In the year 1900, 24.7% of California’s population consisted of immigrants. One hundred years later, at the start of the 21st century, that figure had risen to 25.9 percent. Of course, not only did the total number of Californians change during the last century, from 1.5 million residents to 34 million, so too did our values and priorities as a society.
Whereas the Californians of 1900 had yet to experience the Great Depression and the New Deal, two world wars and the Baby Boom, the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty, today’s state residents cannot but take into consideration these far-reaching social and political transformations. In short, when Californians today ask “What kind of a society do we want?”, it is likely that they have much higher expectations than their predecessors did a century ago.
It is against this backdrop that we discuss the role of immigration in the state of California. For some, immigration has become the only answer to a host of important questions: “Why is the health care sector so fragile?” “Why are public schools in dire straits?” “Why is there so much congestion on our roadways?” For others, immigration is increasingly a cultural rather than an economic issue: a question of who belongs and who is not welcome.
Here to sort out these different approaches to understanding immigration are Belinda Reyes, an economist with the Public Policy Institute of California and Prof. Michael P. Smith, Chairman of the Graduate Group in Community Development at the University of California, Davis.
Ten years ago, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 69% of Californians thought illegal immigration to be “a major problem” while 70% reported it was difficult to “tell the difference between illegal and legal immigrants.”
If we assume that this poll, conducted today, would yield similar results (an assumption you may dispute), this level of ambiguity over such an important issue cannot be a good sign. (Imagine, for example, a debate over trade that makes no distinction between imports and contraband.)
For this reason, I begin our discussion by asking: Have you encountered similar gaps or points of confusion that preclude a sober assessment of the scale and role of immigration in California?
Unfortunately, as with many political debates, rhetoric sometimes gets in the way of a reasoned debate. That is also the case with immigration. How policy makers and community leaders approach the immigrant population and view their presence in their communities has a big effect on how people perceive immigrants.
Another example of what you are taking about is a survey I saw in which people were asked if immigrants hurt or improve their communities. Well, a substantial number of people though that immigrants hurt their communities. But when you look at the data you see that places with high numbers of immigrants consistently outperforming places with low numbers of immigrants. You see increases in economic activity, declines in crime, and levels of community engagement that seem to suggest that the opposite may be true.
I agree completely with Belinda Reyes that the way in which policy makers and community leaders (and I would add politicians) represent the presence of immigrants has a major effect on how the general public perceives immigrants.
Accordingly, I would call attention to the fact that the poll taken by the L.A. Times ten years ago would have been conducted in 1994, an election year in which both former Governor Pete Wilson and many grassroots anti-immigrant groups, largely in Southern California, chose to paint immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, in the most negative light. In so doing, the political discourse that they generated frequently blurred the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.
Political campaign commercials at the time of Proposition 187 even tended to conflate the latter with Mexican immigrants. Moreover, the rates of acquiring citizenship and of voting by immigrants, particularly immigrants of Mexican-origin in California, have risen dramatically since 1994, largely as a political reaction to Proposition 187. For these reasons, I ‘m not sure a poll conducted today would yield similar results.
A follow-up question for Ms. Reyes, open to Prof. Smith,
Certainly, the connection between immigration and urban renewal has been affirmed by such disparate sources as urban planners in Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Stanford University-based think tank, the Hoover Institution.
At the same time, the material poverty of many immigrants is often neglected in popular accounts — only to resurface in often heated rhetoric that draws a causal link between the effects of poverty and the presence of immigrants.
In your estimate, what challenges associated with immigration are most often overlooked — at our peril.
The first part of your question relates to immigrant poverty and the second to challenges generally overlooked by policy makers. Let me address the first issue first.
Although it is true that a high proportion of immigrants are poor, most are not. In 2000, 21 percent of noncitizens in the US were poor. However, they have significantly higher levels of poverty than US-born Californians (11%). Part of the story is the process of integration.
Immigrants start at low levels of income and with time in the U.S. their income increases over time. There is also significant progress across generation and there is less of a difference in outcomes between the children of immigrants and other U.S. born residents. Also at play are low levels of education (40% of noncitizens had less than a high school education), which limits their economic progress in the United States (you also see some people who come in with high degrees that are working as low skilled workers because their training is not valued in the U.S. labor market). But also at play are the opportunities available to immigrants in the labor market. Discrimination, access to networks, limited access to financial institutions, lack of enforcement of labor standards and labor laws, and lack of training may prevent many immigrants from advancing.
Immigrants present schools with perhaps the largest and most complex of the challenges to public systems.
Now, looking at ignored issues. Most impacts are not specific to immigrants but are natural occurrences resulting from large relative population growth. For example, most increased demands placed on a community’s infrastructure, such as water and sewer systems, are not greatly affected by the type of subpopulation involved. Others, such as attitudes towards housing density, open space, and public transportation usage, are different for immigrants and U.S.-born residents, as discussed in the piece you sent. In addition, language and cultural differences need to be address for the effective delivery of services, from health and family support to law enforcement. For instance, the police must learn how to protect residents who are reluctant to call attention to themselves or may distrust police as a result of political turmoil or abuses in their home countries. Many adult immigrants are in need of English classes and are uninformed of their rights, program eligibility requirements, laws and ordinances.
Immigrants present schools with perhaps the largest and most complex of the challenges to public systems. Schools, have to educate a population that increasingly has limited English language ability, high rates of residential mobility, which limits the decree of continuity in their education; varying levels of formal schooling, which may set them back; emotional stress caused by harassment, intimidation and violence in schools, and difficulty adjusting to a new environment.
Finally, immigrants affect the delivery of health services in communities. Many immigrants are uninsured and have limited access to health care facilities. Some may be unaware of their local health services, such as kinds of services available, how to access services, and eligibility requirements. Because of their lack of insurance, poor access to transportation, and lack of familiarity with American health systems, many immigrants rely on emergency medical services (EMS) and primary care clinics for care. However, both clinics and EMS are in serious financial crises and may not be providing adequate care to either immigrants or U.S. born Californians. Furthermore, cultural gaps and language limitation affect the provision of health services.
This is important, because, localities are responsible for most of the service provision to immigrants, especially after the recent move to devolve responsibilities from the federal to the state and local levels; however, most of the fiscal benefits of the immigrant population go to the federal government through tax payments.
[ed. note: Examples of how localities might redress the above cited imbalance between local expenditures and federal resources, are cited in the issue briefs at the Border Counties Coalition web site.]
Dear Jose and Belinda,
Thanks for the web links to the two thought provoking sources. They affirm that immigration often has positive affects on the cities with the highest concentrations of immigrants. One could add to these stories the revitalization of the South Bronx area of New York City thanks to Latino immigrant migration and investment there; a similar story for Chinatown in downtown Oakland; and the fact that the state of Iowa, now experiencing a labor shortage due to out-migration, has created public policies to attract new immigrants to that state.
Having said this, and cognizant of the contributions that new immigrant entrepreneurs have made to the economies of many of the cities where they have invested, it is also important to realize that many of the workers in the small businesses that the entrepreneurs have created are often poor immigrants, working under less than salutary conditions, even when they share the ethnicity of their entrepreneurial employers. In short, one downside of the new immigrant investment pattern has been the rise of new sweatshops in Los Angeles and elsewhere, a condition thought to have been eradicated by political means in the early part of the last century.
Given that discussions of immigration are often marred by gross generalizations, I hope you won’t mind the following summary. I promise there’s a question at the end.
Arguments for restricting the influx of migrants to the United States as well stepping up enforcement of immigration laws (however that enforcement is defined), tend to be based on three distinct claims:
1) Immigrants do not assimilate.
2) Immigrants depress wages for working class, native-born and immigrant Americans.
3) Immigrants draw more in government benefits than they contribute to the government’s purse via taxes and/or general labor productivity.
Now, it is my understanding that there is conflicting data — and, thus, room for debate — with regards to the last claim. Certainly, the comments of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on the need for immigration to preserve retirement benefits are but one example of how complicated this issue can get.
On the other hand, the second claim is largely a matter of fact, if only in very specific labor markets.
Finally, while the first claim has been repudiated by many researchers, the meaning of assimilation, is increasingly under dispute.
Based on your research, do you believe the government can, should or must attempt to tackle these concerns?
For example: should it use regulations or incentives to move U.S. firms away from a reliance on cheap labor? Should it promote adherence to a certain set of cultural values — perhaps even to values and traditions that are not explicitly set out in the U.S. Constitution?
Jose,
With respect to your third question on immigrants effects on government taxes and services:
City and county governments are responsible for most service provision to immigrants, especially since federal tax cuts and the devolution of social welfare policies have thrust an increasing service delivery burden on these government jurisdictions.
As Belinda Reyes correctly pointed out in an earlier reply,
most of the fiscal benefits of the immigrant population go to the federal government through tax payments and contributions to the social security system, even by immigrant workers who may have forged documents. This, along with the fact that immigrants tend to be younger than the general population, explains why Alan Greenspan views immigration as crucial to the preservation of federal retirement benefits.
My own research suggests that, except in the case of legal refugees, who are entitled to specific types of social welfare and income support programs, the argument that immigrants rely significantly on governmental social welfare support has been exaggerated and is not supported by available data.
Why is it that it always ends up as a discussion about restrictions on immigrants?
The children of immigrants have clearly placed an added service delivery burden on the public school systems in the cities where they are concentrated. One unfortunate side effect of this in many cities has been the abandonment of the public schools by middle class Americans, in favor of private schooling, and a corresponding decrease in public support for financing urban public education. This in turn produces chronically under-funded urban public school systems that nonetheless remain responsible for educating and socializing children with mixed English language proficiency, who often face cultural adjustment problems.
Given this picture, it is hard to give a definitive answer to the question of costs and benefits of educating new immigrants. The key questions that should be asked in trying to answer this question are: Who pays the taxes that support the public schools? Who limits their payments of these taxes? What are the benefits and burdens of public schooling for the children (both immigrant and native minority) who must rely on urban public schools for their education?
First, I have to answer your question with another question. Why is it that any debate about immigration has to be about whether or not immigrants should be allowed into the country? Why is it that it always ends up as a discussion about restrictions on immigrants? What about accepting the need for the immigrant labor and recognizing the many ways in which immigration continues to be vital for our country?
This is not to say that we should open the door and let everybody in. But, it may be better to start thinking about ways of formalizing a pattern of migration that have been taking place for years and stop pretending we don’t need them. There are instances in which public officials have complained that the border patrol is doing raids at the time of harvest and hurting farmers in the same states where later you hear complains about too much immigration. Can you imagine the economic and social repercussions of a halt on immigration?
Just look around and see the many ways the immigrant labor is critical to our nation and then ponder what would happen if they were not around. The truth is that we want it both ways. We want them working here, but we don’t want to deal with the consequences of their presence. Someone said, “we wanted workers and we got people.” So we should not be surprise that the public opposes immigration and there is social conflict, because our rhetoric does not match with our economic realities. And then we leave the immigrants underground, exploited, isolated, and powerless.
Now, there are distributional issues. Like many other policy issue, some benefit and others don’t. Trade leads to inequalities and displacement. Environmental protections and restrictions on growth lead to increases in housing prices and displacement. The best approach to deal with all of these issues is to think of how to address the concerns of those who don’t share the benefits.
With regards to the research: most research finds that assimilation is taking place (assimilation as defined by economic and social mobility, not cultural assimilation). The issue of wages is an ongoing debate, and for the most part, those that find displacement find that it is small and concentrated in some specific labor markets to some specific groups, more likely prior waves of immigrants who compete in the same labor markets. And finally, everyone draws more from the government than they contribute at some point in time. But over their lifetime, they all contribute.* Most studies, however, do not take the lifetime dimension into account and only look at immigrants at a moment in time.
A recent paper from the Population Dynamics Research Group at the University of Southern California cites the astonishing amount of disagreement — among professional academic, no less– on the very basis of our understanding of immigration: i.e., the amount and “quality” of it.
I’m going to quote from this paper, briefly, because I would like our readers to get a sense of the far-reaching implications of this controversy:
“New immigrants to the U.S. are surely among the most difficult subjects to accurately sample and from which to collect data. Highly mobile and transient in their initial years in the U.S., and in many cases undocumented in their residency, immigrants prove very difficult subjects for data collection. All efforts to survey this population yield flawed results.”
My final question for you both is, thus, not a matter of specifics but of process. Given what you know about immigration — as well as what we must admit we do not know — what words of advice would you give your fellow Californians on how to approach this isssue?
In other words, are there certain rules of thumb you feel we should all take into consideration when evaluating the various and, often, vehement claims made about immigration and its role in our society?
Given the often vehement claims made about immigration, particularly by those opposed to it on cultural, economic, or environmental grounds, I would encourage my fellow Californians to exercise a healthy degree of skepticism when weighing such claims.
To that end, I offer four rules of thumb:
1) We need to begin to move beyond grossly over-generalized claims about non- assimilation, poverty, and cultural difference projected onto specific immigrant groups.
2) We need to begin to focus on differences within specific immigrant groups rather than lumping immigrants from the same nationality into a single category and comparing them with an equally arbitrary category known as “non-immigrants” or “natives.” Just as is the case of the population in general, important differences exist within immigrant groups on the basis of class, gender, occupational background, family composition, immigration status, and even ethnicity within the same nationality group (e.g., Mixtec migrants from Mexico or Hmong refugees from Laos). It is at this more precise level that we need to understand immigration and try to measure its effects on real people, in real places, at specific times, instead of comparing the abstract categories of “immigrant” and “native.”
3) We need to recognize that now, as in the past, those who come to our shores often maintain important family, cultural, and emotional ties to their countries of origin while at the same time acquiring the knowledge and skills need to economically integrate, move up the social ladder, and eventually acquire U.S. citizenship. In so doing they are often able to lead rich bi-cultural lives, including attachments to their past and their present social experiences.
4) Finally, we need to recognize that the economic demand for immigrant workers is high in the United States, and despite some recent slippage against the Euro, the value of the US dollar on world markets is relatively high. As long as these two facts remain true, immigration to our shores is here to stay. We had better get used to it and learn to take into account the forces driving international migration and the ways new immigrants respond to those forces and, by their actions, reshape our world.