Immigrants as Assets

by Cornelia Butler Flora

The United States has always felt ambivalent about immigrants. Some Native American communities welcomed European immigrants at first, while others immediately saw them as a threat and tried to bar their entry to their nations. Over our history, those who defined themselves as native to the United States of America have almost at the same time welcomed immigrants and blamed them for our many social, environmental and economic problems. At a period in U.S. history when little seems controllable, U.S. citizenship is less valued in other countries, and our rights seem to be somewhat eroded by the necessities of Homeland Security, we follow our historic pattern when we blame the immigrants, particularly those who do not hold complete documentation of their legal status. As the nation debates immigration policy, it is helpful to consider the role of immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, in our North Central communities.

Demographer Jeffrey Passel, using data from the March 2005 Current Population Survey and other data sources, estimates there are now 11.5 to 12 million unauthorized persons in the United States as of March 2006 (Passel 2006). He estimates that nearly 5 percent of the labor force is unauthorized migrants. Many unauthorized workers are recruited by labor contractors or friends already employed.

The vulnerability of unauthorized workers due to lack of documentation (which is often in process) reinforces their willingness to work hard at dirty jobs for low pay. The federal government has a work visa—known as H-2B—that aims to help unskilled migrants enter the country legally. But the government issues only about 66,000 new H-2B visas each year. The guest workers are allowed to stay for 10 months. However, less than 1 percent of employment-based visas are issued to low skilled workers. Passel estimates that more than 96 percent of unauthorized males are in the labor force after six months—an astoundingly high percentage.

A major concern about unauthorized immigrants is that it is assumed they take jobs away from native- born workers and decrease wages. While the subject of the impact of immigrants on U.S. labor markets is a contentious one, most of the evidence suggests that immigrant workers complement rather than compete with the domestic labor force. A recent study by economist Giovanni Peri (2006) found in cities with more immigrants, the wages of U.S.-born workers were higher by 1.1 percent during the 1990s than in cities with fewer immigrants. That is because foreign-born workers occupied jobs at the lowest and highest educational levels, where there are fewer U.S. workers. As U.S. workers increase their occupational level, they abandon low-paying, low skilled jobs for jobs that provide a greater reward both monetarily and psychically. However, for native-born workers without a high school diploma (a shrinking proportion of the native-born labor force), wages declined by about 1.2 percent. The study demonstrated that foreign-born workers do not substitute perfectly for, and therefore, do not compete with, most native-born workers. Further, this study shows how the presence of new workers stimulates the creation of new businesses.

Passel (2006) finds that unauthorized workers are 24 percent of all workers employed in farming, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in food preparation. About 30 percent of foreign born-workers are unauthorized, accounting for about 4.9 percent of the civilian labor force. Thirty-one percent of unauthorized workers are employed in service occupations, compared to 16 percent of native workers. Unauthorized workers were 26 percent of all insulation workers, 29 percent of all roofers and drywall installers, and 27 percent of all butchers and other food processing workers.

The current public debate over immigration rarely goes beyond the labor supply of immigrants themselves to focus on the demand side of the equation. Americans have consumption habits that require low cost labor, and they also resent U.S. companies moving overseas. U.S. companies respond by hiring low cost labor, yet scant attention is paid to industries that hire immigrants.

Another concern is that immigrants come to the U.S. to collect generous public benefits. Massey (2005) found that immigrants are less likely than natives to use public services. While 66 percent of Mexican immigrants report withholding of Social Security taxes from their paychecks and 62 percent say their employers withhold income taxes, only 10 percent say they have ever sent a child to U.S. public schools, 7 percent say they have received Supplemental Security Income, and 5 percent or less report ever using food stamps, welfare or unemployment compensation.

That is especially noteworthy, as many low wage service jobs factor in food stamps and Medicaid when setting wage rates and instruct their employees how to apply for these government programs when they are hired. A 1997 study by the National Research Council found that the average immigrant pays nearly $1,800 more in taxes than he or she receives in public benefits (Smith and Edmonston 1997). That is probably higher in 2006 as social safety nets have declined except for elders and food stamps, which unauthorized migrants are less likely to use than other working poor (Massey 2005). Kandel’s (2004) study of farm laborers using MMP data also indicates relatively low rates of social service use and high rates of tax and Social Security withholding.

Our research in 2000 on response to immigrants in the U.S., particularly that focused on Hispanic migrants, found ambivalent feelings and community divisions. In a case study of a Midwestern town with a meatpacking facility, we discovered two distinct camps: the Legalists and the Pluralists. These camps are even more differentiated in 2006, as unauthorized migration has increased in part in response to trade agreements such as NAFTA, as the same forces that have caused the decline of the family farm in the Midwest are the same forces that have pushed Mexicans and Central Americans off their land and into immigration North. Between 2000 and 2004, foreign-born individuals accounted for 31 percent of the population increase in non-metropolitan areas (Johnson 2006.)

Legalists were offended that people were in the country without documentation. They also were upset with the employers that recruited and hired these workers. They drew on the legal tradition of the U.S. to back their arguments. They attributed the rise in the use of methamphetamine to the increase in unauthorized Hispanics in the Midwest, ignoring the homegrown meth labs using local ingredients. They viewed unauthorized immigrants as the source of crime in their small town. This is contrary to studies showing that immigrants do not commit crimes at higher rates than native-born Americans (Hagan and Palloni 1999).

Pluralists stressed the need for a diverse and dynamic society. Drawing on the history of the United States as a nation of immigrants, they stressed the importance of the immigrants to the fabric of the community, citing their importance as workers, consumers and entrepreneurs.

Youth are a critical part of the needed reform. There are 1.8 million unauthorized children and 3.1 million children who are U.S. citizens by birth living in families in which the head of the family or a spouse is unauthorized (Passel 2006). Because of their nebulous status, these youth, even when excellent students, do not go on to college because they worry about what information their parents will have to report to the college officials or because they must often pay out-of-state tuition if they go to school. The U.S. born children of immigrant parents do not possess the so-called negative characteristics of unauthorized workers. They are citizens, and growing up in U.S. communities, they are native English speakers and have only U.S. experience. They contribute to the next generation of workers, particularly in a period when Baby Boomers are set to retire. It makes sense to invest in their educational attainment. Reform should also include elements from the DREAM Act (approved by the U.S. Senate in October 2003) to make it possible for unauthorized students graduating from high schools to study at public colleges and universities.

President Bush has underlined the need to be both a welcoming nation AND a nation of laws (Ewing 2005). Reconciliation between the two camps can lead to a positive and humane immigration reform. Both our economy and our consciences will be better off when more than 12 million unauthorized individuals no longer live and work in fear and ambiguity. Legislation is needed to allow for a path towards citizenship.

NOTE: Following Passel (2006), I use the term “unauthorized migrant” to mean a person who resides in the United States but who is not a U.S. citizen, has not been admitted for permanent residence, and is not in a set of specific authorized temporary statuses permitting longer-term residence and work. (p. i).

References

Ewing, Walter A. May 2005. “The Economics of Necessity: Economic Report of the President Underscores the Importance of Immigration.” Immigration Policy in Focus. 4 (3). http://www.ailf.org/ipc/economicsofnecessity.asp accessed March 24, 2006.

Flora, C.B., J. Flora and R.J. Tapp. 2000. “Meat, Meth, and Mexicans: Community Responses to Increasing Ethnic Diversity.” Journal of the Community Development Society. 31: 277-299.

Johnson, Kenneth. 2006. “Demographic Trends in Rural and Small Town America.” Carsey Institute Report on Rural America. 1. http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/documents/Demographics_complete_file.pdf accessed March 28, 2006.

Hagan, J. and Palloni, A. 1999. “Sociological Criminology and the Mythology of Hispanic Immigration and Crime.” Social Problems. 46 (4): 617-32.

Kandel, William. 2004. “Mexican Workers in U.S. Agriculture.” In J. Durand and D.S. Massey (eds.) Crossing the Border: Research from the Mexican Migration Project. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Massey, Douglas S. 2005. “Five Myths about Immigration: Common Misconceptions Underlying U.S. Border-Enforcement Policy.” Immigration Policy in Focus. 4 (6). http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2005_fivemyths.shtml accessed March 27, 2006.

National Immigration Law Center. DREAM Act Summary. April, 2004. http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/DREAM/dream_act_06_summary_2006-04.pdf accessed March 27, 2006.

Passel, Jeffrey S. 2006. The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center. http://pewhispanic.org/files/
reports/61.pdf accessed March 27, 2006.

Peri, Giovanni. 2006. “Immigrants, Skills and Wages: Measuring the Economic Gains from Immigration.” Immigration Policy in Focus. 5-3: 1-7. http://www.ailf.org/ipc/infocus/2006_skillswages.shtml accessed March 27, 2006.

Smith, James B. and Barry Edmonston (eds.). 1997. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy of Science Press.

Next Article

Return to Inside this Issue (Vol. 28, No. 3, 2006)

Return to Rural Development News Index

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Iowa State University
107 Curtiss Hall
Ames, IA 50011-1050
(515) 294-8321, (515) 294-3180 fax

For questions, comments or concerns about the NCRCRD website, contact .

Last updated September 3, 2004.