More Misleading Commentary from a Media Pundit:
“[Open immigration policies] are and have always been good for America. A new summary of the research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that immigrants are integrating into society as well as ever. The bulk of the evidence shows that immigrants have a hugely positive effect on total American GDP while having little impact on wages. . . . Reducing the supply of unskilled immigrants may do something raise the wages of unskilled natives and ease their legitimate concerns.” – A Little Reality on Immigration, David Brooks, New York Times 2/19/16.
Fact Check: Open immigration policies may indeed be good for some Americans—such as unscrupulous business interests who want to drive wages as low as possible, or ethnic and racial chauvinists who seek to build up the size and clout of their group at the expense of everyone else. This hardly means that “open immigration” benefits the nation as a whole. It doesn’t.
Contrary to Brooks’ claim, the research he cites doesn’t particularly indicate that assimilation is working. Other research suggests that it isn’t, at least not assimilation to the Founding Fathers’ vision of limited government. Hispanics comprise the largest foreign-born population in the U.S. Hispanic immigrants and their second and third generations are much more likely than the general U.S. population to favor a big government providing many services. This inclination is worrisome, given our country’s runaway spending and deficits.
A study by the Hudson Institute revealing attitudes of naturalized citizens compared with those of natives reveals a significant failure of assimilation. It would seem that the immigrants who go through the process of becoming citizens would hold beliefs and values fairly similar to the ones of natives. But poll results cited by the Hudson Institute study reveal wide disparities:
- By about 30 points (85% to 54%), the native-born are more likely to consider themselves American citizens rather than “citizens of the world.”
- By 30 points (67% to 37%), the native-born are more likely to believe that the U.S. Constitution is a higher legal authority for Americans than international law.
- By roughly 31 points (81% to 50%), the native-born are more likely than immigrant citizens to believe that schools should focus on American citizenship rather than ethnic pride.
- By 23 percentage points (82% to 59%), the native-born are more likely to believe that it is very important for the future of the American political system that all citizens understand English.
- By roughly 15 points (77% to 62%), the native-born are more likely to believe that that there is a unique American culture that defines what it means to be an American.
If there is this much divergence between native and naturalized citizens, the gap between natives and the large number of immigrants who don’t naturalize must be substantially wider.
As for immigration expanding the total GDP, Brooks is correct, but all this means is that more people mean more economic activity. It does to necessarily mean that people are benefitting on a per capita basis. In recent testimony before Congress, Harvard economist George Borjas noted some economic benefit to natives from immigration, but only at the vastly greater cost of wages subtracted from workers.
In one sentence Brooks denies wage reduction, but concedes it in another. One thing he certainly is right about is that the negative impact of immigration on poor and unskilled Americans is a legitimate issue. Also a legitimate concern is the negative impact of mass immigration on our national culture and cohesion.