# data[].attributes.headline
14 most Common Arguments against immigration. 

# data[].attributes.subject
14 most Common Arguments against immigration. 

# data[].attributes.body
Meral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 14 Most Common Arguments against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These are the main arguments against immigration, my quick responses to them, and links to some of the most relevant evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/americas/100000006930887/migrant-caravan-mexico.html

# data[].attributes.body
Meral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people wonder why all immigrants do not just come to the United States legally or simply apply for citizenship while living here without authorization. These suggestions miss the point: There is no line available for current undocumented immigrants and the "regular channels" are largely not available to prospective immigrants who end up entering the country through unauthorized channels. Even though more than 80 percent of undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for over 10 years, many could live out the rest of their lives without any opportunity to become legal residents of this country.

No "line" is available for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants.

Immigration to the United States on a temporary or permanent basis is generally limited to three different routes: employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. Each of these legal avenues is highly regulated and subject to numerical limitations and eligibility requirements. As a result, most undocumented immigrants do not have the necessary family or employment relationships and often cannot access humanitarian protection, such as refugee or asylum status. This means that no matter how long they have been in the United States, most undocumented immigrants have no way of achieving legal status. Even those who pay taxes, work hard, and contribute to their communities have no way to "get in line" unless Congress creates a new pathway to legal status.

Many undocumented immigrants are barred from obtaining legal status while inside the United States.

Unauthorized Undocumented immigrants who entered the United States without being legally admitted and inspected are generally not eligible to obtain green cards while still inside the country. Even if there is a visa available, they are barred from "adjusting status" and getting a green card without first leaving the country because of how they entered the United States.

However, leaving the country to obtain a visa can have significant negative consequences. Any person who has been out of status for more than 180 days, but less than one year, is barred from being re-admitted or re-entering the United States for three years; while anyone who has been out of status for more than one year is barred for 10 years. Although waivers to these bars exist, they are difficult to obtain. This means that even when a visa is available, undocumented immigrants must risk spending up to 10 years away from their families in the United States before being allowed to reenter the country.

Family-based immigration is limited to certain close family relationships and is numerically restricted.

Most people who legally immigrate to the United States come through family-based visas. Qualified family members in the United States can seek permission to bring in certain eligible foreign-born family members. U.S. citizens can petition for their spouses, parents (if the petitioner is 21 or older), children, and siblings. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs, or "green card" holders) can petition for their spouses and unmarried children (of any age). There are always visas available for the spouses, parents, and minor children of U.S. citizens, but for all other family categories there are annual numerical limits. In all cases, the petitioning family member in the United States must demonstrate an income level above the poverty line and must commit to support the family members they are seeking to bring to the United States. The foreign-born persons wishing to immigrate must meet eligibility requirements as well. This means that a family-based visa is unavailable to any undocumented immigrant who doesn't have a qualified relative or who fails to meet those eligibility requirements.

Employment-based immigration requires a U.S. employer to request specific foreign workers.

To come to the United States for employment purposes-either temporarily or permanently-foreign workers must generally have a job already lined up with an eligible employer who will commit to being a sponsor. An employer can request permission to bring in specific qualified foreign workers, but only if they meet the requirements (such as job skills and education level) and if the employer cannot find qualified U.S. workers to take the job first. Most of the qualifying professions for permanent immigration require high levels of education and professional experience, such as scientists, professors, and multinational executives. There are a limited number of temporary visas for highly skilled or internationally recognized workers, and temporary, seasonal visas for agricultural workers and certain other "less-skilled" workers. In most of these cases, an employer must petition for the worker.

Very few undocumented immigrants are eligible for employment-based visas, and competition for these visas is fierce. This means that for all but a lucky few, these visas are unavailable to undocumented immigrants regardless of skill or desire to work legally.

Most people fleeing their home countries cannot access humanitarian protection.

Each year, the United States sets a numerical limit on how many refugees will be admitted for humanitarian reasons. To be admitted as refugees, individuals must be screened by multiple international and U.S. agencies and demonstrate a "well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or national origin." Asylum seekers are individuals already in the United States who fear returning to their home countries, and who must prove they meet the definition of a refugee. An immigrant does not qualify as a refugee or an asylee because of poverty or difficult economic conditions in their home country. Most undocumented immigrants are ineligible for asylum because the law generally requires that someone file for asylum within one year of entering the United States. There are other more limited forms of temporary humanitarian protection available, but these are rare.

Even those who can get in line are subject to long backlogs and waits.

When undocumented immigrants do have qualifying relatives or employers who could provide a pathway to a visa, many are still not able to take advantage of that process for years. The demand from both family members and workers who want to immigrate to the United States is typically higher than the number of slots available each year. In addition, there is a maximum number of employment-based and family-sponsored preference visas that can be issued to citizens of any one country each year. The number of permanent immigrants from a single country cannot exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. Only immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (parents, children under 21, and spouses) are not subject to a numerical limit. This results in significant backlogs for most family members and many workers hoping to enter the United States legally, with some immigrants from certain countries waiting decades. Moreover, for the past two years the federal government has not even come close to meeting the annual caps for either employment-based or family-preference visas due to the slow pace of processing.

People from countries with high levels of immigration to the United States-Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines-generally have the longest waiting times for immigrant visas. For example, the married and unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens from Mexico, and the Filipino siblings of U.S. citizens, must wait between 19 and 24 years for visas to become available.

There is a limited lottery for certain countries.

If a person who wishes to immigrate to the United States does not qualify under the family, employment, or humanitarian systems, there may be one more legal path. The annual Diversity Visa Program makes up to 50,000 green cards available to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. People from Mexico, China, the Philippines, India, and other countries with higher levels of immigration to the United States are not eligible. To qualify, applicants must have a high school education and two years of job experience. Since millions of people around the world apply each year, the chances of obtaining a visa through the lottery are extremely low. In addition, the Diversity Visa Program is barely functioning at the present time due to the continued impact of immigration bans implemented by the Trump administration and extremely slow processing by the Biden administration.

Conclusion

Undocumented immigrants who want to become citizens of the United States cannot just "get in line." Although there are some lines, many aspiring lawful permanent residents are not eligible to be in any of them. Even if an undocumented immigrant does meet the formal requirements to immigrate, the wait can be very long if the individual is applying from a country with a lengthy backlog of applications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Don't Immigrants Apply for Citizenship?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people wonder why all immigrants do not just come to the United States legally or simply apply for citizenship while living here without authorization. These suggestions miss the point: There is no line available for current undocumented immigrants and the "regular channels" are largely not available to prospective immigrants who end up entering the country through unauthorized channels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump's recent tweets against open borders come as no surprise. Indeed, even fervent immigration advocates worry that open borders would lower the wages of low-skilled natives, erode national security, and overburden the social safety net. Trump doubled down, tweeting that he would be "willing to 'shut down' government" unless Congress approves funding for a border wall with Mexico.

Trump, however, has it exactly backwards: The solution to America's immigration problems is open borders, under which the United States imposes no immigration restrictions at all. If the U.S. adopts this policy, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.

Legalize ALL immigration

Illegal immigration will disappear, by definition. Much commentary on immigration - Trump and fellow travelers aside - suggests that legal immigration is good and that illegal immigration is bad. So, legalize all immigration.

Government will then have no need to define or interpret rules about asylum, economic hardship, family reunification, family separation, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and so on. When all immigration is legal, these issues are irrelevant.

The question of fairness about who enters first - those who waited in line or those who entered illegally - disappears. Amnesty for existing illegal immigrants also becomes a non-issue. Or an open borders policy could require anyone who entered illegally to exit the country - for exactly five minutes - and then re-enter legally.

Think about the money we could save and make

Expenditure on immigration enforcement would shrink to nothing, because open borders means no walls, fences, screening at airports, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), deportations, detention centers or immigration courts. A 2013 report estimated that immigration enforcement cost more than $18 billion annually, and standard indicators suggest costs have grown further since then.

Last year, U.S. employers filed over 336,000 petitions for H1-B visas for highly skilled foreign workers, but only 197,129 were approved. Complicated visa rules - for tourists versus job-seekers, STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) workers versus agricultural laborers, and students versus non-students - would all vanish. This would save resources and give employers new access to talented human capital.
More: I was a 'lost boy' of Sudan and the US welcomed me. More refugees deserve that chance. MS-13 beat me up and threatened to kill me. Then the US government took my kids. My grandfather wouldn't be allowed into America under Donald Trump's policies
The time people waste re-entering the country will evaporate. How often do you face long delays when entering Oklahoma from Texas? Never. But how often do you experience delays when you leave other countries for the United States? Almost always. One study pegs the cost of wait times at the U.S.-Mexico border alone to be more than $12 billion a year.

Economic efficiency will increase both in the USA and in immigrant-sending countries, because different kinds of labor will be better matched around the world to their most productive activity. This benefits the immigrants who earn higher incomes, but also U.S. consumers who face lower prices for imported goods and services. One academic study predicts that if borders were open everywhere, world gross domestic product could be twice its current value.

They will send their best

The government's fiscal balance could actually improve with more legal immigrants earning income and paying taxes in America. And under open borders, any added immigration will plausibly come from those with even higher skills and incomes, who faced weaker incentives to immigrate when faced with the burden of current restrictions.

Expenditure on the welfare state will contract because even if immigrants vote for welfare spending, existing residents will vote for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants.

What about possible bad outcomes of open borders?

Immigrants will not flood into America, although the rate of immigration might increase. Instead, much of the immigration will be temporary. Return migration happens because most people want to be near their families, surrounded by their own language, culture or religion.

If immigrants know they can re-immigrate, they are less likely to put down roots. Instead, many will come for a few years, to work or study, and then depart. This happens routinely in the European Union, which has mainly abolished immigration restrictions among member states, and it was common historically during periods of relatively open borders. Plus, increased immigration will lower wage differentials across countries, reducing the incentive to immigrate.

Crime will not skyrocket. Available evidenceshows that immigrants are no more crime-prone than natives. And the additional immigrants likely to enter under open borders would plausibly be even less so, because they have shown respect for the law by not immigrating illegally.

Terrorists could well enter via open borders, but they do so now illicitly. Little evidence suggests that our immigration restrictions prevent terrorist attacks.

U.S. culture will not change dramatically. America's immigrants have a long history of assimilation, and most have at least some affinity for American values. Indeed, the world is already more "Americanized" than ever. Even if values and culture change, so what? That happens in free societies. Who says America's current values - some of them deeply evil - are the right ones?

Open borders are not without risks. Social safety nets might come under pressure, and natives will face added competition for jobs (though the evidence on this is mixed).

Ultimately, immigrants have always been vital to America's economic strength and to its commitment to freedom. Since its founding, the United States has grown from a motley collection of colonies to one of the richest countries in the world, with some of our fastest growth occurring when immigrants arrived in large numbers.
Jeffrey Miron is director of economic studies at the Cato Institute and the director of undergraduate studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University. Follow him on Twitter: @jeffreyamiron
America has nothing to fear, and much to gain, from open borders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Forget the wall already, it's time for the U.S. to have open borders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump's recent tweets against open borders come as no surprise. Indeed, even fervent immigration advocates worry that open borders would lower the wages of low-skilled natives, erode national security, and overburden the social safety net. Trump doubled down, tweeting that he would be "willing to 'shut down' government" unless Congress approves funding for a border wall with Mexico.

# data[].attributes.body
Meral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Points

While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans' wages.

The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.

Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers benefit equally. In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants' use of public services, especially education.

Introduction
Today, the United States is home to the largest immigrant population in the world. Even though immigrants assimilate faster in the United States compared to developed European nations, immigration policy has become a highly contentious issue in America. While much of the debate centers on cultural issues, the economic effects of immigration are clear: Economic analysis finds little support for the view that inflows of foreign labor have reduced jobs or Americans' wages. Economic theory predictions and the bulk of academic research confirms that wages are unaffected by immigration over the long-term and that the economic effects of immigration are mostly positive for natives and for the overall economy.

Figure 1 shows that the foreign-born population has grown rapidly in recent decades, rising from less than 5 percent of the U.S. population in 1970 to 13 percent in 2013. Although immigrants today comprise a larger share of the population than at any time since World War II, the foreign-born share today is roughly the same as during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when about 15 percent of U.S. residents were born in a foreign country.

Figure 1: Foreign-Born Share of U.S. Population, 1850-2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Has the surge in immigration since 1970 led to slower wage growth for native-born workers? Academic research does not provide much support for this claim. The evidence suggests that when immigration increases the supply of labor, firms increase investment to offset any reduction in capital per worker, thereby keeping average wages from falling over the long term. Moreover, immigrants are often imperfect substitutes for native-born workers in U.S. labor markets. That means they do not compete for the same jobs and put minimal downward pressure on natives' wages. This might explain why competition from new immigrants has mostly affected earlier immigrants, who experienced significant reductions in wages from the surge in immigration. In contrast, studies find that immigration has actually raised average wages of native-born workers during the last few decades.

Immigrants are at the forefront of innovation and ingenuity in the United States, accounting for a disproportionately high share of patent filings, science and technology graduates, and senior positions at top venture capital-funded firms. In addition, the presence of immigrants often creates opportunities for less-skilled native workers to become more specialized in their work, thereby increasing their productivity.

Immigration generally also improves the government's fiscal situation, as many immigrants pay more in taxes over a lifetime than they consume in government services. However, native-born residents of states with large concentrations of less-educated immigrants may face larger tax burdens, as these immigrants pay less in taxes and are more likely to send children to public schools.
Labor Market Competition
A popular view is that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens. However, although immigrants increase the supply of labor, they also spend their wages on homes, food, TVs and other goods and services and expand domestic economic demand. This increased demand, in turn, generates more jobs to build those homes, make and sell food, and transport TVs.

Most empirical studies indicate long-term benefits for natives' employment and wages from immigration, although some studies suggest that these gains come at the cost of short-term losses from lower wages and higher unemployment. 1 Standard economic theory implies that while higher labor supply from immigration may initially depress wages, over time firms increase investment to restore the amount of capital per worker, which then restores wages. Steady growth in the capital-labor ratio prevents workers' average productivity, and therefore their average wages from declining over the long run. Figure 2 shows the pre-1980 trend in the capital-labor ratio extrapolated over the next few decades - the period when U.S. immigration accelerated. Consistent with the theory, the actual capital-labor ratio did not significantly or permanently deviate from that trend after 1980. 2

Figure 2: U.S. Log Capital-Labor Ratio, 1948-2013

Log capital services per worker and trend, business sector.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and author's calculations.

While growth in the capital stock keeps average wages from falling, immigration may affect the relative wages of different types of workers by changing their relative supplies. As shown in Table 1, immigration over the last few decades has had a bimodal impact across education groups: The largest impact has been on the supply of workers without a high school degree and of workers at the high end of the education spectrum - those with a college or postgraduate degree. Relative to the native-born, recently-arrived immigrants are less likely to have completed high school. At the same time, at the higher end, recent immigrants are more likely to have completed college and hold advanced degrees than their native counterparts. 3 Thus, immigration has primarily raised the supplies of the least and the most skilled workers.

Despite these increases in labor supply, in many cases immigrants appear to complement American-born workers rather than replacing them. Because less-educated immigrants often lack the linguistic skills required for many jobs, they tend to take jobs in manual labor-intensive occupations such as agriculture and construction. Even for low-skilled native-born workers in these industries, the effects of increased competition from immigrants are ambiguous, as many take advantage of their superior communication abilities and shift into occupations where these skills are more valuable, such as personal services and sales. 4 Similarly, highly educated immigrants face a disadvantage in communication-intensive jobs, and therefore tend to work in scientific and technical occupations. Highly skilled natives in management, media, and other culture- and language-dependent jobs face little competition from high skilled immigrants. The inflow of foreign labor is, therefore, concentrated in a subset of occupations that tend to employ many immigrants already. Consequently, it is earlier immigrants who face the greatest increase in competitive pressure.

Table 2 presents the results of two academic analyses of the wage impacts of immigration over the last several decades. These studies account for firms' investment response and the imperfect substitutability between immigrant and native-born workers. They find a small but positive effect, equal to about half a percentage point, on the average wages of native workers. One of the studies indicates a minor decline in the wages of those without a high school degree or with a college degree, while the other study finds only positive gains. In sharp contrast, both studies find that earlier immigrants experienced wage declines, on average, of 4 to 7 percent concentrated among the most and least educated.

Productivity
Immigrants also bring a wave of talent and ingenuity, accounting for a disproportionate share of workers in the fields most closely tied with innovation. A 2011 survey of the top fifty venture capital funded companies found that half had at least one immigrant founder and three quarters had immigrants in top management or research positions. 7 A significant share of advanced degrees awarded in science and engineering - often the foundation for innovation and job growth - go to foreign-born students with temporary visas studying in American universities. According to a 2012 National Science Board report, foreign students earned 27 percent of science and engineering master's degrees in 2009. 8 And in recent years, the number of foreign-born undergraduate students studying in American universities has grown rapidly, rising to 18 percent between 2011 and 2012. 9

In 2011, 76 percent of patents from top 10 U.S. patent-producing universities had at least one foreign-born author. 10 Indeed, immigrants produce patents at double the rate as natives, and the presence of these immigrants generates positive spillovers on patenting by natives. 11 Economic theory suggests a direct link between a skilled and innovative labor force and faster GDP growth, and more than three quarters of U.S. growth over the last 150 years can be explained by improvements in education and research-driven innovation. 12

Moreover, states with a high concentration of foreign-born workers experience significantly faster productivity growth. 13 As discussed earlier, less-skilled natives often respond to increased competition from immigrants by leaving manual labor for occupations that emphasize language and communication skills. This greater specialization leads to a more efficient allocation of labor, raising the incomes and productivity of both natives and immigrants.
Fiscal Impact
Immigrants in general - whether documented or undocumented - are net positive contributors to the federal budget. However, the fiscal impact varies widely at the state and local levels and is contingent on the characteristics of the immigrant population - age, education, and skill level - living within each state.

Figure 3 shows that immigrants, and especially recent arrivals, are generally of working age; thus, they impose relatively small costs on Social Security and Medicare - the largest components of federal non-defense spending. While immigrants' taxes help pay for defense spending, they do not generate any additional significant costs for the military, thereby somewhat reducing the federal tax burden of the average native.

Figure 3: Age Distribution of Natives and Non-Citizen Immigrants, 2012

Source: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

More often than not, immigrants are less educated and their incomes are lower at all ages than those of natives. As a result, immigrants pay less in federal, state, and local taxes and use federally-funded entitlement programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits at higher rates than natives. But they are also less likely than comparably low income natives to receive public assistance. Moreover, when they do take public assistance, the average value of benefits received is below average, implying a smaller net cost to the federal government relative to a comparable low income native. 14

However, immigrants often impose a heavier tax burden on natives at the state and local level. Immigrants - particularly those with low levels of education and income - generally have larger families and more children using public K-12 education, the largest component of state and local budgets. Furthermore, if immigrants' children are not already fluent English speakers, the per-student cost of education may be substantially higher than for native-born children. 15 These factors impose short-term costs on state budgets. Over the long term, however, the upward economic mobility and taxpaying lifetime of second generation immigrants more than offset the initial fiscal burden. 16

Because the net cost to state and local governments is closely related to immigrants' education and income, the socioeconomic composition of the immigrant population determines the fiscal impact in each state. For example, because New Jersey has a high proportion of well-educated and high income immigrants who contribute more to state and local revenues than they consume in public services, the net fiscal burden of immigration is small in New Jersey. In contrast, California's high share of less-educated and low-income immigrants means that immigrants' contribution to state and local revenues is smaller relative to their consumption of public services. As a result, the estimated fiscal burden of immigration is five times higher for native residents of California than of New Jersey. 17
Conclusion
Economists generally agree that the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy are broadly positive. 18 Immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, legal or illegal, are unlikely to replace native-born workers or reduce their wages over the long-term, though they may cause some short-term dislocations in labor markets. Indeed, the experience of the last few decades suggests that immigration may actually have significant long-term benefits for the native-born, pushing them into higher-paying occupations and raising the overall pace of innovation and productivity growth. Moreover, as baby boomers have begun moving into retirement in advanced economies around the world, immigration is helping to keep America comparatively young and reducing the burden of financing retirement benefits for a growing elderly population. While natives bear some upfront costs for the provision of public services to immigrants and their families, the evidence suggests a net positive return on the investment over the long term.

Year,Percent of U.S. population
1850,9.7
1860,13.2
1870,14.4
1880,13.3
1890,14.8
1900,13.6
1910,14.7
1920,13.2
1930,11.6
1940,8.8
1950,6.9
1960,5.4
1970,4.7
1980,6.2
1990,7.9
2000,11.1
2010,12.9
2013,13.1

Year,Log capital-labor ratio,1948-1980 trend,Extrapolated 1948-80 trend
1948,4.18,4.21,
1949,4.24,4.23,
1950,4.26,4.26,
1951,4.28,4.28,
1952,4.31,4.3,
1953,4.32,4.33,
1954,4.37,4.35,
1955,4.37,4.37,
1956,4.38,4.4,
1957,4.42,4.42,
1958,4.48,4.44,
1959,4.47,4.47,
1960,4.49,4.49,
1961,4.52,4.52,
1962,4.54,4.54,
1963,4.56,4.56,
1964,4.58,4.59,
1965,4.59,4.61,
1966,4.62,4.63,
1967,4.66,4.66,
1968,4.68,4.68,
1969,4.7,4.71,
1970,4.74,4.73,
1971,4.78,4.75,
1972,4.79,4.78,
1973,4.8,4.8,
1974,4.84,4.82,
1975,4.9,4.85,
1976,4.9,4.87,
1977,4.9,4.9,
1978,4.88,4.92,
1979,4.9,4.94,
1980,4.94,4.97,4.97
1981,4.98,,4.99
1982,5.04,,5.01
1983,5.06,,5.04
1984,5.06,,5.06
1985,5.08,,5.09
1986,5.11,,5.11
1987,5.12,,5.13
1988,5.13,,5.16
1989,5.15,,5.18
1990,5.17,,5.2
1991,5.22,,5.23
1992,5.24,,5.25
1993,5.25,,5.27
1994,5.25,,5.3
1995,5.27,,5.32
1996,5.29,,5.35
1997,5.31,,5.37
1998,5.35,,5.39
1999,5.4,,5.42
2000,5.44,,5.44
2001,5.49,,5.46
2002,5.55,,5.49
2003,5.58,,5.51
2004,5.59,,5.54
2005,5.6,,5.56
2006,5.62,,5.58
2007,5.64,,5.61
2008,5.68,,5.63
2009,5.74,,5.65
2010,5.76,,5.68
2011,5.75,,5.7
2012,5.75,,5.73
2013,5.75,,5.75

,Native,Non-Citizen
0 to 14,22.1,6.1
15 to 24,15,13
25 to 34,12,25
35 to 44,12,24
45 to 54,14,17
55 to 64,12,8
65 to 74,8,4
75 to 84,4,2
85 and over,2,1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Immigration on the United States' Economy - Penn Wharton Budget Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans' wages. The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational speci

# data[].attributes.body
Meral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theory does not predict exactly what the labour market effects of immigration will be

The impacts of immigration on the labour market critically depend on the skills of migrants, the skills of existing workers, and the characteristics of the host economy. They are also likely to differ between the short and long run when the economy and labour demand can adjust to the increase in labour supply.

Immigration affects the labour supply, as it increases the pool of workers in certain sectors of the economy. At the same time, immigration is likely to increase the demand for labour, as migrants expand consumer demand for certain goods and services. That is, immigration may increase competition for existing jobs in certain occupational sectors but it can also create new jobs.

The immediate short-term effects of immigration on the wages or employment of existing workers depends on the extent to which migrants have skills that substitute or complement those of existing workers (e.g. Borjas 1995). When migrant workers are substitutes for existing workers, immigration is expected to increase competition for jobs and reduce wages in the short run. In terms of employment, the extent to which declining wages increase unemployment or inactivity among existing workers depends on their willingness to accept the new lower wages. If, on the other hand, the skills of migrants are complementary to those of existing workers, all workers experience increased productivity which can be expected to lead to a rise in the wages of existing workers. In general, workers in low skilled occupations are expected to face more competition from migrants because the skills needed for those jobs are easier to acquire and are less specialised.

Second, in addition to expanding labour supply, immigration can also expand the demand for labour and, thus create new jobs. This is because there is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy (the so-called "lump of labour fallacy"). Migrants expand consumer demand for goods and services, and employers may increase production in sectors where migrant labour is used (e.g. agriculture or care sectors).

Changes in wages and employment are not the only ways in which an economy responds to immigration. There are at least two other adjustment mechanisms (see e.g. Dustmann, Glitz and Frattini 2008). First, immigration may change the mix of goods and services produced in the economy and thus the occupational and industrial structure of the labour market. For example, the immigration of low-skilled workers may expand the production (provision) of certain products (service) that use low-skilled labour intensively. The expansion of the sector may then increase demand and drive wages back up. Similarly, immigration may change the technology used for producing (providing) certain products (services). For example, the immigration of skilled workers may encourage innovation and the adoption of more skill intensive technologies which would again affect labour demand. The extent to which investment and labour demand respond to immigration depends on the characteristics of the economy. During an economic downturn labour demand may respond more slowly than during times of economic growth.
Return to top
Research shows a small impact of overall immigration on the employment and unemployment rates of UK-born workers

A number of studies have examined whether immigration leads to higher unemployment or inactivity among existing workers, and most have found either small effects or no effect.

Reviewing the results of 12 studies conducted between 2003 and 2018, the Migration Advisory Committee (2018) drew three conclusions. First, that immigration has little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers. Second, that where an impact is found it tends to be concentrated among certain groups - i.e. a negative effect for those with lower education and a positive effect for those with higher levels of education. And third, that the impact may depend on the economic cycle; some-though not all-studies have found adverse effects on employment or unemployment specifically during downturns.

For example, Dustmann et al. (2005) concluded that immigration had no effect on the overall employment outcomes of UK-born workers but did find adverse effects on the employment of UK-born workers with intermediate education and a positive impact on those with A-levels or university degrees. Lemos and Portes (2008) analysed the impact of labour immigration of EU-8 workers on claimant unemployment, finding little evidence of an adverse effect. Another study focusing on London, the region with the highest levels of migration over the past few decades, also found no negative effects (Fingleton et al, 2019).

MAC (2018) also produced new results, suggesting that immigration from EU countries during the 34-year period from 1983 to 2017 had reduced the employment rate of the UK-born working age population by around 2 percentage points and increased unemployment by 0.6 percentage points. However, it also noted that with employment rates at a historic high towards the end of this period, one should "be cautious in suggesting these outcomes could be much better than they already are."
Return to top
Immigration has small impact on average wages but the effects are not evenly distributed: low-waged workers are more likely to lose while medium and high-paid workers are more likely to gain

Empirical research on the labour market effects of immigration in the UK suggests that immigration has relatively small effects on average wages, with negative effects on low-paid workers and positive effects on high-paid workers.

Reviewing 12 studies conducted between 2003 and 2018, MAC (2018) concluded that immigration had had little impact on average wages. Some studies (e.g. Nickell and Saleheen, 2015) had found a small negative impact on average wages while others (e.g. Dustmann et al, 2013) found positive average effects.

As with the impacts on employment and unemployment, several studies have found that effects are different for high vs. low skilled/paid workers. For example, Dustmann et al (2013) find positive effects for most workers but negative effects for the lower paid; they found that a 1 percentage point increase in the ratio of migrants to non-migrants leads to a 0.6% decrease in wages for workers at the 5th earnings percentile and a 0.5% decrease at the 10th percentile. Another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1 percentage point rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by about 0.2% (Nickell and Salaheen 2015).

The MAC (2018) estimated that an increase in the number of EU migrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in a 0.8% decrease in UK-born wages at the 5th and 10th percentiles (i.e. people in the bottom 5-10% of earners), and a 0.6% increase at the 90th percentile (i.e. high earners). In practice, this means that between 1993 and 2017, the total effect of EU migration on the wages of UK-born workers was estimated to be a 4.9% reduction in wages for those at the 10th earnings percentile, a 1.6% reduction at the 25th percentile, a 1.6% increase at the 50th percentile, and a 4.4% increase at the 90th percentile. The calculation of the total impact should be interpreted with caution, however, because the model estimates the short-run response to migration, which is expected to disappear over time (MAC, 2018: 32).

Finally, research suggests that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.
Return to top
Evidence gaps and limitations

It is important to recognise that the analysis of the labour market effects of immigration faces a number of methodological challenges. For example, as migrants often go to areas that are experiencing economic growth and strong labour demand, immigration can be both a cause and consequence of changes in wages and employment. This makes it difficult to establish causality.

Another problem is that international immigration into a certain area may cause some workers to leave that area and migrate to other parts of the country or abroad. Whenever this happens, the labour market effects in a certain area are dissipated across the country which makes correct measurement through local labour market analysis more difficult.

There can also be difficulty in distinguishing whether migrants are actually impacting the wages of UK-born workers, or whether the figures for the average wage are being changed as a result of migrants growing as a proportion of the workforce whilst being paid less (or more) than non-migrants, without them necessarily affecting actual wages UK-born workers receive (Nickell & Salaheen (2015) address this problem in their analysis).

A fourth methodological challenge arises from the quality of data on migrants, and especially specific subgroups of migrants, which are often based on small samples of the population and can thus lead to significant measurement error.

Empirical research has employed various methods and econometric techniques to address these issues, but none of them are perfect and some difficulties and caveats always remain.

References

Borjas, G. "The Economic Benefits from Immigration." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, no. 2 (1995): 3-22.

Borjas, G. J., R.B. Freeman, and L.F. Katz. "How Much Do Immigration and Trade Affect Labor Market Outcomes?" Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1 (1997): 1-90.

Devlin, C., Bolt, O., Patel, D., Harding, D. and Hussian, I. "Impacts of migration on UK native employment: An analytical review of the evidence." Home Office Occasional Paper 109, March 2014.

Dustmann, C., T.Frattini, and I. P. Preston. "The Effect of Immigration along the Distribution of Wages." Review of Economic Studies 80, no 1 (2012): 145-173.

Dustmann, C., F. Fabbri, and I. Preston. "The Impact of Immigration on the British Labour Market." Economic Journal 115, no. 507 (2005): F324-F341.

Fingleton, B., Olner, D., and Pryce, G. "Estimating the local employment impacts of immigration: A dynamic spatial panel model." Urban Studies.

Lemos, S., and J. Portes. "New labour? The impact of migration from central and eastern European countries on the UK labour market." (2008).

Manacorda, M., A. Manning, and J. Wadsworth. "The Impact of Immigration on the Structure of Male Wages: Theory and Evidence from Britain." Journal of the European Economic Association 10, no 1 (2012): 120-151.

Migration Advisory Committee. "EEA migration in the UK: Final report", September 2018.

Nickell, S. and J. Salaheen. "The Impact of Immigration on Occupational Wages: Evidence from Britain." Staff Working Paper No. 574, Bank of England, London, 2015.

Reed, H. and M. Latorre, "The Economic Impacts of Migration on the UK Labour Market." IPPR Economics of Migration Working Paper 3, Institute for Public Policy Research, London, 2009.

Related Material
With thanks to: Jonathan Wadsworth and Cinzia Rienzo for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this briefing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Labour Market Effects of Immigration - Migration Observatory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impacts of immigration on the labour market critically depend on the skills of migrants, the skills of existing workers, and the characteristics of the host economy. They are also likely to differ between the short and long run when the economy and labour demand can adjust to the increase in labour supply.

# data[].attributes.body
Meral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many of the conveniences that we enjoy in our lives would not exist without the forces of globalization and international migration. From the food that we eat to the technology that we depend on, our lives now are fundamentally intertwined with people, companies, and policies from countries worldwide. The more that we know about the different immigrant communities who call this country home, the better we can understand their unique roles and contributions to our national economy.

How many immigrants live in the U.S.?

Since the early 1960s, the United States has been the top destination for immigrants worldwide; as of 2017, more than 20 percent of the world's immigrants resided in the United States. Immigrants are a significant portion of the U.S. population, and in 2016, they comprised more than 13 percent of the more than 320 million people who call this country home.

Though Mexico has long been the leading country of origin for U.S. immigrants, recent trends show that people coming from China, India, the Philippines and El Salvador also have significantly diversified U.S. communities.

Naturalization rates are on the rise among more recent immigrants, growing from 14.4 million naturalized immigrants nationwide in 2005 to 19.8 million in 2015. India and Ecuador had the most significant increases in naturalization rates.

Foreign student enrollment at U.S. colleges doubled between 2008 and 2016, far exceeding overall college enrollment growth. In fact, students from China, India and South Korea accounted for more than half of international students pursuing higher education in the U.S. in 2016.

The U.S. black immigrant population, though small, is increasing: 4.2 million black immigrants resided in the U.S. in 2016, up fivefold since 1980 . While over half of this population was born in Jamaica (18 percent of U.S. total) and Haiti (15 percent of U.S. total), the number of immigrants originating from Africa has risen 137 percent between 2000 and 2013. The rise in the number of immigrants in the United States and the diverse perspectives they bring has driven higher and productivity and innovation across U.S. industries and communities. They also contributed extensive amounts of cultural richness, traditions, and communities that are all a growing part of our national conversation.

These immigrant communities mainly thrive in metropolitan areas: cities provide the familiarity of shared values, accessibility to their origin countries' culture and a higher density and variety of job opportunities.

The decision about where to live is affected by many factors including family ties, their nationality, refugee status, or legal immigration status, among others. U.S. metro cities with the highest percentages of foreign-born residents nationwide include Miami, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Houston. In fact:

New York is home to a high percentage of the country's Dominican immigrants

Miami welcomes a significant proportion of Cubans

Almost half of the Houston metro area's immigrant population are Mexican

The highest percentage of the Washington D.C. area's immigrants hail from El Salvador

Where do immigrants work in the U.S.?

The data shows how visible immigrant communities are in our cities and that visibility quickly translates into their significant, positive economic impact on our national labor force. As of 2017, more than of the overall U.S. workforce was made up of immigrants, its highest point in decades. Many immigrants have careers in private household employment, textile manufacturing, agriculture and food production, and hotel work. Increasingly, foreign-born workers also hold high value in STEM fields. They have not only boosted productivity, but also their contributions account for rising shares of U.S. patents in electronics, computing, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. Since 1990, the percentage of immigrant workers contributing to innovation in science, technology, engineering and math-based occupations in the U.S. has more than doubled.

One cannot overstate the importance of immigrants' impact on American innovation. More than 75 percent of the patents from the 10 top U.S. patent-producing universities had at least one foreign inventor. Immigrant students, staff researchers, and post-doctoral fellows play significant roles in the development of critical technology such as semiconductor device manufacturing, information technology, pharmaceutical drug development, and optics. The nearly 1,500 patents awarded to these universities in 2017 boasted inventors from 88 countries .

How does immigration affect the U.S. economy?

Despite common misconceptions about the negative impact of immigrant communities on the American economy, immigrants have contributed significantly to its growth, by sparking innovation across industries and improving quality of life. In 2013 alone, immigrants added an impressive $1.6 trillion to the total U.S. GDP . They are also investing their time and creativity in building a prosperous future for all who live here.

Entrepreneurship and economic impact by the numbers:

Immigrants are about 10 percent more likely to own a small business than are native-born Americans. One-third of the companies that went public between 2006 and 2012 had at least one immigrant founder.

Of the 87 privately held companies currently valued at over $1 billion, over half have immigrant founders .

Immigrant-owned and operated business employ millions of native-born Americans and contribute billions in sales, payroll taxes, and Social Security to our national economy.

Economic evidence suggests that in addition to boosting economic growth, immigration has a positive impact on the wages of native-born Americans.

There is a direct correlation between the contributions of immigrants and an increase in domestic innovation. In fact, in industries where immigrants work, there is a 30 percent increase in patents filed by local inventors.

From innovating in new fields to bolstering the growth of existing industries, we depend on the ingenuity, passion, and creativity of international migrants. In every facet of our lives, it is clear that we are made better by the invaluable contributions of immigrants as together we strive to deliver on the promise of the American economy and the vibrant international communities of this nation that we all call home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are the Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of the conveniences that we enjoy in our lives would not exist without the forces of globalization and international migration. From the food that we eat to the technology that we depend on, our lives now are fundamentally intertwined with people, companies, and policies from countries worldwide.

# data[].attributes.body
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/applying-biblical-principles-to-immigration-reform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Immigration Reform Should Look Like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration is one of the fundamental building blocks that help make America the unique nation that it is. But the debate over border security and immigration has become toxic because politicians have put politics before principles. And reasonable Americans find themselves trapped between zealots on…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Immigration has become the signature issue of the Trump administration, and is likely to be a major focus of the 2020 election. Debates persist over whether an influx of newcomers to the nation represents a boon or a burden.

Well, let's check the historical record. The United States experienced the effects of mass migration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and many of the fears expressed today were heard, and felt, then. So how did that experiment work out a century later?

Quite well, it turns out.

New research reports that U.S. counties that saw more immigration between 1850 and 1920 today enjoy higher average incomes, less poverty, and lower unemployment.

"Our findings suggest that the long-run benefits of immigration can be large, and need not come at high social cost," reports a research team led by Sandra Sequeira of the London School of Economics. "These benefits can be realized quickly, and are highly persistent."

In the Review of Economic Studies, the researchers look at the long-term economic and social effects of the largest immigration wave in American history, one that changed the nation's ethnic make-up. "While prior immigrants were primarily from Western Europe," they write, "the new wave also included large numbers of immigrants from Southern, Northern, and Eastern Europe."

These immigrants did not settle uniformly across the country; upon arrival, they usually traveled by rail to their eventual destinations. "If a county was connected to the railway network during periods of high aggregate immigration to the U.S., [it] tended to receive more immigrants," the researchers note.

Their analysis finds that these counties enjoyed enormous long-term benefits. "Historical immigration resulted in significantly higher incomes, less poverty, less unemployment, more urbanization, and higher educational attainment today," they write.

To cite one specific figure: On average, a county that experienced an average rate of immigration during this period enjoys 13 percent higher per-capita income today than one that did not host any new immigrants.

"Immigrants first contributed to the establishment of more manufacturing facilities, and then to the development of larger facilities," the researchers report. "We also found large positive effects on agricultural productivity and innovation, as measured by patenting rates."

OK, but did that growth come at the cost of a more fractured society? Perhaps, the researchers report, but any fracturing didn't last long.

"We find no evidence that historical immigration affects social cohesion, as measured by social capital (that is, shared norms, trust, and cooperation), voter turnout, or crime rates," they write.

Their findings confirm a longstanding historical narrative that seems to have been forgotten.

"The less-skilled immigrants provided the labor force necessary for industrial development," Sequeira and her colleagues write. "A smaller number of immigrants brought with them knowledge, skills, and know-how that were beneficial for industry and increased productivity in agriculture."

Thanks to that beneficial combination, "immigration led to early industrial development and long-run prosperity, which continues to persist until today."

Something to think about the next time you hear a nativist news commentator rail that increasing legal immigration "would advance the interests of the global elite ahead of our citizens." Such statements reflect a willful ignorance of American history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Areas Where More Immigrants Settled a Century Ago Have Stronger Economies Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration has become the signature issue of the Trump administration, and is likely to be a major focus of the 2020 election. Debates persist over whether an influx of newcomers to the nation represents a boon or a burden. Well, let's check the historical record.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/our-evolving-immigration-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

One method of obtaining lawful permanent residency is through a qualifying relative who is either a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident. United States citizens and lawful permanent residents can help their qualifying foreign relatives in petitioning for lawful permanent residency in the United States and eventually even citizenship. There are different categories family-based immigration. The category a foreign national falls into depend upon two factors:
1. whether the petitioning relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident;
2. the foreign national relationship to the petitioning relative.
There are two categories of unlimited family-based immigration: immediate relatives of United States citizens and permanent residents. An immediate relative can be a spouse of a United States citizen, widow of a United States citizen, unmarried child under the age of 21 of a United States citizen, or a parent of an adult United States citizen. Returning residents are immigrants who previously resided in the United States with lawful permanent resident status and are returning to live in the United States after residing abroad for more than one year.

There are four preference categories for limited family-based immigration. The first preference category consists of unmarried children of United States citizens who are over the age of 21. The second preference is divided into "2A" and "2B". Spouses of lawful permanent residents as well as their unmarried children under the age of 21 fall into the "2A" category whereas unmarried sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents who are over the age of 21 fall into "2B" category. The third preference consists of married children of United States citizens. The fourth preference category consists of siblings of adult United States citizens.

Procedure in general

For an application through either the immediate relative category or one of the preference categories, the United States citizen or lawful permanent resident should first file an "I-130 Petition" for Alien Relative with the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services. This form should be accompanied by the proof of the petitioner's United States immigration status and proof of the relationship between the petitioner and beneficiary. The petitioning United States citizen or lawful permanent resident must prove he or she can support his or her relative 125% above the poverty line. If the United States citizen or lawful permanent resident does not meet this financial criterion, then he or she will need a joint sponsor or their assets will be taken into account.

Upon approval of the "I-130 Petition" for Alien Relative, the Department of State will determine if an immigrant visa number is available for the beneficiary. Immigrant visas are always available for persons in the immediate relative category. However, immigrants in the preference categories may apply for an immigrant visa overseas once a visa number is available. If the beneficiary of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative is in the United States, they may be able to file an I-485 Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status with the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.

If an applicant is outside of the USA and seeking adjudication of his or her Immigrant Visa petition at one of the U.S. Consulates, in most circumstances, the petition will be referred to the U.S. Consulate in the country of the beneficiary's citizenship or permanent residence at the time when the I-130 was approved. Important to mention that in case of a preference as opposed to immediate relative petition, the consulate will not adjudicate the petition until an immigrant visa becomes immediately available for the beneficiary. An immigrant visa becomes immediately available when the priority date indicated on the I-130 Approval Notice (USCIS form I-797) becomes current. Interested parties may check online whether their priority date is current by visiting the U.S. Department of State Visa Bulletin website.

Adjustment of status

If the beneficiary of the approved I-130 immigrant petition is in the United States and seeks Adjustment of Status to that of the Legal Permanent Resident, the beneficiary may only do so when his or her petition's priority becomes current and while the beneficiary is still in a valid nonimmigrant status in the USA. In most cases beneficiary's failure to maintain a valid nonimmigrant status while in the USA renders him or her ineligible to seek Adjustment of Status in the USA. Again, this rule is not applicable to immediate relatives of the U.S. Citizens, provided that they have entered the USA using legitimate eligible U.S. nonimmigrant visa. For more detailed information about nonimmigrant visas, which allow immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to seek adjustment of status, please visit our Adjustment of Status page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family based Immigration through a family member - Green Card Lawyer | myattorneyusa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One method of obtaining lawful permanent residency is through a qualifying relative who is either a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident. United States citizens and lawful permanent residents can help their qualifying foreign relatives in petitioning for lawful permanent residency in the United States and eventually even citizenship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A lawful permanent resident is a foreign national who has been granted the privilege of permanently living and working in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Immigrant Student's Rights to Attend Public Schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UNITED STATES’ ECONOMY

# data[].attributes.subject
THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UNITED STATES’ ECONOMY

# data[].attributes.body
Zahid Jaweed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Points

While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans' wages.

The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.

Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers benefit equally. In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants' use of public services, especially education.

Introduction
Today, the United States is home to the largest immigrant population in the world. Even though immigrants assimilate faster in the United States compared to developed European nations, immigration policy has become a highly contentious issue in America. While much of the debate centers on cultural issues, the economic effects of immigration are clear: Economic analysis finds little support for the view that inflows of foreign labor have reduced jobs or Americans' wages. Economic theory predictions and the bulk of academic research confirms that wages are unaffected by immigration over the long-term and that the economic effects of immigration are mostly positive for natives and for the overall economy.

Figure 1 shows that the foreign-born population has grown rapidly in recent decades, rising from less than 5 percent of the U.S. population in 1970 to 13 percent in 2013. Although immigrants today comprise a larger share of the population than at any time since World War II, the foreign-born share today is roughly the same as during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when about 15 percent of U.S. residents were born in a foreign country.

Figure 1: Foreign-Born Share of U.S. Population, 1850-2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Has the surge in immigration since 1970 led to slower wage growth for native-born workers? Academic research does not provide much support for this claim. The evidence suggests that when immigration increases the supply of labor, firms increase investment to offset any reduction in capital per worker, thereby keeping average wages from falling over the long term. Moreover, immigrants are often imperfect substitutes for native-born workers in U.S. labor markets. That means they do not compete for the same jobs and put minimal downward pressure on natives' wages. This might explain why competition from new immigrants has mostly affected earlier immigrants, who experienced significant reductions in wages from the surge in immigration. In contrast, studies find that immigration has actually raised average wages of native-born workers during the last few decades.

Immigrants are at the forefront of innovation and ingenuity in the United States, accounting for a disproportionately high share of patent filings, science and technology graduates, and senior positions at top venture capital-funded firms. In addition, the presence of immigrants often creates opportunities for less-skilled native workers to become more specialized in their work, thereby increasing their productivity.

Immigration generally also improves the government's fiscal situation, as many immigrants pay more in taxes over a lifetime than they consume in government services. However, native-born residents of states with large concentrations of less-educated immigrants may face larger tax burdens, as these immigrants pay less in taxes and are more likely to send children to public schools.
Labor Market Competition
A popular view is that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens. However, although immigrants increase the supply of labor, they also spend their wages on homes, food, TVs and other goods and services and expand domestic economic demand. This increased demand, in turn, generates more jobs to build those homes, make and sell food, and transport TVs.

Most empirical studies indicate long-term benefits for natives' employment and wages from immigration, although some studies suggest that these gains come at the cost of short-term losses from lower wages and higher unemployment. 1 Standard economic theory implies that while higher labor supply from immigration may initially depress wages, over time firms increase investment to restore the amount of capital per worker, which then restores wages. Steady growth in the capital-labor ratio prevents workers' average productivity, and therefore their average wages from declining over the long run. Figure 2 shows the pre-1980 trend in the capital-labor ratio extrapolated over the next few decades - the period when U.S. immigration accelerated. Consistent with the theory, the actual capital-labor ratio did not significantly or permanently deviate from that trend after 1980. 2

Figure 2: U.S. Log Capital-Labor Ratio, 1948-2013

Log capital services per worker and trend, business sector.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and author's calculations.

While growth in the capital stock keeps average wages from falling, immigration may affect the relative wages of different types of workers by changing their relative supplies. As shown in Table 1, immigration over the last few decades has had a bimodal impact across education groups: The largest impact has been on the supply of workers without a high school degree and of workers at the high end of the education spectrum - those with a college or postgraduate degree. Relative to the native-born, recently-arrived immigrants are less likely to have completed high school. At the same time, at the higher end, recent immigrants are more likely to have completed college and hold advanced degrees than their native counterparts. 3 Thus, immigration has primarily raised the supplies of the least and the most skilled workers.

Despite these increases in labor supply, in many cases immigrants appear to complement American-born workers rather than replacing them. Because less-educated immigrants often lack the linguistic skills required for many jobs, they tend to take jobs in manual labor-intensive occupations such as agriculture and construction. Even for low-skilled native-born workers in these industries, the effects of increased competition from immigrants are ambiguous, as many take advantage of their superior communication abilities and shift into occupations where these skills are more valuable, such as personal services and sales. 4 Similarly, highly educated immigrants face a disadvantage in communication-intensive jobs, and therefore tend to work in scientific and technical occupations. Highly skilled natives in management, media, and other culture- and language-dependent jobs face little competition from high skilled immigrants. The inflow of foreign labor is, therefore, concentrated in a subset of occupations that tend to employ many immigrants already. Consequently, it is earlier immigrants who face the greatest increase in competitive pressure.

Table 2 presents the results of two academic analyses of the wage impacts of immigration over the last several decades. These studies account for firms' investment response and the imperfect substitutability between immigrant and native-born workers. They find a small but positive effect, equal to about half a percentage point, on the average wages of native workers. One of the studies indicates a minor decline in the wages of those without a high school degree or with a college degree, while the other study finds only positive gains. In sharp contrast, both studies find that earlier immigrants experienced wage declines, on average, of 4 to 7 percent concentrated among the most and least educated.

Productivity
Immigrants also bring a wave of talent and ingenuity, accounting for a disproportionate share of workers in the fields most closely tied with innovation. A 2011 survey of the top fifty venture capital funded companies found that half had at least one immigrant founder and three quarters had immigrants in top management or research positions. 7 A significant share of advanced degrees awarded in science and engineering - often the foundation for innovation and job growth - go to foreign-born students with temporary visas studying in American universities. According to a 2012 National Science Board report, foreign students earned 27 percent of science and engineering master's degrees in 2009. 8 And in recent years, the number of foreign-born undergraduate students studying in American universities has grown rapidly, rising to 18 percent between 2011 and 2012. 9

In 2011, 76 percent of patents from top 10 U.S. patent-producing universities had at least one foreign-born author. 10 Indeed, immigrants produce patents at double the rate as natives, and the presence of these immigrants generates positive spillovers on patenting by natives. 11 Economic theory suggests a direct link between a skilled and innovative labor force and faster GDP growth, and more than three quarters of U.S. growth over the last 150 years can be explained by improvements in education and research-driven innovation. 12

Moreover, states with a high concentration of foreign-born workers experience significantly faster productivity growth. 13 As discussed earlier, less-skilled natives often respond to increased competition from immigrants by leaving manual labor for occupations that emphasize language and communication skills. This greater specialization leads to a more efficient allocation of labor, raising the incomes and productivity of both natives and immigrants.
Fiscal Impact
Immigrants in general - whether documented or undocumented - are net positive contributors to the federal budget. However, the fiscal impact varies widely at the state and local levels and is contingent on the characteristics of the immigrant population - age, education, and skill level - living within each state.

Figure 3 shows that immigrants, and especially recent arrivals, are generally of working age; thus, they impose relatively small costs on Social Security and Medicare - the largest components of federal non-defense spending. While immigrants' taxes help pay for defense spending, they do not generate any additional significant costs for the military, thereby somewhat reducing the federal tax burden of the average native.

Figure 3: Age Distribution of Natives and Non-Citizen Immigrants, 2012

Source: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

More often than not, immigrants are less educated and their incomes are lower at all ages than those of natives. As a result, immigrants pay less in federal, state, and local taxes and use federally-funded entitlement programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits at higher rates than natives. But they are also less likely than comparably low income natives to receive public assistance. Moreover, when they do take public assistance, the average value of benefits received is below average, implying a smaller net cost to the federal government relative to a comparable low income native. 14

However, immigrants often impose a heavier tax burden on natives at the state and local level. Immigrants - particularly those with low levels of education and income - generally have larger families and more children using public K-12 education, the largest component of state and local budgets. Furthermore, if immigrants' children are not already fluent English speakers, the per-student cost of education may be substantially higher than for native-born children. 15 These factors impose short-term costs on state budgets. Over the long term, however, the upward economic mobility and taxpaying lifetime of second generation immigrants more than offset the initial fiscal burden. 16

Because the net cost to state and local governments is closely related to immigrants' education and income, the socioeconomic composition of the immigrant population determines the fiscal impact in each state. For example, because New Jersey has a high proportion of well-educated and high income immigrants who contribute more to state and local revenues than they consume in public services, the net fiscal burden of immigration is small in New Jersey. In contrast, California's high share of less-educated and low-income immigrants means that immigrants' contribution to state and local revenues is smaller relative to their consumption of public services. As a result, the estimated fiscal burden of immigration is five times higher for native residents of California than of New Jersey. 17
Conclusion
Economists generally agree that the effects of immigration on the U.S. economy are broadly positive. 18 Immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, legal or illegal, are unlikely to replace native-born workers or reduce their wages over the long-term, though they may cause some short-term dislocations in labor markets. Indeed, the experience of the last few decades suggests that immigration may actually have significant long-term benefits for the native-born, pushing them into higher-paying occupations and raising the overall pace of innovation and productivity growth. Moreover, as baby boomers have begun moving into retirement in advanced economies around the world, immigration is helping to keep America comparatively young and reducing the burden of financing retirement benefits for a growing elderly population. While natives bear some upfront costs for the provision of public services to immigrants and their families, the evidence suggests a net positive return on the investment over the long term.

Year,Percent of U.S. population
1850,9.7
1860,13.2
1870,14.4
1880,13.3
1890,14.8
1900,13.6
1910,14.7
1920,13.2
1930,11.6
1940,8.8
1950,6.9
1960,5.4
1970,4.7
1980,6.2
1990,7.9
2000,11.1
2010,12.9
2013,13.1

Year,Log capital-labor ratio,1948-1980 trend,Extrapolated 1948-80 trend
1948,4.18,4.21,
1949,4.24,4.23,
1950,4.26,4.26,
1951,4.28,4.28,
1952,4.31,4.3,
1953,4.32,4.33,
1954,4.37,4.35,
1955,4.37,4.37,
1956,4.38,4.4,
1957,4.42,4.42,
1958,4.48,4.44,
1959,4.47,4.47,
1960,4.49,4.49,
1961,4.52,4.52,
1962,4.54,4.54,
1963,4.56,4.56,
1964,4.58,4.59,
1965,4.59,4.61,
1966,4.62,4.63,
1967,4.66,4.66,
1968,4.68,4.68,
1969,4.7,4.71,
1970,4.74,4.73,
1971,4.78,4.75,
1972,4.79,4.78,
1973,4.8,4.8,
1974,4.84,4.82,
1975,4.9,4.85,
1976,4.9,4.87,
1977,4.9,4.9,
1978,4.88,4.92,
1979,4.9,4.94,
1980,4.94,4.97,4.97
1981,4.98,,4.99
1982,5.04,,5.01
1983,5.06,,5.04
1984,5.06,,5.06
1985,5.08,,5.09
1986,5.11,,5.11
1987,5.12,,5.13
1988,5.13,,5.16
1989,5.15,,5.18
1990,5.17,,5.2
1991,5.22,,5.23
1992,5.24,,5.25
1993,5.25,,5.27
1994,5.25,,5.3
1995,5.27,,5.32
1996,5.29,,5.35
1997,5.31,,5.37
1998,5.35,,5.39
1999,5.4,,5.42
2000,5.44,,5.44
2001,5.49,,5.46
2002,5.55,,5.49
2003,5.58,,5.51
2004,5.59,,5.54
2005,5.6,,5.56
2006,5.62,,5.58
2007,5.64,,5.61
2008,5.68,,5.63
2009,5.74,,5.65
2010,5.76,,5.68
2011,5.75,,5.7
2012,5.75,,5.73
2013,5.75,,5.75

,Native,Non-Citizen
0 to 14,22.1,6.1
15 to 24,15,13
25 to 34,12,25
35 to 44,12,24
45 to 54,14,17
55 to 64,12,8
65 to 74,8,4
75 to 84,4,2
85 and over,2,1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Immigration on the United States' Economy - Penn Wharton Budget Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans' wages. The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational speci

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration has an impact on a country's economy. Studies have shown that when people move to the U.S. from other countries, they add to the economic growth of the country. Immigration can help lead to increased innovation, education, economic productivity, and more.

Unfortunately, however, immigration in the U.S. is long-rooted in a past of the mistreatment of people and its impact on the nation's economy is a topic that is still debated among lawmakers. Below, we'll dive deeper into immigration in the U.S. and how it impacts the economy.

Immigration in the U.S.

Throughout history, people from all over the world moved to the U.S. However, not all people who immigrated to the U.S. chose to do so, nor have they been treated with the same respect and human rights. For example, prior to the Civil War, many people from Africa and other continents and countries were enslaved and brought to the U.S. to work in poor conditions without rights. During World War II, Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps where the government required them to live and stay for months with little privacy or rights. And even in the 21st Century, some people who have come to the U.S. have been forced to enter detention centers where living conditions are inhumane and medical care is lacking.

In the fourth quarter of 2020 (October to December), 26,000 people received lawful permanent resident status after arriving in the U.S. from other countries. An additional 104,500 people already in the U.S. received lawful permanent resident status during that same quarter. This number does not include the 4,000 refugees who came to the U.S. in that time. The U.S. considers a refugee someone who has left their country of birth or citizenship and cannot return for fear of persecution based on their religion, race, nationality, opinions, or political memberships. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines whether someone has "suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion in their home country."

The federal government also tracks the number of people who come to the U.S. seeking asylum. People who seek asylum are refugees who are already in the U.S. or at a port of entry and meet the criteria to be considered a refugee. If they have a "credible fear" of persecution or torture in their home country, they can apply for asylum to prevent deportation.

If approved for asylum, a refugee can stay in the U.S., receive authorization to work, and apply for a Social Security card. They can apply for Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and petition to bring family members, who are fearing persecution, to the U.S.

Not all people who immigrate to the U.S. enter legally and thus they are not counted for in the nation's immigrant population. It can be difficult to know how many people are undocumented in the U.S. at a given time, but the Department of Homeland Security last estimated that there were close to 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in 2018.

Immigration Laws in the U.S

Over the years, the federal government has passed immigration laws to allow for more or less people to enter the country. These laws are often tied to the needs of businesses, jobs, and employment in the U.S.

In January 2021, President Joe Biden proposed a new law on immigration, known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. This bill-which as of September 2021 is still seeking approval from the House of Representatives-outlines plans to help undocumented immigrants become legal U.S. citizens, as well as update border controls, improve immigration courts, and more. In the interim, the Biden administration has also reversed several immigration laws put in place by past presidents.

Prior to Biden taking office, President Donald Trump had a wall built along the border between the U.S. and Mexico. The Trump administration also detained and deported thousands of undocumented people who entered the U.S., and limited the number of refugees and asylum seekers looking to come to the U.S.

Back in the 1990s, there was the Immigration Act of 1990 which created visa priorities for immigrants who had "extraordinary abilities" in science, arts, education, business, or athletics. Professors and researchers were prioritized, as were executives, managers, and holders of advanced degrees.

In the mid-1980s, the U.S. was recovering from a recession, and unemployment was high. More workers were unnecessary and so President Ronald Reagan proposed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which was eventually passed. Under the law, businesses were not allowed to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants, but it legalized any who had entered the country before 1982. Undocumented farmworkers who could validate 90 days of employment were granted lawful permanent residence status.

The Refugee Act of 1980 was another immigration law that was passed to encourage refugees from war-torn areas to enter the U.S. While the law encouraged refugees from conflicted and dangerous regions, entry specifically depended on employment and housing opportunities, available resources, and the likelihood of refugees becoming self-sufficient.

A few other notable immigration laws in the U.S. include the Immigration and Nationality Act, which eliminated quotas based on nationality and favored highly skilled immigrants or those joining families already in the U.S., and the Bracero Agreement of 1942 which allowed Mexicans to assist farmers during the World War II labor shortage.

How Immigration Affects the Economy

Studies have shown that immigration can have a positive effect on a country's economic growth and productivity, innovation, education, and more.

In July 2019, there were approximately 44.9 million immigrant people in the U.S., making up 13.7% of the nation's population at the time, according to data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

One common misconception is that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens of a country. Studies suggest that while some jobs are taken, the most likely scenario is that jobs are actually created. In a 2020 study, Azoulay et al. posit that immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs and create jobs for people in the country. Most immigrants are of working age and they move to a new country to find (or create) jobs, thus having a positive impact on the labor force. An increasing number of immigrants have higher-level degrees, too, which can help increase innovation. Immigrant people make up 18% of the labor force that is 25 years and older; hold 26% of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs; and hold 28% of high-quality patents.

Immigrants are good for a nation's businesses, too. First and second generation immigrants have founded 43% of Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. and 28% of main street businesses were founded by immigrants.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), immigrant people in the U.S. are also more likely to work in service occupations, natural resource jobs, construction, maintenance, transportation, production, and material moving roles. This helps ensure businesses can continue serving consumers.

Immigrant people who get a job after moving to the U.S. and pay taxes contribute to economic growth by spending money and consuming goods and services. The money paid in taxes also goes toward government employees, local and national projects, and more. If someone comes to the U.S. and does not have a Social Security number yet, they can use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants pay over $11 billion in taxes per year.

Both documented and undocumented immigrants pay into social programs via taxes, but those without documentation may not receive many of the benefits that come from paying taxes. For example, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare because of their immigration status, but Medicaid funds are given to hospitals to help cover the costs of undocumented immigrants who need medical care at their facilities.

What Is the Future of Immigration in the U.S.?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, increased immigration to the U.S. over the next 40 years would mean a "faster growing, diverse, and younger population in the country." However, the population is aging and is expected to continue to do so until about 2060. Increased or decreased immigration during that time could help shift that timing, but it will all depend on how many people come to the U.S.

With an older population, the U.S. will need more young people to work and sustain economic growth, employment, and more in order to continue the path of economic growth the country has been on for decades. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, will play an essential part in that. It is necessary to continue accepting working-age people into the U.S. (or giving them a path to legal permanent residence if they are undocumented) in order to continue the economic growth of the country.

Frequently Asked Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration has an impact on a country's economy. Studies have shown that when people move to the U.S. from other countries, they add to the economic growth of the country. Immigration can help lead to increased innovation, education, economic productivity, and more. Unfortunately, however, immigration in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/proving-extreme-hardship-us-relative-immigration-purposes.html

# data[].attributes.body
http://video.foxnews.com/v/6125505155001

# data[].attributes.body
https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/is-japan-ready-to-welcome-immigrants/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration has an impact on a country's economy. Studies have shown that when people move to the U.S. from other countries, they add to the economic growth of the country. Immigration can help lead to increased innovation, education, economic productivity, and more.

Unfortunately, however, immigration in the U.S. is long-rooted in a past of the mistreatment of people and its impact on the nation's economy is a topic that is still debated among lawmakers. Below, we'll dive deeper into immigration in the U.S. and how it impacts the economy.

Immigration in the U.S.

Throughout history, people from all over the world moved to the U.S. However, not all people who immigrated to the U.S. chose to do so, nor have they been treated with the same respect and human rights. For example, prior to the Civil War, many people from Africa and other continents and countries were enslaved and brought to the U.S. to work in poor conditions without rights. During World War II, Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps where the government required them to live and stay for months with little privacy or rights. And even in the 21st Century, some people who have come to the U.S. have been forced to enter detention centers where living conditions are inhumane and medical care is lacking.

In the fourth quarter of 2020 (October to December), 26,000 people received lawful permanent resident status after arriving in the U.S. from other countries. An additional 104,500 people already in the U.S. received lawful permanent resident status during that same quarter. This number does not include the 4,000 refugees who came to the U.S. in that time. The U.S. considers a refugee someone who has left their country of birth or citizenship and cannot return for fear of persecution based on their religion, race, nationality, opinions, or political memberships. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines whether someone has "suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion in their home country."

The federal government also tracks the number of people who come to the U.S. seeking asylum. People who seek asylum are refugees who are already in the U.S. or at a port of entry and meet the criteria to be considered a refugee. If they have a "credible fear" of persecution or torture in their home country, they can apply for asylum to prevent deportation.

If approved for asylum, a refugee can stay in the U.S., receive authorization to work, and apply for a Social Security card. They can apply for Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and petition to bring family members, who are fearing persecution, to the U.S.

Not all people who immigrate to the U.S. enter legally and thus they are not counted for in the nation's immigrant population. It can be difficult to know how many people are undocumented in the U.S. at a given time, but the Department of Homeland Security last estimated that there were close to 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in 2018.

Immigration Laws in the U.S

Over the years, the federal government has passed immigration laws to allow for more or less people to enter the country. These laws are often tied to the needs of businesses, jobs, and employment in the U.S.

In January 2021, President Joe Biden proposed a new law on immigration, known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. This bill-which as of September 2021 is still seeking approval from the House of Representatives-outlines plans to help undocumented immigrants become legal U.S. citizens, as well as update border controls, improve immigration courts, and more. In the interim, the Biden administration has also reversed several immigration laws put in place by past presidents.

Prior to Biden taking office, President Donald Trump had a wall built along the border between the U.S. and Mexico. The Trump administration also detained and deported thousands of undocumented people who entered the U.S., and limited the number of refugees and asylum seekers looking to come to the U.S.

Back in the 1990s, there was the Immigration Act of 1990 which created visa priorities for immigrants who had "extraordinary abilities" in science, arts, education, business, or athletics. Professors and researchers were prioritized, as were executives, managers, and holders of advanced degrees.

In the mid-1980s, the U.S. was recovering from a recession, and unemployment was high. More workers were unnecessary and so President Ronald Reagan proposed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which was eventually passed. Under the law, businesses were not allowed to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants, but it legalized any who had entered the country before 1982. Undocumented farmworkers who could validate 90 days of employment were granted lawful permanent residence status.

The Refugee Act of 1980 was another immigration law that was passed to encourage refugees from war-torn areas to enter the U.S. While the law encouraged refugees from conflicted and dangerous regions, entry specifically depended on employment and housing opportunities, available resources, and the likelihood of refugees becoming self-sufficient.

A few other notable immigration laws in the U.S. include the Immigration and Nationality Act, which eliminated quotas based on nationality and favored highly skilled immigrants or those joining families already in the U.S., and the Bracero Agreement of 1942 which allowed Mexicans to assist farmers during the World War II labor shortage.

How Immigration Affects the Economy

Studies have shown that immigration can have a positive effect on a country's economic growth and productivity, innovation, education, and more.

In July 2019, there were approximately 44.9 million immigrant people in the U.S., making up 13.7% of the nation's population at the time, according to data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

One common misconception is that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens of a country. Studies suggest that while some jobs are taken, the most likely scenario is that jobs are actually created. In a 2020 study, Azoulay et al. posit that immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs and create jobs for people in the country. Most immigrants are of working age and they move to a new country to find (or create) jobs, thus having a positive impact on the labor force. An increasing number of immigrants have higher-level degrees, too, which can help increase innovation. Immigrant people make up 18% of the labor force that is 25 years and older; hold 26% of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs; and hold 28% of high-quality patents.

Immigrants are good for a nation's businesses, too. First and second generation immigrants have founded 43% of Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. and 28% of main street businesses were founded by immigrants.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), immigrant people in the U.S. are also more likely to work in service occupations, natural resource jobs, construction, maintenance, transportation, production, and material moving roles. This helps ensure businesses can continue serving consumers.

Immigrant people who get a job after moving to the U.S. and pay taxes contribute to economic growth by spending money and consuming goods and services. The money paid in taxes also goes toward government employees, local and national projects, and more. If someone comes to the U.S. and does not have a Social Security number yet, they can use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants pay over $11 billion in taxes per year.

Both documented and undocumented immigrants pay into social programs via taxes, but those without documentation may not receive many of the benefits that come from paying taxes. For example, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare because of their immigration status, but Medicaid funds are given to hospitals to help cover the costs of undocumented immigrants who need medical care at their facilities.

What Is the Future of Immigration in the U.S.?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, increased immigration to the U.S. over the next 40 years would mean a "faster growing, diverse, and younger population in the country." However, the population is aging and is expected to continue to do so until about 2060. Increased or decreased immigration during that time could help shift that timing, but it will all depend on how many people come to the U.S.

With an older population, the U.S. will need more young people to work and sustain economic growth, employment, and more in order to continue the path of economic growth the country has been on for decades. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, will play an essential part in that. It is necessary to continue accepting working-age people into the U.S. (or giving them a path to legal permanent residence if they are undocumented) in order to continue the economic growth of the country.

Frequently Asked Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration has an impact on a country's economy. Studies have shown that when people move to the U.S. from other countries, they add to the economic growth of the country. Immigration can help lead to increased innovation, education, economic productivity, and more. Unfortunately, however, immigration in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/the-7-biggest-challenges-facing-refugees-and-immig/

# data[].attributes.headline
THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UNITED STATES’ ECONOMY

# data[].attributes.subject
THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UNITED STATES’ ECONOMY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people wonder why all immigrants do not just come to the United States legally or simply apply for citizenship while living here without authorization. These suggestions miss the point: There is no line available for current undocumented immigrants and the "regular channels" are largely not available to prospective immigrants who end up entering the country through unauthorized channels. Even though more than 80 percent of undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for over 10 years, many could live out the rest of their lives without any opportunity to become legal residents of this country.

No "line" is available for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants.

Immigration to the United States on a temporary or permanent basis is generally limited to three different routes: employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. Each of these legal avenues is highly regulated and subject to numerical limitations and eligibility requirements. As a result, most undocumented immigrants do not have the necessary family or employment relationships and often cannot access humanitarian protection, such as refugee or asylum status. This means that no matter how long they have been in the United States, most undocumented immigrants have no way of achieving legal status. Even those who pay taxes, work hard, and contribute to their communities have no way to "get in line" unless Congress creates a new pathway to legal status.

Many undocumented immigrants are barred from obtaining legal status while inside the United States.

Unauthorized Undocumented immigrants who entered the United States without being legally admitted and inspected are generally not eligible to obtain green cards while still inside the country. Even if there is a visa available, they are barred from "adjusting status" and getting a green card without first leaving the country because of how they entered the United States.

However, leaving the country to obtain a visa can have significant negative consequences. Any person who has been out of status for more than 180 days, but less than one year, is barred from being re-admitted or re-entering the United States for three years; while anyone who has been out of status for more than one year is barred for 10 years. Although waivers to these bars exist, they are difficult to obtain. This means that even when a visa is available, undocumented immigrants must risk spending up to 10 years away from their families in the United States before being allowed to reenter the country.

Family-based immigration is limited to certain close family relationships and is numerically restricted.

Most people who legally immigrate to the United States come through family-based visas. Qualified family members in the United States can seek permission to bring in certain eligible foreign-born family members. U.S. citizens can petition for their spouses, parents (if the petitioner is 21 or older), children, and siblings. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs, or "green card" holders) can petition for their spouses and unmarried children (of any age). There are always visas available for the spouses, parents, and minor children of U.S. citizens, but for all other family categories there are annual numerical limits. In all cases, the petitioning family member in the United States must demonstrate an income level above the poverty line and must commit to support the family members they are seeking to bring to the United States. The foreign-born persons wishing to immigrate must meet eligibility requirements as well. This means that a family-based visa is unavailable to any undocumented immigrant who doesn't have a qualified relative or who fails to meet those eligibility requirements.

Employment-based immigration requires a U.S. employer to request specific foreign workers.

To come to the United States for employment purposes-either temporarily or permanently-foreign workers must generally have a job already lined up with an eligible employer who will commit to being a sponsor. An employer can request permission to bring in specific qualified foreign workers, but only if they meet the requirements (such as job skills and education level) and if the employer cannot find qualified U.S. workers to take the job first. Most of the qualifying professions for permanent immigration require high levels of education and professional experience, such as scientists, professors, and multinational executives. There are a limited number of temporary visas for highly skilled or internationally recognized workers, and temporary, seasonal visas for agricultural workers and certain other "less-skilled" workers. In most of these cases, an employer must petition for the worker.

Very few undocumented immigrants are eligible for employment-based visas, and competition for these visas is fierce. This means that for all but a lucky few, these visas are unavailable to undocumented immigrants regardless of skill or desire to work legally.

Most people fleeing their home countries cannot access humanitarian protection.

Each year, the United States sets a numerical limit on how many refugees will be admitted for humanitarian reasons. To be admitted as refugees, individuals must be screened by multiple international and U.S. agencies and demonstrate a "well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or national origin." Asylum seekers are individuals already in the United States who fear returning to their home countries, and who must prove they meet the definition of a refugee. An immigrant does not qualify as a refugee or an asylee because of poverty or difficult economic conditions in their home country. Most undocumented immigrants are ineligible for asylum because the law generally requires that someone file for asylum within one year of entering the United States. There are other more limited forms of temporary humanitarian protection available, but these are rare.

Even those who can get in line are subject to long backlogs and waits.

When undocumented immigrants do have qualifying relatives or employers who could provide a pathway to a visa, many are still not able to take advantage of that process for years. The demand from both family members and workers who want to immigrate to the United States is typically higher than the number of slots available each year. In addition, there is a maximum number of employment-based and family-sponsored preference visas that can be issued to citizens of any one country each year. The number of permanent immigrants from a single country cannot exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. Only immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (parents, children under 21, and spouses) are not subject to a numerical limit. This results in significant backlogs for most family members and many workers hoping to enter the United States legally, with some immigrants from certain countries waiting decades. Moreover, for the past two years the federal government has not even come close to meeting the annual caps for either employment-based or family-preference visas due to the slow pace of processing.

People from countries with high levels of immigration to the United States-Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines-generally have the longest waiting times for immigrant visas. For example, the married and unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens from Mexico, and the Filipino siblings of U.S. citizens, must wait between 19 and 24 years for visas to become available.

There is a limited lottery for certain countries.

If a person who wishes to immigrate to the United States does not qualify under the family, employment, or humanitarian systems, there may be one more legal path. The annual Diversity Visa Program makes up to 50,000 green cards available to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. People from Mexico, China, the Philippines, India, and other countries with higher levels of immigration to the United States are not eligible. To qualify, applicants must have a high school education and two years of job experience. Since millions of people around the world apply each year, the chances of obtaining a visa through the lottery are extremely low. In addition, the Diversity Visa Program is barely functioning at the present time due to the continued impact of immigration bans implemented by the Trump administration and extremely slow processing by the Biden administration.

Conclusion

Undocumented immigrants who want to become citizens of the United States cannot just "get in line." Although there are some lines, many aspiring lawful permanent residents are not eligible to be in any of them. Even if an undocumented immigrant does meet the formal requirements to immigrate, the wait can be very long if the individual is applying from a country with a lengthy backlog of applications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Don't Immigrants Apply for Citizenship?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people wonder why all immigrants do not just come to the United States legally or simply apply for citizenship while living here without authorization. These suggestions miss the point: There is no line available for current undocumented immigrants and the "regular channels" are largely not available to prospective immigrants who end up entering the country through unauthorized channels.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/diverse-populations/immigration/understandingimm/strengths-and-challenges-of-immigrant-families/

# data[].attributes.body
Zahid Jaweed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Community Psychology: Social Justice Through Collaborative Research and Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Policy Statement by the Society for Community Research and Action: Division 27 of the American Psychological Association[1]
Prepared by: Regina Day Langhout, University of California at Santa Cruz, Sara L. Buckingham, University of Alaska at Anchorage, Ashmeet Kaur Oberoi, University of Miami, Noé Rubén Chávez, City of Hope Medical Center, Dana Rusch, University of Illinois at Chicago, Francesca Esposito, Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Instituto Universitário, & Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar, University of Illinois at Chicago

The final version of this statement, which includes some additional recommendations from the authors, has been published in the American Journal of Community Psychology.

Thanks to the generous donations of the authors' institutions, the final version of this article is available through open access at this link https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajcp.12256.
Spanish Version - Brief on Consequences of Deportation
For an infographic of this material, please see: https://www.communitypsychology.com/infograph-effects-of-deportation/

Recommendations related to this section are available for: Higher Education, K-12 Schools, Federal Policy, Local Government, and Health Care Providers.
Spanish Version - Brief on Consequences of Deportation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Deportation has numerous detrimental impacts on individuals who are deported, and on the families and communities they are forced to leave behind. This policy statement reviews the empirical literature to describe the effects of deportation on the individual, families, and the broader community, in order to inform policy and practice recommendations.

Deportations have markedly increased in the US in the past three decades, with 340,056 people being deported from the country in 2017 (US Department of Homeland Security, 2017). Most people who are deported have lived in the country for over a decade and many are parents or caregivers of US citizens (Brabeck, Lykes & Hershberg, 2012; Brabeck & Xu, 2010; Dreby, 2012; TRAC Immigration, 2006). Approximately 5.9 million US citizen children have at least one caregiver who does not have authorization to reside in the United States (Mathema, 2017). Immigration policies have moved away from the goal of family reunification, and have the potential to harm US citizen children. For example, the hardship exemption of the Immigration and Nationality Act limits exemptions of deportation to parents, children, and spouses. Consequently, extended family caregivers, such as grandparents, are ineligible for the exemption in spite of any undue hardship caused to their US citizen family members from their deportation (Zug, 2009).

The effects of deportation are felt by individuals, families, and communities. Nearly 4 in 5 families screened in family detention centers have a "credible fear" of persecution should they be forced to return to the countries from which they migrated (US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2016). Many of those deported are forced to return to dangerous, turbulent environments, and deportations have resulted in kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder (Stillman, 2018). Deported individuals often find it challenging to support their families, and coupled with the trauma and stigma of the deportation, may find it difficult to maintain contact with family members; this often leads to severed relationships (Dreby, 2012; Hagan, Castro, & Rodriguez, 2010; Zayas & Bradlee, 2014).

Family members left behind suffer multiple psychosocial consequences. Separation of a child from a parent due to deportation is associated with economic hardship, housing instability, and food insecurity (Capps et al., 2015; Chaudhary et al., 2010; Dreby, 2012). Family members are often forced to take on new roles to make ends meet: the remaining caregiver(s) must often work longer hours, leaving little time for contact with children; older children often become primary caregivers of younger siblings and/or must work to support the family, impacting school performance and retention (Chaudhary et al., 2010; Dreby, 2012). Following deportation of a family member, children demonstrate numerous emotional and behavioral challenges, such as eating and sleeping changes, anxiety, sadness, anger, and withdrawal. Even if the family is ultimately reunited, the consequences of their forced family separation often remain (Brabeck et al, 2012; Dreby, 2012; Hagan et al. 2010).

Moreover, the broader community suffers negative consequences of deportation regardless of first-hand experience. Following immigration raids and deportations, community members are often more fearful and mistrustful of public institutions, and less likely to participate in churches, schools, health clinics, cultural activities, and social services (Capps, Rosenblum, Chishti, & Rodríguez, 2011; Hagan et al., 2010; Hagan, Rodriguez, & Castro, 2011; Vargas, 2015). Studies have also demonstrated that immigrant adults are emotionally taxed following deportations and the threat of deportations in their communities; associated anxiety and psychological stress has been linked to cardiovascular risk factors (Brabeck et al, 2012; Martinez, Ruelas, & Granger, 2017; Torres et al., 2018). Immigrant children living in communities where immigration raids have taken place feel abandoned, isolated, fearful, traumatized, and depressed (Capps, Castañeda, Chaudry, & Santos, 2007). Moreover, children - regardless of immigration status - experience fear and shame regarding deportation, which impacts their sense of self and wellbeing (Dreby, 2012).

In order to assuage the myriad devastating consequences of deportation on individuals, families, and communities, the US should make policy and practice changes. Federal immigration policies should keep families together through comprehensive immigration reform that ends the threat of deportation and bolsters hardship exemptions for all family members. Local communities should prioritize safety and inclusion for all families, regardless of immigration status, by developing programs to foster support networks, sense of belonging, mental health/healing, building community, and collective political action, as these types of programs foster hope and wellness for children and families.

INTRODUCTION

This brief first describes specific aspects of current US immigration policies. It then reviews the empirical literature to describe the effects of deportation on the individual, families, and the broader community. The literature focuses primarily on deportations of Mexican and Central American immigrants, which are the largest groups of immigrants to the US at this time. Findings from these studies form the foundation for policy and practice recommendations, which comprises the last section of this policy statement, but there is no reason to expect that these findings are not also applicable to other immigrant groups.

POLICY BACKGROUND

Changes in US policies around immigration and deportation affect individuals, families, and communities in which deportations occur. Over the past three decades, US policies and procedures have changed markedly twice. In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (ADEPA) and the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) were passed into law. These laws expanded the types of offenses for deportation, enabled retroactive deportation, and weakened judicial review over deportations (Brabeck et al., 2011; Hagan et al., 2010). The second change came after the 2001 passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which also increased administrative authority over deportations. With these changes came a massive increase in deportations. From 1900 to 1990, approximately 20,000 people were deported each year. In the mid-1990s, the deportation rate increased by 800 percent to 180,000 a year, but has since more than doubled to 340,056 deportations in 2017 (US Department of Homeland Security, 2017, Table 39). Of those deported, approximately 40% in 2016 had a prior criminal conviction (US Department of Homeland Security, 2017, Table 41), meaning that most enforcement policy is aimed at those who do not have criminal convictions (Brabeck et al., 2011; Dreby, 2012; Hagan et al., 2010, 2011; US Government Accounting Office, 2009). The majority of those deported have lived in the US for over a decade, with the median length of residence being 14 years (Brabeck & Xu, 2010; TRAC Immigration, 2006). Further, a growing number are parents whose children are US citizens (Braback et al., 2011; Dreby, 2012). These changes in immigration policy have moved the US away from the explicit goal of post-World War II immigration policy: family reunification (Hagan et al., 2010). Moreover, although the hardship exemption to the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the cancellation of deportation if such deportation would cause undue hardship to a US citizen, it limits deportation stays to the person's spouse, parent, or child. Consequently, grandparents, who are often primary caregivers of US citizen children, are ineligible for this exemption (Zug, 2009).

PSYCHOSOCIAL EFFECTS OF DEPORTATION ON THE INDIVIDUAL

In addition to the trauma, violence or abuse experienced prior to migration or during detention, many immigrants who are deported return to extremely dangerous and often turbulent environments in their countries of origin. Some even face torture, abuse, rape, or murder. Researchers at the Global Migration Project developed a database recording people who had been deported and then faced death or other harms (Stillman, 2018). The researchers contacted more than two hundred local legal-aid organizations, domestic violence shelters, immigrants' rights-groups nationwide, as well as migrant shelters, humanitarian operations, law offices, and mortuaries across Central America, and also interviewed several families (Stillman, 2018). Their database includes numerous cases where deportations resulted in harm, including kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder (Stillman, 2018). This is especially important to consider given 79% of families screened in family detention centers have a "credible fear" of persecution if they returned to the countries from which they migrated (US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2016).

PSYCHOSOCIAL EFFECTS OF DEPORTATION ON FAMILY MEMBERS

Nearly 10% of US families with children have at least one member without citizenship, and 5.9 million US citizen children have at least one caregiver who does not have authorization to reside in the United States (Mathema, 2017; Romero, 2003). Therefore, deportation policies and procedures affect many U.S. citizens. Several studies provide evidence that the forcible separation of a family is associated with negative psychosocial effects for children and other family members (Capps et al., 2015; Chaudhary et al., 2010; Dreby, 2012; Hagan et al, 2011; National Council of La Raza, 2007). Indeed, we would expect the effects to be severe for these families since separation is not by choice and often occurs suddenly and unexpectedly, with little preparation or planning (Brabeck et al., 2012; Dreby, 2012). In this section, we discuss effects on children and the family unit.

The effects of sudden and forcible separation of a parent due to deportation on children are considerable. In a study of 190 children in 85 immigrant families across six US cities or towns spanning from the west coast to the south, Chaudhary and colleagues (2010) concluded that children faced serious challenges due to deportation of a parent, including economic hardship, housing instability, food insecurity, and separation from parents. Children experienced behavioral changes in eating and sleeping habits, and emotional changes such as increased crying, anxiety, anger, aggression, withdrawal, and a heightened sense of fear. These outcomes were still present six months later. In another study of 91 parents and 110 children in 80 households in Ohio and New Jersey, results were similar (Dreby, 2012). A third study conducted in three cities after immigration raids also showed consistent results, with children feeling abandoned, isolated, fearful, traumatized, and depressed (Capps, Castañeda, Chaudry, & Santos, 2007). In fact, in a comprehensive review of the literature that ranged from 2009-2013, Capps and colleagues (2015) discerned that children experienced psychological trauma, material hardship, residential instability, academic withdrawal, and family dissolution after the deportation of a family member. Children who were present at the moment a parent was detained tended to have greater emotional, cognitive, and behavioral effects (Chaudhary et al., 2010). Furthermore, after a deportation, older children often needed to take on jobs to help support the family, which impacted school performance, persistence, and retention.

The family unit is also greatly affected by deportation. The majority of those deported are men (TRAC Immigration, 2014). When this person is a father, frequently mothers become single parents, often with no or little income, and sometimes facing large legal bills (Dreby, 2012). Indeed, a study of immigration enforcement in six US locations between 2006 and 2009 found that families lost 40 to 90% of their income, or an average of 70%, within six months of a parent's immigration related arrest, detention, or deportation (Capps et al., 2016). Given this context, mothers often work long hours, frequently at more than one job, which results in reduced contact with their children. Older children often become primary caregivers to younger siblings due to lack of affordable child care options. Moreover, parents fear losing custody of their children because of their new circumstances or threats made by immigration officials (Brabeck et al., 2012; Dreby, 2012). Furthermore, deported parents find it difficult to find work that would enable them to help support their families who are still in the US, which is demoralizing. This new circumstance, coupled with the trauma and stigma of the deportation, may make it difficult to maintain contact with children. A diminished emotional connection, combined with attachment-related issues brought on by a sudden separation, can effectively sever father-child and husband-wife relationships (Dreby, 2012; Hagan et al., 2010; Zayas & Bradlee, 2014). Because of these dynamics, it is often mothers who bear the largest burdens after a deportation. Even if the family is reunited, effects of the forced separation on all family members often remain (Brabeck et al, 2012; Dreby, 2012; Hagan et al. 2010). The effects of potential parental deportation on U.S. citizen children are arguably complex; however, in one study, children who accompanied their deported parents back to Mexico described profound adjustment difficulties, including a sense of loss regarding their future and the resources available to them (Gulbas & Zayas, 2017).

These impacts extend beyond the nuclear family to grandparents and other relatives. Three of four Latinx grandparents co-parent with their grandchild's parent(s) (Fuller-Thompson & Minkler, 2007). Moreover, more than 4.4 million children live in grandparent-headed households, thousands of whom are US citizen grandchildren of unauthorized grandparents. With the number of grandchildren being raised by grandparents on the rise and higher than it has ever been in this country, grandparent deportation is of great concern. Zug (2009) estimates that thousands of grandparents who are primary caregivers to US citizen grandchildren are at at risk for deportation. Grandparent-headed households already face more challenges than parent-headed households, including higher rates of poverty and stressful life events with fewer resources (Fuller-Thompson & Minkler, 2007). Although grandparent caregivers experience these challenges, their grandchildren do much better than those placed into foster care, and grandparent caregiving is associated with more positive grandchild psychological wellbeing and healthy development across the lifespan (Copen, 2006). When grandparents face deportation, their grandchildren may not only lack a primary caregiver (if their grandparent is co-parenting), but may lose their only caregiver and be placed in foster care, putting them at risk for multiple placements and poorer outcomes.

The effects on children and other family members when another family member is deported are exacerbated by limited mental health services. Furthermore, when they are available, there are still barriers to accessing resources (Capps et al., 2015). These barriers range from a lack of therapists who are able to provide culturally-informed services, to a lack of insurance coverage, to unfamiliarity with therapy and mistrust of local services due to the deportation that has occurred (Brabeck & Xu, 2010; Hagan et al., 2011).

PSYCHOSOCIAL EFFECTS OF DEPORTATION ON COMMUNITIES

When someone is deported in the broader community, research indicates that others in that community become fearful and mistrustful of public institutions, reducing adult and child attendance and participation in churches, schools, health clinics, cultural activities, and other vital social services designed with public health in mind (Capps et al., 2011; Hagan et al., 2010, 2011; Vargas, 2015). For example, a national study of mothers found that an increase in risk of deportation is associated with a decrease in Medicaid use, which has negative consequences for children's health and wellbeing in the short- and long-term (Vargas, 2015). Moreover, immigrants reduce their participation in the life of the community, including reducing visits to parks, libraries, restaurants, and other community events (Hagan et al., 2011). This lack of social integration likely has significant negative effects on immigrants and their communities. Indeed,social integration promotes a sense of wellbeing and purpose in individuals' lives and is associated with lower risk of overall cancer and mortality, lower rates of cardiovascular disease, less functional decline and distress, and lower psychological distress and suicide risk (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000; Dalgard & Thapa, 2007; Ungar, 1999).

When deporations occur, fearfulness and mistrust extends to public safety officials. Specifically, trust has broken down between Latinx communities - particularly Latinx immigrant communities - and local law enforcement. The breakdown is acute when local officials are involved in immigration actions through 287(g) agreements or other policies (Hagan et al., 2010, 2011; Theodore, 2013). These agreements expect local law enforcement to act as federal immigration agents, which makes entire immigrant communities mistrustful of local authorities, which has implications for community safety. Specifically, families report being unwilling to call police for any reason after a deportation (Dreby, 2012; Sládková, Mangado, & Quinteros, 2012). Indeed, results from a telephone survey in four cities indicate that unwillingness to call the police is strongest for those who are unauthorized, with 70% surveyed reporting that they would not call police even if they were victims of crimes (compared to 44% of Latinx people who were documented immigrants or US citizens; Theodore, 2013). In other studies, families and children reported fear of all police due to their role in deportation and forced family separation (Brabeck et al., 2012; Dreby, 2012). The proliferation of ICE activity has also disrupted the notion of "safety" that once characterized neighborhood schools (Crawford, 2017) and other city/municipal resources, such as hospitals (Martinez et al., 2015), that were safeguarded from federal immigration enforcement. In fact, one survey of primary care and emergency care providers found that 48% reported that ICE activity negatively impacted patient access, further attesting to how ICE activity should be considered a social determinant to health (Hacker, Chu, Arsenault, & Marlin, 2012).

In addition to affecting public life, individual wellbeing for others in the community where the deportation occurred is also affected. The threat of deportation could come from many different places, including simply hearing about the deportation of another person in the broader community, the news, or the internet. For example, 18 immigrant adults from Guatemala and Honduras who were living in Massachusetts and Rhode Island were interviewed one year after an immigration raid in the region (Brabeck et al., 2012). These adults reported that they were emotionally affected by deportations and threat of deportations in the broader community. They discussed sadness, fatigue, feeling hopeless, anxious, fearful, mistrustful, worried, and hypervigilant. They also experienced nightmares and weight fluctuations (Brabeck et al, 2012). In fact, the majority of those interviewed (67%) described fears that occurred on a daily basis. The constant anxiety and psychological stress associated with fear of deportation for oneself, family members, or others in the community is also related to cardiovascular risk factors (Martinez et al., 2017; Torres et al., 2018). For example, a study in California with 545 Mexican-origin women found a significant link between fear of deportation and cardiovascular risk factors, such as greater body mass index, greater risk of obesity, larger waist circumference, and higher pulse pressure (Torres et al., 2018).

Parents also report negative effects for their children. In a study where 132 Latinx immigrant adults living in the northeastern US were surveyed two years after an immigration raid, those who had a greater level of deportation vulnerability (i.e., were unauthorized and had been detained or deported in the past, or had a family member who had been deported) noted more negative outcomes for their children, such as poorer school performance and emotional wellbeing for fear of deportation (Braback & Xu, 2010). These results are consistent with the aforementioned study with immigrants from Guatemala and Honduras. Many of these parents (44%) discussed the threat of deportation of a family member being related to their children's poorer academic grades, depression and anxiety symptoms, and behavioral distress.

It is not only parents who have noted negative effects for children after community raids. Indeed, children's fear and shame have been documented in ethnographic research (Dreby, 2012). Often, community narratives around deportation are vague and abstract, potentially leading children to think that anyone who is an immigrant can be easily deported. Indeed, of the 110 children interviewed in this study, 29 were unauthorized but almost all 110 talked about the possibility of deportation for themselves or a family member (Dreby, 2012). These fears of deportation transcended legal status, and if the child knew someone who had been deported or not. For many, this fear was connected to shame and secrecy; children were ashamed to be or to have family members who were immigrants due to social stigma and fear of deportation. These outcomes, widespread for the children interviewed regardless of contact with the Department of Homeland Security or deportation processes, were "devastating for children's identity and sense of self," as well as their overall wellbeing (Dreby, 2012, p. 841).

ALTERNATIVES TO DEPORTATION, AND RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PRACTICES
National laws and judicial review

Immigration reform should take into account what is in the best interests of US born children. Consistent with the position of the American Psychological Association, immigration policies should keep families together and discourage deportation. SCRA calls on the US Congress to pass, and the president to sign, comprehensive immigration reform that would offer permanent protections to all 11 million people who are unauthorized to reside in the US currently and end the threat of deportation. This would secure the human rights of many individuals who have lived in this country for some years.

Do not separate families given the demonstrated negative impact on children, other family members, and the broader community. As shown in the literature, the psychological consequences of separating families are long-term and devastating to all involved. Therefore, policymakers should consider the human rights aspects of family unity (Brabeck et al, 2012). The 1969 American Convention on Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide a foundation for these positions.

Modify the hardship exemption to deportation statute in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include other family members in order to reflect the reality of kinship care in this country, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Narrow the scope of enforcement and removal activities and take into account parental and caregiving status.

Consider the burden placed on the larger community when someone is deported Specifically, policymakers should take into account the public health aspects of deportation (Dreby, 2012).

Increase judicial review and discretionary authority of judges over deportation cases, as was the case prior to the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (ADEPA) and the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996. Processes that have such detrimental effects for families and communities deserve oversight by another governmental body, in this case, the judiciary. Weakened judicial review also removed legal constraints that protected families and immigrants (Hagan et al., 2010, 2011; Kanstroom, 2007).

Ratify the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families, which would create a human rights framework in US immigration policy.

Ensure that there are no deportation quotas, in policy or practice. Previous quotas have resulted in the expansion of detention to those who were detained and deported simply due to immigration status (Hagan et al., 2010).

Local jurisdictions

Local jurisdictions should declare themselves as sanctuary cities to enhance the protection of undocumented immigrants and their families.

Local jurisdictions should not detain or deport people solely for immigration violations in local and state law enforcement.

Local school districts should be encouraged to build communications with their communities that prioritize safety and inclusion for all immigrant families, regardless of status. This would include a protocol for responding to ICE activity near schools and educating school personnel on the effects of immigration enforcement (i.e., threat of detention and possible deportation) on families and students. Moreover, the community's level of engagement with schools should increase to offer additional supports, just as the school should engage the community to offer community-level support.

Cities and other local jurisdictions should end their 287(g) agreements, which have been controversial from the start. Specifically, communities are afraid to call local public safety officials, who are perceived as potentially deporting individuals with whom they come into contact, regardless of the behavior of the individual.

Local efforts are critical during post-deportation, in order to foster supportive social networks and create a sense of belonging among families. For example, schools, places of worship, and community organizations can provide important resources, both tangible and emotional. Programmatic efforts should be intentional with supporting mental health/healing, building community, and collective political action, as these types of programs foster hope and wellness for children and families (Ginwright, 2015).

References
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 843-857.

Brabeck. K.M., Lykes, M.B., & Hershberg, R. (2012). Framing immigration to and deportation from the United States: Guatemalan and Salvadoran families make meaning of their experience. Community, Work & Family, 14, 275-296.

Brabeck, K., & Xu, Q. (2010). The impact of detention and deportation on Latino immigrant children and families: A quantitative exploration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(3), 341-361.

Capps, R., Castañeda, R.M., Chaudry, A., & Santos, R. (2007). Paying the price: The impact of immigration raids on America's children. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute and National Council of La Raza. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46811/411566-Paying-the-Price-The-
Impact-of-Immigration-Raids-on-America-s-Children.PDF

Capps, R., Koball, H., Bachmeier, J.D., Ruiz Soto, A.G., Zong, J., & Gelatt, J. (2016). Deferred action for unauthorized immigrant parents: Analysis of DAPA's potential effects on families and children. Washington DC: The Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deferred-action-unauthorized-immigrant-parents-analysis-dapas-potential-effects-families

Capps, R., Koball, H., Campetella, A., Perreira, K., Hooker, S. & Pedroza, J.M. (2015). Implications of immigration enforcement activities for the well-being of children in immigrant families: A review of the literature. Washington DC: The Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/implications-immigration-enforcement-activities-well-being-children-immigrant-families

Capps, R., Rosenblum, M.R., Chishti, M., & Rodríguez, C. (2011). Delegation and divergence: A study of 287(g) state and local immigration enforcement. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/delegation-and-divergence-287g-state-and-local-immigration-enforcement

Chaudhary, A., Capps, R., Pedrosa, J.M., Castañeda, R.M., Santos, R, & Scott, M. M. (2010). Facing our future: Children in the aftermath of immigration enforcement. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28331/412020-Facing-Our-Future.PDF

Copen, C. (2006). Welfare reform: Challenges for grandparents raising grandchildren. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 18, 193-208. doi:10.1300/J038v18n03_13

Crawford, E.R. (2017). The ethic of community incorporating undocumented immigrant concerns into ethical school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 147-179. Doi: 10.1177/0013161X16687005

Dalgard, O. S., & Thapa, S. B. (2007). Immigration, social integration and mental health in Norway, with focus on gender differences. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health: CP & EMH, 3(24). http://doi.org/10.1186/1745-0179-3-24

Dreby, J. (2012). The burden of deportation on children in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 829-845.

Fuller-Thomson, E., & Minkler, M. (2007). Central American grandparents raising grandchildren. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 5-18. doi:10.1177/0739986306293680

Ginwright, S. (2015). Hope and healing in urban education: How urban activists and teachers are reclaiming matters of the heart. New York: Routledge.

Gulbas, L.E., & Zayas, L.H. (2017). Exploring the effects of U.S. immigration enforcement on the well-being of citizen children in Mexican immigrant families. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3(4), 53-69. Doi: 10.7758/RSF.2017.3.4.04

Hacker, K., Chu, J., Arsenault, L., & Marlin, R.P., (2012). Provider's perspectives on the impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity on immigrant health. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 23, 651-665.

Hagan, J.M., Castro, B., & Rodriguez, N. (2010). The effects of U.S. deportation policies on immigrant families and communities: Cross-border perspectives. North Carolina Law Review, 88, 1799-1824.

Hagan, J.M., Rodriguez, N., & Castro, B. (2011). Social effects of mass deportations by the United States government, 2000-10. Racial and Ethnic Studies, 34, 1374-1391.

Kanstroom, D. (2007). Post deportation human rights law: Aspiration, oxymoron or necessity? Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 3(2), 195-231.

Lichtenstein, M. (2007). An examination of guest worker immigration reform policies in the United States. Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal, 5, 689-727.

Mathema, S. (2017, March 16). Keeping families together: Why all Americans should care about what happens to unauthorized immigrants. University of Southern California's Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration (CSII) and Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/03/16/428335/keeping-families-together/

Martinez, A. D., Ruelas, L., & Granger, D. A. (2017). Household fear of deportation in Mexican-origin families: Relation to body mass index percentiles and salivary uric acid. American Journal of Human Biology, 29: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23044.

Martinez, O., Wu, E., Sandfort, T., Dodge, B., Carballo-Dieguez, A., Pinto, R., ...et al. (2015). Evaluating the impact of immigration policies on health status among undocumented immigrants: A systematic review. Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health, 17(3), 947-970. doi:10.1007/s10903-013-9968-4

National Council of La Raza (2007). A stronger America together: 2007 annual report. Retrieved from http://publications.unidosus.org/bitstream/handle/123456789/614/Annual_Report_2007.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Romero, V. C. (2003). The child citizenship act and the family reunification act: Valuing the citizen child as well as the citizen parent. Florida Law Review, 55, 489-509.

Sládková, J., Mangado, S.M.G., & Quinteros, J.R. (2012). Lowell immigrant communities in the climate of deportations. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 12(1), 78-95.

Stillman, S. (2018, January 15). When deportation is a death sentence. New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/when-deportation-is-a-death-sentence.

Theodore, N. (2013). Insecure communities: Latino perceptions of police involvement in immigration enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.PDF

Torres, J. M., Deardorff, J., Gunier, R. B., Harley, K. G., Alkon, A., Kogut, K., et al. (2018). Worry about deportation and cardiovascular disease risk factors among adult women: The center for the health assessment of mothers and children of Salinas study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. XX: 1-8. Doi: 10.1093/abm/kax007.

TRAC Immigration. (2006). How often is the aggravated felony status used? Retrieved from http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/158/

TRAC Immigration. (2014). ICE deportations: Gender, age, and country of citizenship. Retrieved from http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/350/

Unger, D. (1999). Workplace supports: A view from employees who have hired supported employees. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(3), 167-179.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2016). Credible fear workload report. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Upcoming%20National%20
Engagements/PED_CredibleFearReasonableFearStatisticsNationalityReport.pdf

US Department of Homeland Security (2017). 2017 yearbook of immigration statistics. Washington DC: US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.

US Government Accounting Office (2009). Immigration enforcement: Better controls needed over program authorizing state and local enforcement of federal immigration laws. Washington DC: Government Accounting Office. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-109

Vargas, E.D. (2015). Immigration enforcement and mixed-status families: The effects of risk of deportation on medicaid use. Child and Youth Services Review, 57, 83-39.

Zayas, L.H., & Bradlee, M.H. (2012). Exiling children, creating orphans: When immigration policy hurts citizens. Social Work, 59, 167-175.

Zug, M. (2009). Deporting grandma: Why grandparent deportation may be the next big immigration crisis and how to solve it. U.C. Davis Law Review, 43, 193-252.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Deportation on Families and Communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deportation has numerous detrimental impacts on individuals who are deported, and on the families and communities they are forced to leave behind. This policy statement reviews the empirical literature to describe the effects of deportation on the individual, families, and the broader community, in order to inform policy and practice recommendations.