More Immigration answer to America’s Problems?

The New York Times this week published a provocative op-ed column titled, “Actually, the Numbers Show That We Need More Immigration, Not Less.”
 
Author Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at the libertarian Reason Foundation, argues that America needs to at least double the number of immigrants coming into the United States every year.
 
“But by any reasonable metric, the idea that America is experiencing mass immigration is a myth,” she wrote. “The reality is that we desperately need to pick up the pace of immigration to maintain our work force and economic health.”
 
Dalmia cites a lot of statistics in making the case that the U.S. economy is suffering from an aging population that is growing more slowly because of declining birth rates. But she makes the mistake of assuming that all immigration is equal.
 
And, clearly, that is not the case.
 
Suppose, for instance, the country admitted 100 English-speaking entrepreneurs, scientists and doctors. It would be hard to argue that they would add no more value to the economy than 100 high school dropouts who do not speak English.
 
In fact, the former group would make the country richer, while the latter would be a net drain on government resources.
 
A large body of academic research has shown this to be true, including a massive 2017 study by the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine and Engineering.
 
That is not a comment on the work ethic or morality of low-skilled, lesser-educated immigrants. It merely is a confirmation of what it takes to succeed in a modern economy. People without skills and education, on average, are likely to use more in government assistance and cost more in general government services like roads and schools than they pay in taxes.
 
Dalmia cites political demographer Jack Goldstone, who estimates that without a big increase in birth rates or immigration, average economic growth will fall to 1.6 percent a year. But the overall size of the gross domestic product is much less important than the per capita GDP. Mexico’s GDP is higher than Switzerland’s, but no one would argue that Mexico is a richer country.
 
Dalmia ignores these obvious facts and suggests no variation among immigrants. She argues that “mass immigration” in America is a myth because the foreign-born population is lower as a percentage of the overall total than 33 other wealthy countries.
 
She speaks favorably of Canada and Australia, both of which have more immigrants per capita than the United States.
 
But neither country’s immigration system resembles America’s, which primarily is based on family ties. The majority of legal immigrants to the United States get their tickets punched on the basis of relatives who previously immigrated. That is the primary reason why America’s immigrant population skews so poor.
 
Canada, on the other hand, admits the majority of its immigrants based on economic considerations. As a result, immigrants to Canada are younger, better-educated and perform better economically than those in the United States.
 
Dalmia maintains that America does not have too many immigrants because the unemployment rate of immigrants is lower than natives. But the jobs dominated by low-skill immigrants often happen to be the occupations where wage stagnation has hit the hardest. Simple supply and demand dictates that increasing the number of workers competing with the most vulnerable Americans will reduce the value of their labor.
 
But what about the birth rate? Dalmia points out that fertility rates of native-born Americans are declining and that the Census Bureau has reduced population growth projections as a result.
 
But as the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies has found, immigration is not the solution to America’s demographic time bomb. For one thing, immigrants are not exclusively young. They tend to span the age range. And while the fertility rate of immigrants is higher than for natives, the rate has been declining among immigrants, as well.
 
In addition, according to the research, the differences disappear in subsequent generations. The difference simply is not great enough – even if the immigrant population were much larger – to save programs like Social Security and Medicare that face a future of fewer tax-paying workers and more beneficiaries.
 
The foreign-born share of the U.S, population today, 13.7 percent, is not out of line with previous eras. In fact, it was slightly higher at the turn of the 20th century, Dalmia notes. The difference, however, is that the booming industrial economy of the United States in the 20th century required large numbers of workers. And the sills and education required for those factory jobs was not particularly high.
 
The modern economy, with its premium on advanced skills and college education, is completely different. Today, the kinds of immigrants matter much more than the numbers.