

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Migrants in the U.S. do not "take" American jobs or lower working wages, and in fact have had a long-term positive impact on the country's economy, according to a comprehensive study released Thursday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The study analyzes 20 years of economic and demographic data of U.S. immigration. Within the past 10 years, the impact of non-native workers on American-born workers has been "very small," and workers who saw their wages decrease were most likely to be prior immigrants or native workers who did not complete high school. Recent immigrants were also more likely to reduce the job opportunities for prior immigrants, rather than native workers.
Meanwhile, some evidence suggests that other sub-groups of native workers and other areas of the economy may in fact have benefited from the influx of skilled immigrants. The second-generation children of immigrants were the most rewarding sect of workers--contributing more to the economy than any other demographic of the U.S. population, including native-born.
"The panel's comprehensive examination revealed many important benefits of immigration--including on economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship--with little to no negative effects on the overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term," said report co-author Francine D. Blau, Frances Perkins professor of industrial and labor relations and Cornell University professor of economics. Blau is also the chair of the panel that released the report.
"Where negative wage impacts have been detected, native-born high school dropouts and prior immigrants are most likely to be affected," she said. "The fiscal picture is more mixed, with negative effects especially evident at the state level when the costs of educating the children of immigrants are included, but these children of immigrants, on average, go on to be the most positive fiscal contributors in the population."
Immigration has become a standout issue in the 2016 presidential election, as Republican nominee Donald Trump continues to call for a crackdown on undocumented immigrants on the grounds that they "compete directly against vulnerable American workers" and that they "draw much more out from the system than they will ever pay in."
The authors of the report said they hoped the findings would "be of use to policymakers and the public as they consider this issue."
The report looks at research compiled by 14 prominent economists, including, as the New York Times points out, the outspoken immigration opponent George Borjas of Harvard University.
Other results include:
The report also finds that immigrants and native-born people with "similar characteristics" are likely to have roughly the same fiscal impact--contributing more to the economy if they are higher educated, regardless of their birth place.
More than 40 million people in the U.S. were born in foreign countries, and about the same amount have at least one immigrant parent, the report states. However, the undocumented immigrant population has remained stable since 2009, with about 300,000 to 400,000 new migrants arriving to and leaving the U.S. every year.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Migrants in the U.S. do not "take" American jobs or lower working wages, and in fact have had a long-term positive impact on the country's economy, according to a comprehensive study released Thursday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The study analyzes 20 years of economic and demographic data of U.S. immigration. Within the past 10 years, the impact of non-native workers on American-born workers has been "very small," and workers who saw their wages decrease were most likely to be prior immigrants or native workers who did not complete high school. Recent immigrants were also more likely to reduce the job opportunities for prior immigrants, rather than native workers.
Meanwhile, some evidence suggests that other sub-groups of native workers and other areas of the economy may in fact have benefited from the influx of skilled immigrants. The second-generation children of immigrants were the most rewarding sect of workers--contributing more to the economy than any other demographic of the U.S. population, including native-born.
"The panel's comprehensive examination revealed many important benefits of immigration--including on economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship--with little to no negative effects on the overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term," said report co-author Francine D. Blau, Frances Perkins professor of industrial and labor relations and Cornell University professor of economics. Blau is also the chair of the panel that released the report.
"Where negative wage impacts have been detected, native-born high school dropouts and prior immigrants are most likely to be affected," she said. "The fiscal picture is more mixed, with negative effects especially evident at the state level when the costs of educating the children of immigrants are included, but these children of immigrants, on average, go on to be the most positive fiscal contributors in the population."
Immigration has become a standout issue in the 2016 presidential election, as Republican nominee Donald Trump continues to call for a crackdown on undocumented immigrants on the grounds that they "compete directly against vulnerable American workers" and that they "draw much more out from the system than they will ever pay in."
The authors of the report said they hoped the findings would "be of use to policymakers and the public as they consider this issue."
The report looks at research compiled by 14 prominent economists, including, as the New York Times points out, the outspoken immigration opponent George Borjas of Harvard University.
Other results include:
The report also finds that immigrants and native-born people with "similar characteristics" are likely to have roughly the same fiscal impact--contributing more to the economy if they are higher educated, regardless of their birth place.
More than 40 million people in the U.S. were born in foreign countries, and about the same amount have at least one immigrant parent, the report states. However, the undocumented immigrant population has remained stable since 2009, with about 300,000 to 400,000 new migrants arriving to and leaving the U.S. every year.
Migrants in the U.S. do not "take" American jobs or lower working wages, and in fact have had a long-term positive impact on the country's economy, according to a comprehensive study released Thursday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The study analyzes 20 years of economic and demographic data of U.S. immigration. Within the past 10 years, the impact of non-native workers on American-born workers has been "very small," and workers who saw their wages decrease were most likely to be prior immigrants or native workers who did not complete high school. Recent immigrants were also more likely to reduce the job opportunities for prior immigrants, rather than native workers.
Meanwhile, some evidence suggests that other sub-groups of native workers and other areas of the economy may in fact have benefited from the influx of skilled immigrants. The second-generation children of immigrants were the most rewarding sect of workers--contributing more to the economy than any other demographic of the U.S. population, including native-born.
"The panel's comprehensive examination revealed many important benefits of immigration--including on economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship--with little to no negative effects on the overall wages or employment of native-born workers in the long term," said report co-author Francine D. Blau, Frances Perkins professor of industrial and labor relations and Cornell University professor of economics. Blau is also the chair of the panel that released the report.
"Where negative wage impacts have been detected, native-born high school dropouts and prior immigrants are most likely to be affected," she said. "The fiscal picture is more mixed, with negative effects especially evident at the state level when the costs of educating the children of immigrants are included, but these children of immigrants, on average, go on to be the most positive fiscal contributors in the population."
Immigration has become a standout issue in the 2016 presidential election, as Republican nominee Donald Trump continues to call for a crackdown on undocumented immigrants on the grounds that they "compete directly against vulnerable American workers" and that they "draw much more out from the system than they will ever pay in."
The authors of the report said they hoped the findings would "be of use to policymakers and the public as they consider this issue."
The report looks at research compiled by 14 prominent economists, including, as the New York Times points out, the outspoken immigration opponent George Borjas of Harvard University.
Other results include:
The report also finds that immigrants and native-born people with "similar characteristics" are likely to have roughly the same fiscal impact--contributing more to the economy if they are higher educated, regardless of their birth place.
More than 40 million people in the U.S. were born in foreign countries, and about the same amount have at least one immigrant parent, the report states. However, the undocumented immigrant population has remained stable since 2009, with about 300,000 to 400,000 new migrants arriving to and leaving the U.S. every year.