{"id":76558,"date":"2015-10-09T15:58:22","date_gmt":"2015-10-09T23:58:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=76558"},"modified":"2015-10-09T15:58:22","modified_gmt":"2015-10-09T23:58:22","slug":"the-costs-of-immigration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=76558","title":{"rendered":"The Costs Of Immigration"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jason Richwine writes<\/a>: A recurring theme of my writing is that, first, immigration has both benefits and<\/i> costs, and, second, that the costs are systematically downplayed by immigration boosters. For example, back in the spring I wrote about the fiscal<\/b> cost of immigration in “The Amnesty Numbers Game”<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\nConsider a congressional hearing held March 17 by the House
\nOversight and Government Reform Committee. The purpose was to determine
\nthe fiscal impact of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration,
\n specifically the granting of work authorization via executive order to
\nmillions of illegal immigrants. Witnesses opposed to amnesty presented
\nserious reasons why the president’s actions could impose a cost on
\ntaxpayers. At every stage of the hearing, however, Democrats responded
\nwith dismissive grandstanding and appeals to authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Earlier this summer I discussed the cultural<\/b> cost of immigration in a piece for Real Clear Policy called “Are Low-Skill Immigrants Upwardly Mobile?”<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\nThe desire to increase social mobility has taken center stage in
\nrecent years, as lower-skill workers and their families struggle to join
\n the middle class. A recent New York Times<\/em> poll
\n found that only 35 percent of Americans agree that “everyone has a fair
\n chance to get ahead in the long run.” The explanations for insufficient
\n mobility are many and varied…. But whatever the root causes of class stratification, the political
\nclass tends to ignore a major policy that worsens the problem — namely,
\nthe mass immigration of low-skill workers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Two of my most recent pieces focus on the distributional<\/b> costs of immigration. Increasing the supply of labor lowers production costs, but the savings come in the form of lower wages for the workers competing with immigrants. The direct connection between the economic benefits (lower consumer prices) and distributional effects (lower wages) is sometimes denied by immigration boosters. But, as I wrote<\/a> in a National Review piece, other times they are honest — perhaps inadvertently<\/i> honest: <\/p>\n

\nThe [farm lobby’s] report is clear about the … desire to keep wages low
\n by increasing the supply of labor. It describes wage increases as “a
\nstrain on many U.S. farms” that other industries have managed to avoid.
\nIt shows that real wages for food preparers, housekeepers, cashiers, and
\n other low-skill workers outside farming have decreased since 2002. The
\nreason, according to the report, is that “employers in non-agricultural
\nindustries have been able to find enough workers to fill job vacancies
\nwithout upward pressure on wages.” Farm owners wish they had the same
\nprivilege.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Finally, I wrote<\/a> about an important new paper from George Borjas (my advisor in graduate school), who has re-examined the wage impact of the Mariel boatlift:<\/p>\n

\nThere is perhaps no economic study more often cited by immigration
\nadvocates than economist David Card’s 1990 analysis of the “Mariel
\nboatlift.” After Fidel Castro announced in 1980 that anyone wishing to
\nleave Cuba could do so via the port of Mariel, 125,000 Cuban immigrants
\ncame to Miami in a matter of months that summer. The sudden influx of
\nyoung, able-bodied workers generated an unusually good test of how
\nimmigration affects wages. Economic theory predicts wages should have
\ndeclined in Miami after the boatlift, but Card was surprisingly unable
\nto detect any wage impact at all.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Borjas found that there was a decline in wages, concentrated among the least skilled natives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jason Richwine writes: A recurring theme of my writing is that, first, immigration has both benefits and costs, and, second, that the costs are systematically downplayed by immigration boosters. For example, back in the spring I wrote about the fiscal … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[161],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-immigration"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t