Newsflash: What's Good for Immigration is Good for America

Across the industrialized world, governments have dreamed up various
schemes for reinvigorating deflated economies, from blood-sucking austerity budgets to paying for scrap metal. Nowhere is the desperation
more evident than in the rightward shift of immigration policy toward a
convulsive xenophobic backlash. Yet the OECD, a think tank that monitors
rich industrialized nations says in its annual immigration outlook report that
part of the solution to the economic crisis is more, not less,
immigration.

Progressive economists agree that immigrants' long-term contributions
to economic productivity on balance far outweigh the feared disruptions
associated with migration. More importantly, in an interconnected
world, the transnational movement of people is simply an inevitability:
overall, according to OECD, international immigration has
accounted for roughly 40 percent of recent employment growth in
OECD countries.

But neither the potential wealth generated by labor migration, nor
the fact that we couldn't stop it even if we tried, has deterred
xenophobic sentiment in rich countries.

Another study by the Dallas Fed links economic decline to the increasing nastiness
of immigration restrictions. As unemployment rose, the U.S. and several
European countries toughened their immigration policies under a
phalanx of racial anxiety and political desperation. State and federal
agencies tightened hiring policies for foreign workers and moved to
further criminalize the undocumented; the United Kingdom imposed
stricter language tests and higher fines for bosses that hire
unauthorized immigrants. Japan offered to buy its no-longer-welcome
guestworkers a plane ticket home.

While such policies are an
efficient way to split up families and induce misery and unrest, they end up having little
bearing on the systemic dynamics of global migration. On that front, it
turns out the recession naturally gives people less reason to migrate.
The Dallas Fed notes that "rising unemployment rates across many
advanced economies have deterred would-be migrants, leading to steep
declines in flows along the major global migration corridors."
Immigration flows have slowed considerably in the U.S., and dropped
steeply in some European countries.

Restrictionist think-tanks proudly chalk this up to tighter immigration enforcement
and harsh crackdowns. Though they still can't explain why about 11
million undocumented immigrants are so reluctant to budge.

Well, we all know it's because they're gleefully stealing American
jobs, right? The UFW recently tested that thesis with a clever campaign to recruit "real" Americans to try
their hand at backbreaking farm work. So far, not too many takers.
For now, says David Scott Fitzgerald of U.C.-San Diego's Center
for Comparative Immigration Studies, we can assume that
"unauthorized immigrant labor is generally complementary to native-born
labor. Unemployed auto workers in Michigan are not migrating to
California to pick fruit."

Moreover, the Dallas Fed cautions that hardline anti-immigration policies
could breed political inertia that ultimately impedes recovery:

In fact, the immigration backlash could have its greatest effect
after the recession ends, when a growing demand for labor could run
headlong into labor market restrictions that remain in place. These
could impede countries' ability to recruit workers in sectors vital to
their recovery and long-run economic growth.

So what if the government treated immigration not as a liability,
but a tool in its macroeconomic arsenal?

To Bill Watkins at New
Geography, immigration as economic stimulus is a shovel-ready
project:

The initial benefits of a new wave of immigration would be seen
remarkably quickly. Housing demand would increase, leading to renewed
vigor in our real estate markets and the construction industry. Our
inner cities would be renewed, as they always have been by immigration
waves. New business formations would soar. The tax base would increase,
helping to fund debt repayment and baby-boomer retirements.

By contrast, the myopic and politicized immigration barriers
promoted by the right may accelerate the downward spiral of
exploitation across the entire labor force. Incidentally, that works
against the interests of both restrictionists and immigrant rights
advocates.

The research of Heidi Shierholz at the Economic Policy Institute
confirms that immigration itself is the wrong punching bag for
disenchanted native-born workers, pointing out that any negative
impacts of unauthorized immigration tend to hit not native-born
workers, but rather, other immigrants who came before them.

Americans are right to worry about the declining quality of jobs
over the last few decades, but for native workers, immigration has had
very little to do with it. Other factors--like declining unionization,
the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage, and unbalanced
foreign trade--are the real culprits behind broad-based erosion of
wages and job quality. Nevertheless, immigration could have a much more
beneficial impact on the U.S. economy--and its impact on foreign-born
workers already here could be mitigated--with a comprehensive overhaul.

How to make sure immigration fills gaps in the labor market without
exacerbating inequality? The OECD recommends
full integration of migrants into the workforce, including
"lowering barriers - such as limits on dual nationality and extremely
restrictive eligibility criteria" and encouraging naturalization. An analysis by UCLA's Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda
found that common-sense immigration reform could "raise the floor" for
the whole workforce, provided that it is supported with rigorous labor standards and protections for all.

But who has time for common sense when folks are busy blacklisting illegals and locking up hardworking people for not having the
right papers? For a nation wracked by chronic unemployment, ignorance,
it seems, has become a full-time job.