“But here is Mr. Sessions, ditching the usual Republican talking points on immigration, choosing instead to echo an uglier time in our history, when nativists wielded the spurious argument that the more immigrants taken in by America, the worse America is. He’s advocating for ‘slowing the pace’ of legal immigration, supposedly to increase job opportunities for native-born, low-skilled workers, particularly African-Americans. . . . But nowhere in that argument is there a case for yanking America’s welcome. . . . Mr. Sessions ignores the truth, proved over centuries, that immigration over all is good for the American economy.” – Senator Sessions, Straight Up, New York Times Editorial Board 4/15/15.
Fact Check: Once again The New York Times leads the media pack against sensible immigration reform. In the bizarro world of the Timesmen, the mere suggestion of “slowing” our current floodtide of mass immigration, the highest sustained level in our history is somehow an “ugly” plot of “nativists.” Just what a nativist is exactly, the Timesmen and their elitist ilk never explain. Evidently it’s a mere native who wants a decent standard of living in a land that still resembles the America he has known and loved.
So it is “proved over centuries” that immigration is good for the economy? Notice that the Timesmen don’t qualify the amount or make-up of the immigration. A trickle, a tidal wave, or anything in between is always beneficial. But what does history actually say?
Almost a century ago, we had mass immigration. We also had terrible poverty, large urban slums, low wages, and diversity which was overcoming our powers of assimilation. In 1924 Congress responded by sharply reducing immigration. What happened? Less immigration promoted assimilation of immigrants, and wage levels for all workers began to increase. By the fifties and sixties, immigrants and their descendants had joined the mainstream and moved into the middle class.
In the growing prosperity of the sixties, America achieved some of her greatest technological accomplishments, typified by the landing of Americans on the moon. Contrary to the message we hear today, our country then didn’t need large-scale immigration to excel in innovation.
Following the new wave of mass immigration that took off in the seventies, wages began to stagnate even as productivity increased—and that situation has continued to this day. Recently the Congressional Research Center issued a report showing the correlation between immigration and wage suppression.
Immigration is not the only reason for wage suppression, but it does play a significant role. As Sen. Sessions pointed out in his reply to the New York Times editorial, “It defies reason to argue that the record admission of new foreign workers has no negative effect on the wages of American workers, including the wages of past immigrants hoping to climb into the middle class. Why would many of the largest business groups in the United States spend millions lobbying for the admission of more foreign workers if such policies did not cut labor costs?”
If indeed immigration promotes prosperity, then surely today we should be quite prosperous with a foreign-born population at a record total of 41 million. But our national economy is lackluster, and a great many native-born Americans and immigrants alike are struggling economically. Another measure is to take a look at California, the state with the highest number of immigrants. It was prosperous and solidly middle-class before mass immigration. Now the prosperity has faded, and increasingly the state shows a division of a relatively few wealthy at the top and many have-nots at the bottom.
As the Timesmen ignore these realities, they serve the agendas of business interests that want an endless supply of cheap labor, regardless of the costs to the rest of society. Also, they serve the left-wing political interests that want immigrants as an endless supply of cheap votes. If anything is truly ugly, it is the Times’ indifference to the legitimate concerns and often the plight of their fellow citizens.