More Misinformation from the Media:
Rather that [sic] hurting the United States, immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere are a boon to it. That’s the conclusion of a new report from the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine. . . . Francine D. Blau, professor of economics at Cornell University and chair of the 14-member panel of professors and researchers that conducted the study, says, “the panel’s comprehensive examination revealed many important benefits of immigration – including on economic growth . . . with little to no negative effects on overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term.” – Trump’s Wrong on Immigration, Editorials, Raleigh (NC) News & Observer, 10/1/16.
Fact Check: This is one of a number of editorials which has put a pro-immigration spin on that study. But the spin is significantly deceptive. Yes, the study supports the idea that immigration makes the economy larger. Indeed, we could add the population of Bangladesh tomorrow and have a bigger economy in terms of GDP. But would that make average Americans better off? A larger economy is not necessarily a better economy.
The study also found that immigration may benefit native-born Americans by as much as $54.2 billion a year. The problem with this benefit is its source is not so beneficial. It derives, as statistics from the report reveal, from the gain business accrue from using immigrants to keep workers’ wages low. They gain $548.1 billion a year in this fashion, while workers lose $493.9 billion in wages. Thus, immigration enables what might be described as Robin Hood-in-reverse: it takes from the poor and gives to the rich.
At the same time immigration brings a significant fiscal loss as immigrants receive a great deal more in tax-paid benefits than they pay in taxes. The report estimates that this deficit could be as high as $299 billion a year.
So, in terms what the report could measure, current immigration is not a paying proposition. But the spin doctors say not to worry because it will work out just fine in the “long-term.” Supposedly in the course of the next 75 years or so the descendants of present immigrants will rise up the economic ladder and will not be a burden in terms of wages, jobs, and fiscal impact.
The problem with this projection is that it rests mainly on what the Center for Immigration Studies describes as “assumption driven speculation.” Among the assumptions is that the federal government will control its spending and that our immigration policy will admit more immigrants on the basis of skills than it currently does.
Also, the report seems to assume—no matter what—that present immigrants will follow the same trajectory and timeline as past immigrants for entering the economic mainstream. But the report’s own findings suggest that present immigrants are not doing as well. Specifically, it noted that they are taking longer to reach the income levels of natives, and that they are slower to learn English.
For the sake of argument, let’s accept the idea that immigration in the “long-run” will pan out. That won’t make the immediate pain and loss to native workers and taxpayers any less unpleasant. And their distress will last as long as our current level of mass immigration continues.
A reasonable solution would be to cut immigration sharply to alleviate their pain. That also would benefit the immigrants already here and the smaller number who arrive by hastening their assimilation. It would be a win-win situation—and even the best spin doctors would have difficulty spinning it any other way.