(some thoughts, since I've had some time to take this in)
The DHS says "In 2009, the total number of persons naturalizing was 743,715 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The leading countries of birth of new citizens were Mexico (111,630), India (52,889), the Philippines (38,934), the People’s Republic of China (37,130), and Vietnam (31,168). The largest number of persons naturalizing lived in California (179,754), New York (88,733), and Florida (82,788)" and "The number of persons naturalizing in the United States declined to 743,715 in 2009 from 1,046,539 in 2008.", which is where I got my mistaken 1,000,000+ figure.
So, you're far closer to being right on that point than I was, so I'm sorry about that. Mexico was the leading nation of origin, though I was wildly off on the number of Mexicans being naturalized annually (though if you include Central and Latin American Hispaniola and Brazil, the number goes up to ~200k, and I doubt that they're immune to being discriminated against by virtue of simply not being Mexican, so it's still a big number).
I don't doubt when you say that those who are wealthy, skilled, or are related to American citizens by blood make up the bulk, though I will point out that a) 50K or so spots appear to be given out by random lottery every year, and b) we treat Mexican immigrants very similarly to (the same as?) every other nation of origin w/r/t naturalization, and we have good reasons for preferring skilled immigrants over the unskilled much like every other nation (try to emigrate to New Zealand, for example), and c) the solution to this process being too cumbersome is still not to just look the other way while the law is being flagrantly ignored, but rather to refine the law.
Next, it's wrong to claim that "There is no evidence that illegal immigrants suppress wages". Especially among groups that actually compete for the same jobs, there is ample evidence that illegal immigration suppresses wages and increases competition for jobs among those groups. But I'm certain that at least one credible study could be found claiming to look at the entire economy and finding wage suppression due to people living here illegally. I agree that the consensus opinion seems to be a slight net wage increase across the board, however, but I doubt the capacity for anybody to be able to accurately measure effects like these.
Finally, without knowing what motivated the people involved, I should mention that when I was talking about the costs and burdens of illegally-resident people, I meant more from a social services (fire, medical, schooling, police, welfare, second-hand effects like urban crowding, etc.), and a hidden-costs-of-living-outside-the-law standpoint, moreso than a "crime and unemployment" standpoint. But you make a compelling argument that illegal immigrants might well be zero-cost, or even negative-cost (net benefit), which re-frames my mental model quite a bit. So, thanks for that too.
A 2007 report by Gans, based on 2004 information, indicated that legal and illegal immigrants in Arizona contributed $2.36 billion in taxes, or $942 million more than the $1.41 billion in direct fiscal costs associated with them. "This claim that immigrants are somehow using services and not paying taxes is just not accurate," she said. "There's a lot of political hyperbole there."
But Gans' report was criticized as an incomplete look at costs, and in early 2008, a study by George Borjas, a Harvard labor economist, concluded Arizonans lost a minimum $1.4 billion in 2005 due to reduced wages related to illegal workers.
Gans agreed that immigrants do lower wages, at least for those low-skilled and less-educated workers who compete with them for jobs where speaking English is not necessary.)
The DHS says "In 2009, the total number of persons naturalizing was 743,715 (see Table 1 and Figure 1). The leading countries of birth of new citizens were Mexico (111,630), India (52,889), the Philippines (38,934), the People’s Republic of China (37,130), and Vietnam (31,168). The largest number of persons naturalizing lived in California (179,754), New York (88,733), and Florida (82,788)" and "The number of persons naturalizing in the United States declined to 743,715 in 2009 from 1,046,539 in 2008.", which is where I got my mistaken 1,000,000+ figure.
So, you're far closer to being right on that point than I was, so I'm sorry about that. Mexico was the leading nation of origin, though I was wildly off on the number of Mexicans being naturalized annually (though if you include Central and Latin American Hispaniola and Brazil, the number goes up to ~200k, and I doubt that they're immune to being discriminated against by virtue of simply not being Mexican, so it's still a big number).
I don't doubt when you say that those who are wealthy, skilled, or are related to American citizens by blood make up the bulk, though I will point out that a) 50K or so spots appear to be given out by random lottery every year, and b) we treat Mexican immigrants very similarly to (the same as?) every other nation of origin w/r/t naturalization, and we have good reasons for preferring skilled immigrants over the unskilled much like every other nation (try to emigrate to New Zealand, for example), and c) the solution to this process being too cumbersome is still not to just look the other way while the law is being flagrantly ignored, but rather to refine the law.
Next, it's wrong to claim that "There is no evidence that illegal immigrants suppress wages". Especially among groups that actually compete for the same jobs, there is ample evidence that illegal immigration suppresses wages and increases competition for jobs among those groups. But I'm certain that at least one credible study could be found claiming to look at the entire economy and finding wage suppression due to people living here illegally. I agree that the consensus opinion seems to be a slight net wage increase across the board, however, but I doubt the capacity for anybody to be able to accurately measure effects like these.
Finally, without knowing what motivated the people involved, I should mention that when I was talking about the costs and burdens of illegally-resident people, I meant more from a social services (fire, medical, schooling, police, welfare, second-hand effects like urban crowding, etc.), and a hidden-costs-of-living-outside-the-law standpoint, moreso than a "crime and unemployment" standpoint. But you make a compelling argument that illegal immigrants might well be zero-cost, or even negative-cost (net benefit), which re-frames my mental model quite a bit. So, thanks for that too.
Reply
A 2007 report by Gans, based on 2004 information, indicated that legal and illegal immigrants in Arizona contributed $2.36 billion in taxes, or $942 million more than the $1.41 billion in direct fiscal costs associated with them. "This claim that immigrants are somehow using services and not paying taxes is just not accurate," she said. "There's a lot of political hyperbole there."
But Gans' report was criticized as an incomplete look at costs, and in early 2008, a study by George Borjas, a Harvard labor economist, concluded Arizonans lost a minimum $1.4 billion in 2005 due to reduced wages related to illegal workers.
Gans agreed that immigrants do lower wages, at least for those low-skilled and less-educated workers who compete with them for jobs where speaking English is not necessary.)
Reply
Leave a comment