What's the value of immigration?

[peejay 327]

What's the value of immigration?

By David Frum, CNN Contributor

December 20, 2010 12:33 p.m. EST

Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.

Washington (CNN) -- Senators are a lot like college students. For months on end, they seem to do no work at all. And then everything gets crammed into the last weekend of the term.

This past weekend, the Senate finished off a huge pile of work at once. Among the items voted on: The DREAM act, a form of amnesty for illegal aliens who entered the country as young children and attended college or served two years in the military. DREAM lost when it failed to clear a filibuster.

The defeat of DREAM follows on the defeat of the McCain-Kennedy "pathway to citizenship" legislation of 2007. Two defeats of two major bills within three years -- that begins to look like a message.

Congress will have to return to the drawing board on immigration. And it should start with this question: What is immigration for? What are we trying to accomplish?

A century ago, the answer seemed obvious. Factories and mines clamored for workers as an underpopulated continent beckoned settlers.

America in the 21st century, however, does not suffer from a generalized labor shortage. If labor were scarce, you'd expect wages to rise. Instead, wages were stagnating even before the recession hit in 2008. The typical hourly job in this country paid no higher wage in 2008 (adjusting for inflation) than in 1974. Add the value of fringe benefits, and you get a 37% increase since 1978.

Nor is 21st-century America underpopulated. While vast parts of the United States remain empty, the areas that attract immigration are as densely populated as Europe. In fact, New Jersey has a higher population density than any country in Europe except the Netherlands.

So why import almost a million people a year legally, plus nearly the same illegally? That's a question that usually goes not only unanswered but unasked.

DREAM invited Americans to tidy up some of the messy consequences of this mass migration. But whether you favored DREAM or opposed it, the question we need to ask now at this time of high and prolonged unemployment is: Why mass migration at all?

You often hear it said that the U.S. needs to create 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. What's seldom mentioned is that almost all of America's net population growth is driven by immigration.

Of course immigration also creates jobs, too. There are benefits as well as costs. In 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers tried to balance these gains and losses. They totaled all the gains, subtracted the losses and concluded that our present immigration conferred a net benefit of ... hold your excitement ... somewhere between 0.22% of national income and 0.60% of national income..

(And as economist George Borjas notes, the CEA could reach the higher end number, 0.6%, only by ignoring the economic harm done by new immigration to the immediately prior immigrants.)

Given the immense scale of the immigration we receive, it seems incredible that immigration yields so small a net benefit.

Yet the CEA's estimate tallies with previous work by the National Academy of Sciences back in the 1990s. Their work supported the low-end estimate of a net benefit from immigration of about one quarter of 1% of national income.

That seems a poor payoff for the disruption caused by mass migration. Imagine if your kid's classroom went from zero non-English-speakers to 10 in just a couple of years. Then you are told that this turmoil is adding just fractions of a penny to the national income? Surely you'd ask: Why are we doing this?

It does not have to be this way. If we chose our immigrants differently, immigration would upgrade the average skill level of the U.S. population. (As is, 31% of immigrants have not completed high school.) If we chose our immigrants differently, they could contribute more in taxes than they require in benefits. (As is, immigrants are 50% more likely to be poor than the native-born.)

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, immigrants arrived with higher skills and soon gained higher incomes than the native born. That's how immigration still works in Canada and Australia. Their immigration systems are race-neutral and favor prospective immigrants who arrive with language skills, advanced degrees or capital to invest.

Someday, the United States will probably have to double back and do something for the hard cases showcased in the Senate hearings on the DREAM bill. But if we really want to do something useful, we should do more than help the hard cases. We should ask some hard questions.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/20/frum.immigration.debate/index.html

[^_^ 5,021]

Washington (CNN) -- Senators are a lot like college students. For months on end, they seem to do no work at all. And then everything gets crammed into the last weekend of the term.

Ha. So true.

Someday, the United States will probably have to double back and do something for the hard cases showcased in the Senate hearings on the DREAM bill.

Also true.

As for the value of immigration, the points raised are valid. We don't have a labor shortage, what we have is a shortage of certain niche skills. Our focus should be on attracting immigrants with those niche skills and not generally uneducated labor.

[peejay 327]

As for the value of immigration, the points raised are valid. We don't have a labor shortage, what we have is a shortage of certain niche skills. Our focus should be on attracting immigrants with those niche skills and not generally uneducated labor.

How about something novel? Instead of importing foreigners first, why not invest in our own people first? Cheap labor is only cheap on the surface. Society at large ends up paying for what lies hidden.

[^_^ 5,021]

How about something novel? Instead of importing foreigners first, why not invest in our own people first? Cheap labor is only cheap on the surface. Society at large ends up paying for what lies hidden.

Investing in our country? What a concept. Sorry, I'm told there's no money for that.

[The_Dude 1,142]

How about something novel? Instead of importing foreigners first, why not invest in our own people first? Cheap labor is only cheap on the surface. Society at large ends up paying for what lies hidden.

You are aware that this will require spending, on things like education. Gasp. Don't let the tea party hear you say that, they might start calling you a librul.

[^_^ 5,021]

You are aware that this will require spending, on things like education. Gasp. Don't let the tea party hear you say that, they might start calling you a librul.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It always comes back to this: Who benefits from the immigration system we have? Right, those that run the show. There is a demand for ever cheaper labor and that demand will be met. The profiteers of this mess will see to it.

[james&olya 1,121]

How about something novel? Instead of importing foreigners first, why not invest in our own people first? Cheap labor is only cheap on the surface. Society at large ends up paying for what lies hidden.

Of course, almost everyone on this site would say there is a way to do both! Bring my fiancee here and you will be investing in my happiness!

But your point is a good one. Is it as much a money issue or is it more an attitudinal shift that we need? Educational opportunity abounds, yet high school graduation rates are abysmal in many areas. How do we go about motivating the young people already in our society to try harder. Immigrants often succeed over native born among many ethnicities here. Why can't we see the same achievement from native-born citizens?

[^_^ 5,021]

Immigrants often succeed over native born among many ethnicities here. Why can't we see the same achievement from native-born citizens?

Why do native-born citizens of certain ethnicities, religions and regions do so much better than others? Could culture have anything to do with it? And how do you change culture? Should you change culture or is culture best left alone unless it's hurting others?

Our economy is changing rapidly and when niche skillsets can't be filled locally because we simply have too many sub-cultures that place no value on education and actually sneer at those who go to college and accomplish (before all you racists start cheering too loud, i'm not just talking about the inner city minority population here), what do we do? Tilt at windmills and try to change what hasn't changed in decades or take the easy way out and simply import our needs? Big business has spoken and they've chosen to import.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How about something novel? Instead of importing foreigners first, why not invest in our own people first? Cheap labor is only cheap on the surface. Society at large ends up paying for what lies hidden.

The problem with the labor market today is there are so many careers that you need degrees for today, that 20-30 years ago you would be able to get 'on the job training for.'

The worst part about is, is school doesn't prepare you for the real world at all. All it does it teach you basic ins and outs of a field, but doesn't show you how to apply that.

So many college graduates start their careers, "stupid" on knowing what the hell to actually do.

[^_^ 5,021]

The worst part about is, is school doesn't prepare you for the real world at all. All it does it teach you basic ins and outs of a field, but doesn't show you how to apply that.

So many college graduates start their careers, "stupid" on knowing what the hell to actually do.

A big part of it is where you went to college and what degree you got. Speaking for the major and area I'm familiar with most intimately - there is a huge difference in graduating Rutgers with a bachelors in Computer Science and getting the same degree from NJIT. The NJIT degree is much more 'applied' and NJIT grads are typically much more ready to hit the ground running on day 1; the Rutgers program is less applied but gives the graduate a much better background in the theoretical underpinnings of the discipline. If you're looking for some grunt who will administer a system or do menial A+ type work you don't really need a college graduate but sometimes HR will make you - and you'll go get someone from NJIT. If you're looking for someone who can one day grow into a technology leadership (architecture, tech strategy, etc.) role you won't go near the NJIT grad and will prefer the Rutgers grad.

Edited December 22, 2010 by \

[james&olya 1,121]

The problem with the labor market today is there are so many careers that you need degrees for today, that 20-30 years ago you would be able to get 'on the job training for.'

The worst part about is, is school doesn't prepare you for the real world at all. All it does it teach you basic ins and outs of a field, but doesn't show you how to apply that.

So many college graduates start their careers, "stupid" on knowing what the hell to actually do.

One of the ways college prepares one for a job is in proving to a potential employer that you have a certain degree of intelligence and discipline. This is often far more important than actually knowing how you will perform the requirements of your job. You have proved you can work hard and learn.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

One of the ways college prepares one for a job is in proving to a potential employer that you have a certain degree of intelligence and discipline. This is often far more important than actually knowing how you will perform the requirements of your job. You have proved you can work hard and learn.

There's truly no hope for society if that's what people believe.

I know quite a few dumb people who skim their way through college.

At the end of the day, they've got their BA, but they're still as dumb as the day they were born...

[The_Dude 1,142]

There's truly no hope for society if that's what people believe.

I know quite a few dumb people who skim their way through college.

At the end of the day, they've got their BA, but they're still as dumb as the day they were born...

That's bullsh!t Paul. Nobody can skim their way all the way through college and graduate.

[mawilson 2,133]

Immigrants often succeed over native born among many ethnicities here. Why can't we see the same achievement from native-born citizens?

Send them to Bangladesh for 5-10 years; they'll be a lot more ambitious when they return.