Growing through immigration beats shrinking

[scandal 951]

The multiplier effect of immigration is "not widely understood," Johnson said. "You don't just get the immigrants, you get their children and children-to-be."

Oh, I would say that on VJ at least the anti-immigration crowd understands this effect very well indeed. They like to describe it as the anchor-baby effect and sing of its ills. Here's a take on why perhaps there's an upside to all those babies.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-...,3636688.column

Growing through immigration beats shrinking

Greg Burns

January 28, 2010

In an economy as bad as this one, it may take nothing short of disaster to bring about even a little immigration reform.

Responding to Haiti's devastating earthquake, the Obama administration is providing Temporary Protected Status to undocumented Haitians living in the U.S. As many as 200,000 people will be invited to stay legally for 18 months, receiving work permits to find jobs.

Even that modest humanitarian gesture has rekindled an emotionally charged debate about whether immigrants hurt the economic prospects of Americans.

With unemployment at 10 percent, this would be a risky moment for Congress to press ahead with sweeping new immigration policies.

Right or wrong, any move in that direction would invite a predictable backlash about immigrants taking jobs, crowding schools, filling emergency rooms and so on.

In many ways, linking immigration reform to the urgent goal of improving the nation's economic performance probably would be a stretch. But in one way, a high rate of immigration gives the U.S. economy a big boost, providing a "resource" that many other developed countries desperately need.

Babies.

Traditional measures of immigration's economic impact generally start more arguments than they settle.

Academic studies show, for instance, that immigrants do indeed take jobs and depress wages, to the disadvantage of the least-skilled citizens. But scholars disagree about the extent — a lot, a little or in between?

The same goes for government services. Immigrants use schooling, health care and public-assistance programs, while paying taxes as well, making the impact tricky to quantify.

Doubts also fester about how quickly successive generations catch up to the native-born in education, wage rates and other markers of achievement. Some findings indicate that recent low-skilled immigrants to the U.S., mostly Hispanic, take longer to adapt than previous generations of immigrants, potentially at the expense of productivity. But that, too, can be hard to determine.

How much does immigrant labor reduce prices for everything from ground beef to landscaping services? How much economic growth do high-skilled immigrants produce? No easy answers.

Yet in one measurable area, immigrants contribute more than their share of the U.S. total.

Across Europe and Japan, as well as in some fast-developing countries such as China, birth rates have fallen well below replacement levels. That means an aging population will depend on an ever-smaller work force to support the national economy.

It's not so in the U.S., which is expected to grow from roughly 308 million to 439 million in 2050. The nation's Hispanic population alone will soar to 133 million, from 48 million, according to Census Bureau estimates. The number of non-Hispanic whites, now 201 million, is expected to increase only slightly over that period.

The biggest reason: The latest Census data show that the foreign-born — 12.6 percent of the population — account for 20 percent of all recent births, according to an analysis by Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute.

The multiplier effect of immigration is "not widely understood," Johnson said. "You don't just get the immigrants, you get their children and children-to-be."

Those children, like all children, mostly develop into productive citizens who create economic resources. For that reason, an expanding population gives a nation hope for the future. It's no exaggeration to say that long-term growth and prosperity depend on it.

"It does. Quite a bit," said Patricia Cortes, a professor specializing in immigration economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. "You do need labor. You need to expand the population."

How exactly to do it? Fortunately, everybody agrees on that.

Kidding.

[alienlovechild 75]

The multiplier effect of immigration is "not widely understood," Johnson said. "You don't just get the immigrants, you get their children and children-to-be."

Oh, I would say that on VJ at least the anti-immigration crowd understands this effect very well indeed. They like to describe it as the anchor-baby effect and sing of its ills. Here's a take on why perhaps there's an upside to all those babies.

Remember when zero population growth and now sustainability were considered worthy goals?

Exactly who proposing radically increasing the number of most potentially fertile immigrants or immigrants with kids entering the U.S. in order to boost economic growth?

[Ali G. 37]

The article sure has a lot of I don't knows in it. It also fails to address any of the costs associated with illegal aliens. Finally, after a handful of I don't know, it ends with a broad-brush statement of immigration is a good thing because "you get their children".

Now lets see if those commenting like Patricia Cortes would have any bias, she's from Columbia. What she is really trying to say is that illegal immigration is good for Latinos.

The problem with most 'scandalous' folks that share this ideology regarding immigrants is that they group all immigrants together and falsely class someone who enters with a PhD as the same as someone who jumps the boarder.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

Furthermore, disingenuously assume someone against illegal aliens is against all immigrants period. Nothing further from the truth.

[Susita 175]

Glad I'm doing the little bit that I can to contribute to my country's prosperity and population

[Calypso 464]

I am waiting for my conditional GC but I have already started browsing various sites for the right job. It's too noticeable that some companies indicate "only U.S.citizens and permanent residents will be accepted."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am waiting for my conditional GC but I have already started browsing various sites for the right job. It's too noticeable that some companies indicate "only U.S.citizens and permanent residents will be accepted."

employing non-gc non-citizens is a bureaucratic nightmare

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I've read that the US birth rate is around 2.1% which is considered perfect. If the US could establish a policy that actually works regarding illegal immigrants we're set. We don't want to be in a position like Japan.

[Darnell 8,478]

i abhor journalists who mistakenly use 'immigrants' in lieu of 'illegal aliens' .

F*cktards.

[natty bumppo 289]

employing non-gc non-citizens is a bureaucratic nightmare

especially if the person is a pariah ...

[Scott & Lai 12]

Furthermore, disingenuously assume someone against illegal aliens is against all immigrants period. Nothing further from the truth.

SOP, nothing to see here, move along...

[Ali G. 37]

i abhor journalists who mistakenly use 'immigrants' in lieu of 'illegal aliens' .

F*cktards.

Dam straight. It's downright dishonest to compare the two. Then again Chicago and honesty don't exactly go hand in hand.

[Calypso 464]

The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is growing but NatGeo sometimes makes a hero out of the CBP through the show "Border Wars."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is growing but NatGeo sometimes makes a hero out of the CBP through the show "Border Wars."

your use of the word 'but' is confusing.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is growing but NatGeo sometimes makes a hero out of the CBP through the show "Border Wars."

Well in my opinion they do risk their lives out there, and from what I've read their hands are tied somewhat in responding to drug traffickers etc.

by using "but" he's implying they aren't heros because they aren't stopping illegal immigration. Don't blame the person on the ground doing his best with what he has, blame the person in Congress for caving to special interests and latino votes.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sousuke