Immigration Legalization would boost U.S. economy, study says

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: SFGate

Legalizing the status of the roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants living in America would create jobs, increase wages and boost the sagging U.S. economy, according to a study released Thursday.

The study by UCLA associate professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda found that citizenship and flexible limits on legal immigration would serve future labor demands and boost wages for native-born workers.

"Immigration has a positive effect on the economy," Hinojosa-Ojeda told reporters, saying legalizing undocumented immigrants already in the United States could add $1.5 trillion to the gross domestic product over the next 10 years.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/07/MNTQ1BF6LR.DTL

[optimator]

1. lol @ "future labor demands"

because we all know there is a shortage of labor........
:sarcasm:

[pampango]

2. SEIU: "comprehensive immigration reform will raise standards for all workers"

http://www.seiu.org/2010/01/comprehensive-immigration-reform-would-increase-us-gdp-by-15-trillion-over-10-years.php

The report, Raising the Floor for American Workers looks at the effects on GDP and U.S. wages of three different scenarios--

1. passage of a comprehensive reform bill,
2. creation of a temporary worker program, and
3. a mass deportation of today's 12 million undocumented workers.

If the U.S. Congress were to pass a comprehensive bill this year, it would increase the U.S. GDP at least 0.84 percent annually--amounting to a more than $1.5 trillion boost in GDP over 10 years!

On the other hand, a mass deportation would cost the U.S. a whopping to $2.6 trillion in lost GDP over 10 years! It would also reduce wages for higher skilled native workers and only provide a slight increase in wages for a small group of less-skilled native born workers. And the estimated $2.6 trillion loss in GDP doesn't include the more than $200 billion it is estimated to cost to deport 12 million undocumented immigrants.

The CAP report also looked at the economic ramifications of a temporary worker program--long championed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their big business allies in Congress. Not surprisingly, a program that mirrors the failed Bracero program of our past--denying basic labor protections for foreign workers and blocking them from permanent residency--would significantly push down wages for native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers. As SEIU and labor groups have long posited, a revolving door of easily exploited, cheap foreign labor brings down wages and living standards for all workers.

Done right, the CAP report confirms, only comprehensive immigration reform will raise standards for all workers, strengthen our economy, and restore the rule of law for the long-term. The CAP report was released today in a press event with author Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to see a study of something as complicated as immigration reform. IR is one of the those issues where people just "know" certain things are true, even if studies and research show that the opposite. It would be interesting to see is a conservative immigration organization like FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) have studies that show something different than the one referenced in the OP.

"Federation for American Immigration Reform spokesman Ira Mehlman said that even with legal status, many immigrants would continue to work in low-wage jobs, meaning their tax revenue wouldn't make much of a difference to the economy. Also, legalization would flood the labor market and drive down wages rather than increase them, he said." (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immig7-2010jan07,0,5871672.story) This article doesn't say if Mehlman bases his statement on some research or he just "knows" that it is true.

[treestar]

6. I just wish they would quit exploiting these people as "illegal"

There ought to be just a general visa for them to come and go on from Mexico. Under NAFTA we supposedly have free trade. Put the coyotes out of business. The whole thing is a scam for their employers to be able to exploit them because they have no rights. That's the reason they are preferred to U.S. citizens.

[pampango]

7. That's a European progressive solution to the problem, not an American progressive one.

Europeans seem to be able to make continental open borders and free trade work for them. Americans (even progressives) often use the term "open borders" as an epithet, even though the concept works quite well under the right circumstances.

[Bustercat]

15. Europe isn't that different.

There's tension anytime a poor and rich nation share a border. Look at all the resistance to eastern countries joining the EU, Polish workers in the UK, or the tension involving Turkish guest workers and new immigration..

US actually has (or had, until recently) something similar to EU "open borders" with Canada, for many years..

http://www.canadianinternationalcouncil.org/resourcece/multimedia/towardabet/obamasmess

[pampango]

18. You're right. There are border tensions in Europe, too. The big difference is that progressives

there tend to push to open borders by expanding the EU, while conservatives (like the far-right BNP in the UK) want out of the EU so that they can reinstate immigration controls on people (like Polish workers) and goods from other European countries.

Fortunately, IMHO, the progressives are winning this battle (as they have so many others in Europe) and the EU keeps expanding into poorer countries on the continent like Romania and Bulgaria (which are poorer than Mexico) in 2007.

Oh, and welcome to DU. ;)

[blue97keet]

21. "free trade" and open borders is an antiprogressive solution anywhere,

just an excuse for multinational corporations and the "too big to fail guys" to exploit the crap out of everybody.

[pampango]

23. Not in Europe. It's the far-right parties that want to get rid of "free trade" and open borders,

not the liberal/progressive parties. (The BNP in the UK, for example, wants to withdraw from the EU so that the UK can reimpose immigrations restrictions on certain Europeans and tariffs on some European imports. They bemoan the loss of "national sovereignty" which being a member of the EU entails - kind of like the complaints you hear from RW'ers here regarding US membership in the UN.)

The progressives who created the EU and have pushed its expansion into poorer countries in Central and Eastern Europe have always insisted that the EU include open borders and "free trade" as a means to promote peace and prosperity in Europe. It apparently has worked since Europe has never before witnessed the prolonged peace and increasing prosperity that is has enjoyed since the end of WWII.

[blue97keet]

33. Hyper-aggressive agenda pushing is what this EU scheme is,

pushing expansion of anything is not "liberal/progressive" unless you thing Bush's invasion of Iraq is "liberal/progressive". Oh he no doubt had some kind of opening oil to foreign investment "free trade" agenda that was not about weapons of mass destruction. Oh, dumping subsidized ag products on third world countries is not "liberal/progressive" either, and neither is gutting the U.S. manufacturing base.

There ain't no difference between a free trader and a neocon.

If the Brits wanna withdraw from the EU to paint themselves blue and dance around Stonehenge naked that is their business and nobody else's'.

[blue97keet]

34. deleted double entry

[SandWalker1984]

27. Europe isn't fighting a costly "war on terror" like the US.

You can't claim we're fighting a war on terror with open borders. Making people go thru full body scans at the airports but leaving hundreds of miles of borders unsecured is insanity.

[Xenotime]

13. Agree 100%

[earcandle]

3. Giving low wage jobs to immigrants is going to increase our labor STATS, but not our jobs.

[SandWalker1984]

4. Clinton also promised us NAFTA would create lots of good paying American jobs...

President Clinton: "In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free Trade Agreement. In the coming months, I will submit this pact to Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I'd like to tell you why: first of all, because NAFTA means jobs American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

We all know how well NAFTA has provided new, high paying jobs for the American workers.


Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice..............

[treestar]

5. NAFTA actually screwed the Mexicans the most

http://www.tompaine.com/print/cornfueled_migration.php

That is why they come to the U.S.

[blue97keet]

20. NAFTA was designed to screw everybody

[MH1]

8. "study says"

with enough money I can get a study done that will say whatever I want it to.

[pampango]

14. As I said in #2 above, if there are studies that show that immigration reform is bad for workers I,

for one, would love to see them. I would rather discuss differences in research conclusions in studies of the effects of immigration reform than just argue that I "know" this and you "know" that about the effects.

"It would be interesting to see is a conservative immigration organization like FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) have studies that show something different than the one referenced in the OP."

I know that FAIR has plenty of money to "get a study done that will say whatever" they want (which, I'm sure, would be that immigrants are bad). Perhaps FAIR has undertaken such a study and I just haven't seen it or perhaps they would rather just argue against reform using emotional appeals rather than facts.

[Edweird]

22. Canadians don't seem to be complaining. Strict immigration and protectionism

plus universal health care gets them a much higher standard of living. We are Canada's Mexico.

[pampango]

25. Canada is protectionist? And it also has a much higher percentage of immigrants

than the US.

Canada belongs to the same trade organizations (WTO, NAFTA, etc.) that the US does. It has numerous free trade agreements, just like the US. It is currently negotiating fta's with India and the EU (neither of which the US is negotiating with), and a host of other countries in Central and South American and the Caribbean. Canada's level of imports and exports as a percentage of their economy is much higher than the US. It is very much a trading nation, not one of protectionism and tariffs.

In 2006, 19.8% of the Canadian population were immigrants to the country. In 2004, the figure for the US was 11.2%. It is kind of hard to argue that Canada has stricter immigration controls than the US. A much higher percentage of Canada's immigrants are legally admitted through generous immigration policies, while many US immigrants are not here as a result of an official welcoming immigration policy but are here illegally.

I will give you the fact that they have a much better health care system than the US. They have much reason to smile about that.

[Edweird]

26. Yes. The rules and nature of Canadian immigration are vastly different than ours.

Education levels

Immigrants to Canada tend to be less educated, and the Canadian system puts great emphasis on finding skilled immigrants, however this system does not always work. <20> However, Immigrants to Canada more skilled than immigrants to the United States. George J. Borjas compared immigrants to Canada and the United States finding those to Canada being better educated and receiving higher wages once settled. He accredits this Canada's points based immigration system, and argues for the United States to more closely emulate the Canadian method.<21>

Wages

One important effect of this steady influx of highly skilled immigrants is the reduction of income inequality in Canada. A steady stream of doctors and engineers into the economy reduces wages for these professions. In the United States immigration patterns are reversed, and income inequality is much higher as a partial result.<32> In terms of the impact of immigration to economy-wide wage levels, Statistics Canada estimates that for every 10% increase in the population from immigration, wages in Canada are now reduced by 4% on average (with the greatest impact to more skilled workers, such as workers with post-graduate degrees whose wages are reduced by 7%).<33>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada


There are three main immigration categories:

Economic immigrants
Citizenship and Immigration Canada uses several sub-categories of economic immigrants. The high-profile Skilled worker principal applicants group comprised 19.8% of all immigration in 2005.Canada has also created a VIP Business Immigration Program which allows immigrants with sufficient business experience or management experience to receive the Permanent Residency in a shorter period than other types of immigrations. The Province of Quebec has a program called the Immigrant Investor Program <6>
Family class
Under a government program, both citizens and permanent residents can sponsor family members to immigrate to Canada.
Refugees
Immigration of refugees and those in need of protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

It's not 'just show up'. I looked into moving there.
The most significant part of their immigration system is the fact that it is actually ENFORCED.

[pampango]

29. As you say, Canadian immigration rules are more strictly enforced, but the system is more generous

than the US.

From your wiki link: "Canada's unusually high immigration rates, and the equally unusual general popular support for a high rate of immigration, can be traced to the nation's unique economy."

I agree that Canada's immigration system is vastly different from that of the US. The point of my post was that it is not a "strict" immigration system, but relatively quite generous, as evidenced by the extraordinarily large number of immigrants admitted legally to Canada.

[Edweird]

32. If you don't meet the requirements, you don't get in. That is strict.

Furthermore, their standards help the working and middle classes, while our system benefits the employers and hurts the workers.

So, yes, you are correct in the number of immigrants. What you are missing is the level of control they have over it and its intent/function.

[pampango]

37. I think we agree. Their regulations are promote immigration and they adhere to them quite strictly.

Their system is set up to permit a higher rate of immigration than the US and Canada enforces their immigration rules more effectively than us.

I misunderstood your earlier post. When you referred to "strict immigration", I thought you meant "limited" immigration rather than a high level of immigration with the rules strictly enforced.

[Edweird]

9. Tell you what, when Canada starts doing that, then we'll talk.

Canada has a good thing going. Our current situation sucks. Much like the health care debate, more of what is causing the problem is not the answer. More workers, legal or not, drives down the value of labor. If they are able to start a company that will employ Americans and have sufficient liquidity to do so, then great. What we don't need is more competition for the dwindling underpaying jobs we have now.

[onpatrol98]

10. Immigration Policy

I think comprehensive immigration reform is supposed to be the next big thing on the president's plate, isn't it? That will be an interesting debate to take into the midterm elections.

[Lurks Often]

19. I believe it is

And if the approach is mass pardons for the illegals currently in the country, don't expect it to pass. With unemployment so high, it is likely to be political suicide to vote for it, especially on top of the current incarnation of health care reform.

And I happen to believe the % of people unemployed or under employed is probably near 20-25%, with underemployed being people who were making significantly more just a year or so ago. Meaning if you were making $75K as an accountant at your job last year, got laid off and are now working customer service at $35K a year, you are underemployed.

[SandWalker1984]

28. There's one other HUGE sticky issue here -- Mexican drug gang members

Don't know about where you all live, but I live in SW Florida and can tell you that, according to our local police and media, we have right now in our community 13 known and recognized Mexican drug gangs, made up mostly of illegals. Of those 13, 8 are well organized, well armed and violent.

There have been several shoot outs between rival gangs, including one in which a small, innocent child was killed.

Just 2 weeks ago several gang members were busted for breaking, entering and robbing over 20 homes in Sarasota.

I don't know about you, but I like locks on my doors and I'd like to have a safe community in which to live.

I've read that these drug gangs are operating in most states in the US, but concentrate in the south and large cities.

This is the dirty little secret about the illegal immigrants here that most open border advocates don't want to discuss.

[SandWalker1984]

30. deleted - duplicate

[SandWalker1984]

31. Deleted - duplicate

Sorry, I kept getting an error message & didn't know it was posting.

[Bustercat]

35. Its true, and when times were better, border reform dissolved into partisanship.

The idea that amnesty and increased border security could be separated in any workable solution, is insane. And that's just what happened when this stuff was on the table, with the democrats leaning towards amnesty and against unpleasant realities like walls and searchlights, and the republicans pushing for all the security without any reasonable solution for the people already here. With the former, unregulated traffic — including cartels, human smuggling, etc. – continues unabated. With the latter, you're faced with the task of leaving people here as illegals, or something pretty ugly: mass deportations.

I think border reinforcement will be a big hot button soon, with jobs previously filled by illegals becoming appealing to our masses of unemployed.
It's a good starting point for whatever comes later, and certainly the only one that people will go for. It would also shore up support for Obama, by balancing his internationalism with a pretty strong example of looking out for domestic interests.

[Bustercat]

16. agreed.

More workers aren't going to solve the problem for anyone. What we need is more jobs, not more competition for the jobs we already have.
What we need is a way to control any future traffic coming in, and some option for amnesty, with some sort of backpayment, for people who've been here on the sly for 20 or so years. Special preferences would be given to people with children, as well.

Of course, expedited relocation for any workers with serious criminal records.

[Proletariatprincess]

11. We don't need immigration reform as much as we need Labor Law reform.

If workers were treated fairly and employers were held accountable for their exploitations, we could have open borders. The value of labor would rise on both sides of the borders. It has always been about Labor..not immigration. Xenophobes excepted, of course.

[treestar]

12. I wonder what it would be like if we could work in Mexico

without restriction. With more money, we could start businesses with the capital and lift the floor for Mexicans.

But this NAFTA thing does not really seem to work. We can't just go to Can. or Mex. and they can't just come to the U.S. or go to each other's countries. It's full of restrictions.

[treestar]

17. A page with links to that and another report

http://immigrationimpact.com/2010/01/07/new-report-quantifies-benefits-of-immigration-reform-to-us-economy/

Interesting how the libertarian Cato Institute thinks immigrants are good. They are pro-capitalism. I guess Republicans aren't pure capitalists when it comes to brown people.

[Edweird]

24. Really? RW you say? Do tell.

[w4rma]

36. B.S. (nt)

[classysassy]

38. Jobs for Americans

the congresscritters sold out the americans years ago when they let the big cooperations leave the country for slave wages in poverty ridden countries.The crooks sold out the workers and we keep re electing them.We need to let them know that we the citizen voters are tired of their back room deals,we need to march on Washington and demand that the attorney general investergate the crooks in congress,the ones found guilty of crimes should be sent to the same prisons as the other criminals.