US President Donald Trump has long railed against immigration as a scourge on the economy and national security. He has committed his administration to starting construction on a wall along the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration and asylum seekers, yet he reversed his past policy efforts on restricting legal immigration in this year’s State of the Union address.
Trump managed to accuse immigrants in the country illegally of stealing jobs from US workers, while declaring that the country needs more immigrants because of its economic boom. This argument rested on a series of false stereotypes.
“I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally,” he declared, only to say later: “Working-class Americans are left to pay the price for mass illegal immigration: reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools, hospitals that are so crowded you can’t get in, increased crime and a depleted social safety net.”
That is a slight variation on his drumbeat going back to 2015, when he said: “They’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our manufacturing jobs, they’re taking our money, they’re killing us.”
According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of immigrants arrive legally.
In general, the entire immigrant population is increasingly better educated than native-born Americans.
They are more likely to have jobs. They are less likely to commit violent crimes. They help fuel economic growth and, as a group over time, they are no more a drain on taxpayers than native-born citizens.
Moreover, for all the attention to the southern border, in recent years immigrants to the US have been more likely to come from Asia than from Mexico.
Three Harvard University economists released a paper in June last year that looked at immigration in multiple countries and concluded that native-born Americans as a whole wildly overestimate the prevalence of immigrants.
These Americans estimated, on average, that legal immigrants made up 36 percent of the US population, more than triple their actual share.
They thought that immigrants were less likely to work and more dependent on government aid than immigrants actually are — and these stereotypes made them less supportive of social programs that might aid immigrants.
“We were surprised by how much of a misperception there was about the level of education, income and contribution to society that immigrants give,” said Alberto Alesini, a Harvard economist who cowrote the paper.
Here are some fundamental myths about US immigration and the economy:
MYTH: Vast numbers of immigrants are pouring across US borders.
REALITY: Not really.
The net flow of all migration into the US in recent years — about 0.3 percent of the total population — is roughly at a long-standing historical average, according to an analysis of government data by Lyman Stone, an economist who studies demographic issues.
“It isn’t rock-bottom, but it isn’t that high either,” Stone said.
Economists say that restricting immigration would probably weaken economic growth. Given today’s lower birthrates in the US, immigrants are increasingly needed to sustain a level of population growth for the US economy to keep expanding.
Immigrants as a whole do make up a greater percentage of the total US population than they did back in 1970, having grown from less than 5 percent of the population to more than 13 percent now.
However, there is a largely overlooked reason for that: Native-born Americans are having fewer children. The falling birthrate means that immigrants now make up a greater share of the population. In 2030, it is projected that immigrants will become the primary driver for US population growth, overtaking US births.
MYTH: Immigrants are taking away jobs.
REALITY: Many people have firsthand stories of losing a construction bid or an office job to a foreign worker. This happens in an economy as large and diverse as the US’, where numerous people also lose jobs to native-born Americans.
However, employment data suggest that the influx of immigrants helps increase overall hiring for the US economy rather than erode job growth.
The trend is clear in the government’s monthly jobs report. The data does not distinguish between immigrants who are in the US legally and illegally.
Nearly 64 percent of immigrants hold jobs, compared with about 60 percent of workers born in the US, according to the US Department of Labor.
Last year, immigrants accounted for about 40 percent of the 2.4 million jobs added.
As a steady growth in the workforce helps the economy expand, economists say fewer immigrants would equal slower growth and fewer jobs.
Falling birthrates and the retirement of the vast generation of baby boomers mean fewer people flowing into the workforce in the coming years — a drag on economic growth, which would likely, in turn, limit hiring.
Many economists have noted that adding immigrants would help maintain the flow of workers into the economy and support growth.
MYTH: Immigrants are uneducated.
REALITY: The president has pledged to create an immigration system based on “merit,” thereby implying that the US is a destination mainly of unskilled and uneducated workers.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said at the launch of his 2015 campaign.
However, today’s immigrants are more likely to be better educated than Americans, and the country has increasingly become a magnet for foreigners with doctorates and master’s degrees.
Sixteen percent of all immigrants who arrived since 2000 hold an advanced degree, compared with 13 percent of the native-born population, according to the US Census Bureau.
As of 2017, immigrants who had become citizens were almost twice as likely to hold a doctorate than native-born US citizens. Foreign-born citizens were more likely to have a doctorate at least as far back as 2000.
Census records also show that the children of immigrants are more likely to graduate from college than are those of native-born parentage.
This does not mean, of course, that all immigrants are better educated. Such are the disparities within the immigrant population that immigrants as a whole are less likely than native-born Americans to have completed high school.
However, the trend shows that the US is increasingly a home for foreigners with graduate degrees and higher earnings.
MYTH: Immigrants are to blame for today’s sluggish wage growth.
REALITY: The weight of the research suggests that immigrants have not suppressed wages.
David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, first studied the issue in 1990 by reviewing the arrival of Cuban migrants in Miami during the 1980 “Mariel boat lift.”
This historical rush of immigrants created a natural experiment to measure what then happened to incomes in the area.
“The influx appears to have had virtually no effect on the wages or unemployment rates of less-skilled workers,” he said.
Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, studied immigration into California between 1960 and 2005.
He wrote in a 2010 paper that it had “essentially” no effect on wages or employment of native-born workers.
However, many people seeking to reduce immigration rely on research from George Borjas, a Harvard economist. His research found that the arrival of Cubans in the Mariel boat lift caused wages to fall for native-born high-school dropouts in Miami. Other economists have questioned his methodology.
In addition, Borjas’ findings would apply to a small fraction of US jobholders today, only about 6.2 percent of whom lack a high-school degree.
Other explanations for sluggish wage growth go beyond immigration. They include the decline in unionization, an intensified push to maximize corporate profits, growing health insurance costs that supplant wages and the rise of a lower-wage global labor force that in an intertwined worldwide economy can hinder pay growth for Americans.
MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on taxpayers.
REALITY: The National Academy of Sciences explored the costs to taxpayers in 2016. It is a tricky issue. The US federal government runs a budget deficit, which means it spends more than it collects in taxes. This means that, on average, most Americans are a net drain on taxpayers.
All told, the costs imposed by immigrants are about the same as they are for native-born citizens.
“An immigrant and a native-born person with similar characteristics will likely have the same fiscal impact,” the report said.
However, the report also examined spending by states and localities, which generally must maintain balanced budgets. As state and local governments supply most of the money for public schools, immigrants often receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
That said, there are longer-term benefits from educating children, who grow into adults who get jobs, buy vehicles, buy houses and pay taxes and thereby contribute to economic growth.
The National Academy found that the net cost from 2011 to 2013 for state and local budgets combined averaged US$1,600 a year for a first-generation immigrant, but that figure became a net positive of US$1,700 for the second generation and US$1,300 for the third.
Immigrant households with children are generally more likely to use welfare programs such as food assistance and Medicaid than US-born households, largely because the immigrant families have lower average incomes and larger families, the National Academy report said.
MYTH: Illegal immigration leads to violent crime.
REALITY: Trump frequently highlights violence by the “savage” gang called Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13, saying in his speech on Tuesday last week that it operates in at least 20 states and “they almost all come through our southern border.”
He invokes that gang, whose members come predominantly from El Salvador or are US citizens descended from there, to portray immigrants as criminals.
Widespread crime makes it harder, of course, to run a business, spend money and engage in the daily transactions that keep an economy humming.
However, there is scant evidence that immigrants are perpetuating a crime wave. In a paper published last year, sociologists Michael Light and Ty Miller reviewed crime in every state and the District of Columbia from 1990 to 2014. They found that a rising number of immigrants in the country illegally corresponded with a drop, not a rise, in reported crime.
The authors acknowledged that it is possible that people who came illegally are less likely to report a crime, but the authors also note that such immigrants overwhelmingly arrived to work, a trend that helps to reduce crime levels.
Past research cited in their paper found that 93 percent of the men in the country illegally either have a job or are looking for one.
“At a minimum, the results of our study call into question claims that undocumented immigration increases violent crime,” their paper said. “If anything, the data suggest the opposite.”
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse