An economic hole
Arriving at their current level of about 1 million annually, immigrants enlarge the U.S. economy — but make far harder the struggles of native-born workers already at the bottom of the jobs ladder.
So concludes a new Center for Immigration Studies ( cis.org) report by George Borjas of Harvard's Kennedy School — dubbed “America's leading immigration economist” by Businessweek and The Wall Street Journal.
The report says legal immigrants and illegal aliens annually add an estimated 11 percent — $1.6 trillion — to U.S. gross domestic product. Almost 98 percent of that gain goes to immigrants in wages and benefits, the rest to their employers — in part from reduced wages for native-born workers. Immigration's net economic benefit to natives amounts to just 0.2 percent of GDP.
But the presence of illegals, however, annually reduces natives' wages by an estimated $99 billion to $118 billion. And the biggest negative effect of illegal aliens is on natives who lack high school diplomas — a small part of the workforce whose households nevertheless account for about a quarter of the working poor's children.
Natives made labor-market “losers” by current immigration levels “likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans,” the report says.
Thus, the bill that the “Gang of Eight” U.S. senators are working on — or any other immigration bill, for that matter — must protect America's working poor.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general