legal immigration is economically preferable to illegal immigration.”34 This is a territory of strong claim and counterclaim, which is why Ron Haskins’s advice needs to be borne in mind: “When economists who are greatly respected by their colleagues disagree sharply over an issue like the impact of immigration on employment and wages, it seems wisest for outsiders to resist forming a strong conclusion and simply say, instead, that the jury is still out.”35
The employment consequences of immigration for native-born workers seem similarly limited in scale and focused in impact, in spite of the fact that “since 2000, the foreign-born have accounted for 47.3% of the net increase in the total labor force”36 and unemployment rates among immigrants remain lower than those among native-born workers. Some commentators compare recent unemployment growth among the native-born (2.3 million from March 2000 to March 2004) to employment growth among immigrants over the same period (again, 2.3 million) and tentatively suggest that immigrants have soaked up positions that otherwise native-born workers would have taken.37 They particularly point the finger at illegal immigrants.38 But the suggestion has to be a tentative one. The evidence of a direct linkage between the two is quite simply not there, and unemployment among native-born Americans remained low and steady in the years before the onset of generalized global recession in 2008. Unemployment fell from 5.2 to 4.7% through 2006. Indeed, David Jaeger calculated in 2006 that “if the undocumented were removed from the labor force, there would be a short fall of 2.5 million low-skill workers” and that although overall “there are enough out-of-work natives to replace undocumented workers, there is,” as we have just seen, “a severe mismatch between the skills of undocumented workers and the natives who would potentially replace them.”39 So, at most, the claim has to be that the unemployment figure would be even lower but for the presence of so many foreign-born workers, and yet even that claim is not sustained by the available research data. Certainly the Pew Hispanic Center found no such one-to-one correlation. On the contrary, their results suggest that “rapid increases in the foreign-born population at the state level are not associated with negative effects on the employment of native-born workers” in any consistent pattern. In 2000 25% of native-born workers lived in states where rapid immigration growth coincided with job growth for the native-born, and 15% did not.40
This lack of any consistent pattern suggests again that the impact of immigration on economic variables turns on whether immigrant and native-born labor substitute or complement each other. The negative impact of immigration is therefore likely to be more potent at the bottom of the skills hierarchy where the competition for work is at its most intense. The question is normally whether native-born Americans would do the work now done by illegal immigrants if—because of their absence—those jobs attracted higher wages. Given the nature of the beast, that is a difficult question to answer with any precision, though Borjas and his colleagues recently used their already-cited “skill group” analysis to suggest a 3.5% increase in black unemployment and a 1.6% increase in white unemployment from any 10% immigrant-induced increase in labor supply.41 That calculation remains controversial, but even economists normally critical of Borjas’s work have reported that in the late 1980s immigration depressed employment rates for “low-skilled natives and earlier immigrants in a typical major city by 1–2 percentage points, and by 3–5 times as much in high-immigrant cities like Los Angeles or Miami.”42 So some slight negative impact of immigration on the job prospects of unskilled native-born labor does seem likely.
What we know with greater certainty is that, when low-paying jobs done by immigrants are offered to native-born workers without significant increases in wages, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of limited take-up and that, when illegal immigrants are driven from employment by tighter law enforcement, replacing those workers often proves extraordinarily difficult. We also know that, thus far at least, there are no occupational categories from which immigrants can be said to have driven all native-born labor. On the contrary, a recent detailed analysis of 473 separate occupations found that there are “virtually no occupations in which a majority of workers are immigrants, let alone illegal aliens.”43 And economic theory would suggest that the pressure of migration on unemployment can be expected to be greatest in economies in which strong trade unions and high minimum wage thresholds block off-wage-cutting as an alternative employer response. The United States is, of course, precisely not such an economy.
Moreover, one positive consequence of the presence of a hidden army of migrant labor—a positive for the official statistics at least—is that economic downturns do not inflate the official rate of unemployment as rapidly as might be expected, since many of the workers laid off-do not, and cannot, register for unemployment relief. Illegal immigration, therefore, brings hidden unemployment as well as hidden employment: hidden unemployment imperfectly captured by the fall in the volume of remittances sent home by migrant labor. In the first half of 2006, the $23 billion volume of annual remittances flowing into Mexico was still rising at a rate of 26% a year. Twelve months and one emerging recession later, the growth rate of those remittances stood at 0.6%.44 The drying up of that flow cannot have been accidental, and indeed it was not. As U.S. construction slowed in the first half of 2008, according to the Bank of Mexico the volume of remittances actually fell; at $6.28 billion down 1.1% on the equivalent quarter in 2007. The data on remittances for the second half of 2008 is likely to be bleaker still.
The fiscal burden of illegal immigration is easier to see, if equally easy to exaggerate. Many claims are made about the excessive pressure placed by illegal immigrants on health services and the penal system, when thus far at least illegal Mexican immigrants—and indeed legal ones—use health services and end up in jail at a lower rate than do native-born Americans.45 Nor is access to welfare easy for immigrants, legal or otherwise. After all, a key feature of the 1996 welfare reform legislation made access to welfare programs by noncitizens more difficult. Such access was initially denied to all legal permanent residents of the United States by legislation passed in 1996. That denial was later amended to apply only to new immigrants, who are now obliged to wait five years for eligibility for food stamps and Social Security insurance. Not surprisingly perhaps, given this new legal climate, participation by noncitizens in welfare programs then declined. Participation by noncitizens in the food stamp program fell 64% between 1996 and 2001.46 Immigrant participation in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) also fell. Only participation by immigrant households in Medicaid has risen since 1996, and then only modestly.47
The households of legal immigrants still remain, however, heavier users of welfare programs overall than do the households of the native-born. Thirty-three percent of immigrant-headed households currently use at least one major welfare program, whereas only 19% of native-headed households do. This simply reflects the disproportionate representation of first-generation immigrant families in the ranks of the American poor, but then first-generation immigrants are invariably poorer on average than the indigenous population. That poverty invariably fades as later generations experience both integration and social mobility. So, as immigrant children and grandchildren rise socially and economically the initial modest fiscal burden of immigration normally gives way to a modest fiscal surplus. All the major studies that examine the economic impact of immigration over time, with the exception of those carried out by the Heritage Foundation (see chapter 11 of this volume), “suggest a modest positive influence on average. The fiscal impact of skilled immigrants is more strongly positive.”48 The National Research Council (NRC) estimated that skilled immigrants make a positive contribution through their own earnings and then through those of their children. The unskilled take longer. They are still in net deficit at the end of the second generation, but the net loss is by then small and declining.49
Undocumented workers have no right to receive public benefits of any kind. Their children, however, are a different matter. Children born here, even to parents who are themselves illegally here, acquire citizenship by nature of their birthplace. With their parents earning little, those children become eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and their rate of participation in those programs is rising—from 45–47% in 1995 to 53– 54% in 2005.50 The burden of illegal immigration on U.S. welfare services—and hence on native-born taxpayers—is thus particularly concentrated on the young and, therefore, on the school system. Of the 50 million students in the public school system, currently 8.5 million are Latino. Illegal immigrant households are disproportionately young households. Pew estimated that in 2005 there were 1.8 million children in the unauthorized population, plus an additional 3.1 million citizen-children living in unauthorized families.51 Those children put significant pressure on already overstretched school systems in many states, particularly the eight that receive probably two-thirds of all undocumented immigrants. In 2000, 43.4% of all school-age children in California had an immigrant mother. The Florida figure was 28.1% and New York’s was 27.1%.52 At the state level the fiscal burden of illegal immigration is at its greatest.
The only counterweight to that burden is the volume of taxation paid by illegal immigrants. Many have false papers and make contributions to the Social Security fund (from which they themselves will never draw). The Social Security Administration estimates that the majority of funds paid under names or Social Security numbers that don’t match their records comes from undocumented workers. By October 2005 those funds totaled $520 billion.53 All undocumented workers pay sales tax and, indirectly, property tax (through their rents). As many as one-half to three-quarters of them work on false papers and so pay income tax and Medicare taxes. The commodities they help to produce also garner additional sales taxes, so that when all this hidden taxpaying is factored in, the fiscal burden they trigger—though real—is significantly diminished. Just how diminished remains in dispute and largely turns on who is doing the counting. Jack Martin from the Federation for American Immigration Reform recently estimated the fiscal cost of illegal immigration in California at $9 billion a year and in New York State at $4.5 billion. Local immigrant advocacy groups challenged the accuracy of both those claims. They were more comfortable with studies such as that carried out in North Carolina in 2006, which found the state’s growing Hispanic population—half of which is thought to be undocumented—contributing more than $9 billion to the local economy through purchases, taxes, and labor, while costing the state budget a net $102 per Hispanic resident in health care, education, and jail expenditure. Likewise, in Oregon a 2007 study estimated taxation from and by undocumented immigrant labor as totaling anywhere between $231 to $323 million; this in a state in which undocumented workers are ineligible for SCHIP, food stamps, or even temporary cash assistance.54
One final addition to the fiscal cost-benefit analysis has to be the cost to the taxpayer of locating, detaining, and deporting all illegal immigrants. The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement was asked for that cost at a Senate hearing in September 2007. Her answer: “Our agency has estimated that it would cost at least $94 billion.”55 The Center for American Progress has the figure higher: $230 billion over five years.56 Either way, it is a huge sum.
Any negative impact of immigration on wages, employment, and welfare has to be set in the context of the growth of GDP associated with immigrant-enhanced labor supply, the strengthening of U.S. competitiveness through the use of imported skilled labor, the positive impact of even unskilled immigrant workers on the prices of the goods and services they help to produce, and the associated increase in demand generated by the wages paid to undocumented immigrant workers themselves. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the positive contribution made by even undocumented workers to local demand levels: anecdotal evidence of boosted demand and of fall in demand when illegal immigration is squeezed out of an area by tighter policing.57 And we now have a string of general reports—from the 1997 report of the National Research Council to the 2006 report of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President—all arguing that the long-term benefits arising from legal immigration outweigh the immediate costs associated with the new arrivals.
This cost-benefit analysis is never easy to conduct. Nor is it easy to complete without controversy. It is not easy to conduct because it requires that the effect of immigration be isolated from the impact of a host of other factors shaping income and employment and because results vary with the length of the time frame used. The calculations are invariably controversial because even where the aggregate numbers balance each other out they still obscure the different fates of winners and losers. Certainly, critics of large-scale unskilled immigration—legal or otherwise—regularly point to the significant degree of income redistribution associated with the modest overall gain for the economy: a movement of wealth “away from native workers who compete with immigrant labor to those who use immigrant services.”58 Nevertheless, the 1997 NRC report estimated that immigration does generate a net surplus—an excess of benefits over costs. They calculated possibly a $1–10 billion gain in an $8 trillion economy in 1996.59 That year, George Borjas estimated the surplus at $7 billion—a net positive but, to his mind, far too small to justify the cost to the losers.60 More recently, the Council of Economic Advisers to the President estimated the surplus as larger: 0.28% of GDP, or roughly $37 billion per year. “On average,” the council wrote, “US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.”61 Not everyone agrees. Some dispute the methodology (and hence the findings) of reports of this kind.62 Some see benefit only in immigration by skilled workers.63 Some deny even that.64 There are even minority voices arguing that “on balance, current mass immigration contributes essentially nothing to native-born Americans in aggregate.”65 But the general consensus among professional economists seems to be that immigration yields a modest economic surplus overall—one accruing to American consumers, businesses, and GDP through the arrival here of a predominantly young overseas labor force imbued with a strong work ethic. As Gordon Hanson has recently written,
Of course, the aggregate economic consequences of immigration policy do not account for other important considerations, including the impact of immigration on national security, civil rights, or political life… [but] it is critical not to lose sight of the fact that illegal immigration has a clear economic logic. It provides US businesses with the types of workers they want, when they want them, and where they want them. If policy reform succeeds in making US illegal immigrants more like legal immigrants, in terms of their skills, timing of arrival, and occupational mobility, it is likely to lower rather than raise national welfare. In their efforts to gain control over illegal immigration, Congress and the administration need to be cautious that the economic costs do not outstrip the putative benefits.66
The full policy implications of these findings will be the subject of chapter 14, but already at least this much is clear: the impact of illegal immigration on the wages and job security of unskilled workers already here (including on the wages of earlier waves of unskilled immigrants) is real but limited. The poverty of those workers is palpable, but it rests in the rewards that flow to unskilled labor in general. It is not caused by immigration as such. Undocumented workers and the poverty wages they attract at most compound a reality that is already here: such that repatriating all of them, were it possible, would certainly alter the demographics of the American poor, but it would not remove their existence. If the removal of poverty wages is our concern—as it genuinely ought to be—it is the wages that will have to be removed by public policy, not the people struggling to survive on them.