writing 122

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale Virtual Reference Library Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Legalization of Unauthorized Immigrants Would Benefit the US Economy Immigration Reform. 2016. COPYRIGHT 2016 Greenhaven Press, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning

Full Text:

Article Commentary

Marshall Fitz, Philip E. Wolgin, and Patrick Oakford, "Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers," Center for American Progress, February 8, 2013. Copyright © 2013 Center for American Progress. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission.

Marshall Fitz is director of immigration policy, Philip E. Wolgin is an immigration policy analyst, and Patrick Oakford is a research assistant at the Center for American Progress.

Despite reports to the contrary, immigrants are a net positive for the economy and pay more into the system than they take out. Legal immigrants will expand the gross domestic product (GDP) and add to the tax base. Such economic contributions will help keep Social Security solvent. Studies that purport to show that immigrants are a drain on the economy contain faulty research methods.

With immigration reform heating up in Congress and the White House putting its muscle behind legislative action, immigration opponents are already campaigning against common-sense reforms. Their current line of attack is an unsubstantiated claim that legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States will be too costly for our nation. Playing to ignorant prejudice, these groups falsely suggest that immigrants are "takers"—people who use more public benefits than other groups—and that as a result, legalization would cost the United States trillions of dollars.

Mainstream economists have thoroughly debunked this general stereotype of immigrants as takers, finding that immigrants are a net positive for the economy and pay more into the system than they take out. In fact, immigrants' contributions have also played a key role in prolonging the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. And the truth is that the cost-benefit analyses that immigration restrictionists have used to make their wild cost projections simply are not well-rounded or accurate.

Immigrants are in fact "makers," not takers. Below, we demonstrate the clear evidence that proves this point and shoots down some of the recycled claims about the cost of immigrants to the United States.

Immigrants Are a Net Positive to the Economy

Here are just a few examples of how immigrants pay more into the U.S. economy than they take out.

Large GDP [gross domestic product] gains and tax revenue from legalization

Research by UCLA [University of California, Los Angeles] Professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda shows that legalizing our nation's undocumented immigrant population and reforming our legal immigration system would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to U.S. GDP over a decade. These big gains occur because legalized workers earn higher wages than undocumented workers, and they use those wages to buy things such as houses, cars, phones, and clothing. As more money flows through the U.S. economy, businesses grow to meet the demand for more goods and services, and more jobs and economic value are created. Hinojosa-Ojeda found that the tax benefits alone from legalization would be between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in the first three years.

Naturalized citizens are more economically beneficial than even legal permanent residents.

Big economic boost from the DREAM [Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors] Act

Research by [University of] Notre Dame economists Juan Carlos Guzmán and Raúl Jara finds that passing the DREAM Act would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy by 2030. The DREAM Act provides a double boost to the economy: First, DREAMers will be

able to work legally (generally at higher wages), and second, because of the requirements to complete high school and some college or military service, they will have more education and training, which translates into better and higher-paying jobs. All of these extra wages circulate through the economy, supporting new job creation for the native born as well.

Naturalized citizens earn even more

A large body of literature illustrates that naturalized citizens are more economically beneficial than even legal permanent residents. In the United States the University of Southern California's Manuel Pastor estimated that naturalized citizens earn between 8 percent and 11 percent higher wages after naturalization. Pastor concludes that if even half of those who are currently eligible—the Department of Homeland Security estimates that there are more than 8.5 million people in this category—became citizens, it would add between $21 billion and $45 billion to the U.S. economy over five years.

Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes

Immigrants—even the undocumented—pay a significant amount of money in taxes each year. A 2011 study by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy found that undocumented immigrants paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010 alone, adding a significant amount of money to help state and local finances. It is important to note that immigrants—even legal immigrants—are barred from most social services, meaning that they pay to support benefits they cannot receive.

Immigrants help keep Social Security solvent

According to the National Foundation for American Policy, immigrants will add a net of $611 billion to the Social Security system over the next 75 years. Immigrants are a key driver of keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, and Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy finds that cutting off immigration to the country would increase the size of the Social Security deficit by 31 percent over 50 years.

Snapshot Accounting Leads to Faulty Conclusions

Even with these positive economic benefits, though, anti-immigrant groups continue to insist that immigrants take more out of the system than they pay into it. Two studies in particular have received attention lately: a 2007 study by the Heritage Foundation, which found that legalization would cost $2.6 trillion; and a 2011 study by the Center for Immigration Studies, which concluded that Hispanic immigrants use more public benefits than other groups.

Both studies rely on a snapshot of immigrants frozen in time to get to their calculations. Heritage focuses only on immigrants as retirees without taking into account the money they pay into the system during their working years. The Center for Immigration Studies focuses on families with children without taking into account the taxes their children will pay over their lifetime. Each approach is predicated on faulty assumptions.

Heritage Foundation study: A misleading snapshot of immigrant life

In an attention-grabbing headline from 2007, the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector argued that legalizing undocumented immigrants would cost taxpayers "at least $2.6 trillion." The message was deceptively simple: At some point in the future, the legalized immigrants will hit age 67 and will retire. Once retired, these immigrants will cost taxpayers a significant amount of money by using programs such as Social Security and Medicare—a figure the author estimated to be roughly $17,000 per year for an average of 18 years. Multiply the ensuing $306,000 by the 8.5 million legalized adults whom Rector expects to reach retirement age, and that's how you get $2.6 trillion.

The missing context: Immigrants pay into the system long before retiring

The problem with such magical thinking is that Rector failed to provide basic context for his conclusions: Most importantly, he only looks at the costs of immigrants once they retire and does not take into account any taxes they would have paid into the system as workers preretirement. All retirees use more in services than they contribute in taxes during retirement years, but the explicit bargain of programs such as Social Security is that you pay into the system over your lifetime and then take from it once you retire.

In addition to the fact that the study only considers a portion of the lifetime contributions—those made during retirement—of immigrants, Rector incorrectly assesses the fiscal cost of immigrants during retirement by, for example, assuming that all undocumented immigrants lack a high school education. Even if such an outlandish claim were true—and according to the Pew Hispanic Center, only 49 percent of undocumented immigrants lack a high school degree—it is almost certain that a portion of the immigrant community would gain more education after legalization, leading to higher wages and thus higher tax contributions to Social Security and Medicare.

Immigrants receive less in Social Security and Medicare benefits than their descendants in the second generation and the native-born population.

Rector also claims that immigrant retirees will impose a net cost of $17,000 per year, but provides no explanation or citation for how he came to this estimate. Without knowing how he came up with that figure, it is impossible to know if that is even the correct annual net fiscal impact of immigrant retirees, let alone if it is offset by payments into the system over the working life of the immigrants.

The bottom line: Immigrants receive less in Social Security than the native born

Finally, the Heritage study fails to acknowledge that research shows that immigrant retirees are less likely to use the benefits than native-citizen retirees. Demographers James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, for example, found that immigrants receive less in Social Security and Medicare benefits than their descendants in the second generation and the native-born population. And an analysis of the 2012 March Current Population Survey data also indicates that immigrants who receive Social Security get less in benefits than native-born recipients. To insinuate that immigrant retirees will be an added burden to the American taxpayer is therefore simply false.

Center for Immigration Studies report: Erroneous comparisons hide the fact that immigrants are no more likely to use social services than the native born

The Center for Immigration Studies released a report in 2011 concluding that "57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children." The report attempted to paint immigrants—and Hispanic immigrants in particular—as a burden on U.S. social services. This could not be further from the truth.

The study reaches these conclusions by manipulating the data analysis. The study relied on, for example, an unconventionally broad definition of welfare, which included programs for children such as free and reduced-price school lunches. No other comparable study on welfare usage includes such programs in their calculations.

Comparing apples to oranges: Report fails to control for income level and household composition

The Center for Immigration Studies also obfuscates its findings by using a faulty unit for comparison. Instead of comparing all household users of welfare benefits, it limits its analysis to families with children. This arbitrary data restriction eliminates the possibility of accurately comparing—at the household level—welfare-participation rates between immigrants and natives. If you are going to compare households, you must compare all households.

But most troublesome is the fact that the Center for Immigration Studies compares immigrant and native-born welfare rates without controlling for differences in income levels. Comparing welfare-participation rates without accounting for differences in income level is akin to comparing the welfare-participation rates of a highly developed country to that of an underdeveloped country—it is clear that an underdeveloped country would have a greater number of welfare users.

If one controls for income level and considers all households, the story of immigrants being a drain on social programs disappears.

The bottom line: No difference in welfare usage among the native and foreign born

Demographers Randy Capps, Michael Fix, and Everett Henderson, for example, compared welfare-participation rates of legal permanent resident immigrants to the native born. When controlling for income, they found that immigrants had similar—if not lower—participation rates than natives in the three main social programs: welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. At the 200 percent poverty line—a common threshold for low-income households—32 percent of native families received food stamps, compared to 22 percent of naturalized-citizen immigrant families.

An analysis of the 2012 March Current Population Survey data that controls for income and includes all households reveals that the results of [Jeffrey] Passel and Fix's [Urban Institute] study still hold true today—immigrants use social programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income at similar rates to native households.

Over the next few weeks [early 2013], the House and Senate will hold hearings on immigration reform, and no doubt anti-immigrant groups will increasingly characterize immigrants as "takers." Americans should not be fooled, though.

The facts are clear: Immigrants are not a drain on the U.S. economy. Immigrants are no more dependent on welfare programs than the native born. Legalization would not cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars. The only thing the United States can't afford is to have the efforts of Congress and the president derailed by anti-immigrant groups that are dedicated to hiding the truth: Immigrants are makers, not takers.

Books

Deborah A. Boehm Intimate Migrations: Gender, Family, and Illegality Among Transnational Mexicans. New York: New York University Press, 2012. Joseph H. Carens The Ethics of Immigration. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Aviva Chomsky Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal. Boston: Beacon Press, 2014. Tanya Golash-Boza Due Process Denied: Detentions and Deportations in the United States. New York: Routledge, 2012. Alfonso Gonzales Reform Without Justice: Latino Migrant Politics and the Homeland Security State. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Samantha Hauptman The Criminalization of Immigration: The Post 9/11 Moral Panic. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2013. Janet Levy Illegal Immigration and Amnesty: Open Borders and National Security. New York: Rosen Publishing, 2010. Taylor M. Lindall, ed. Border Security and the Removal of Illegal Aliens. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2011. Sylvia Longmire Border Insecurity: Why Big Money, Fences, and Drones Aren't Making Us Safer. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2014. Eithne Luibhéid Pregnant on Arrival: Making the Illegal Immigrant. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013. Pilar Marrero Killing the American Dream: How Anti-Immigration Extremists Are Destroying the Nation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Anne McNevin Contesting Citizenship: Irregular Migrants and New Frontiers of the Political. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. Deirdre M. Moloney National Insecurities: Immigrants and US Deportation Policy Since 1882. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012. Mae M. Ngai Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014. Peter Schrag Not Fit for Our Society: Immigration and Nativism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Rogers M. Smith, ed. Citizenship, Borders, and Human Needs. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Richard M. Taylor and Louis O. Walker, eds. Border Security and Illegal Immigration Enforcement. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2012. Daniel M. Turcotte US Immigration: Key Trends, Policies, and Programs. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2013.

Periodicals and Internet Sources

American Immigration Control Foundation "The Case Against Amnesty," Policy Brief, June 2013. www.aicfoundation.com. Doug Bandow "Immigration Benefits the US, So Let's Legalize All Work," Forbes, September 16, 2013. Michael Bargo Jr. "Federal Enforcement, Not Immigration Reform, Is Needed," American Thinker, May 4, 2013. Jagdish Bhagwati and Francisco Rivera-Batiz "A Kinder, Gentler Immigration Policy," Foreign Affairs, vol. 92, no. 6, November/December 2013. www.foreignaffairs.com. Aura Bogado "Five Things to Know About Immigration and Enforcement," Nation, February 20, 2013. Ronald Brownstein "Why the Time Is Finally Right for 'Amnesty,'" National Journal, April 18, 2013. Emily Chertoff "Deport the Interlopers? But They've Been Here All Along," Atlantic, January 30, 2013. Adam Davidson "Do Immigrants Actually Hurt the US Economy?" New York Times, February 12, 2013 Jim DeMint and Robert Rector "Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Will Cost America," Washington Post, May 6, 2013. Jon Feere "Is the 'Kids Act' Amnesty Really Just for Kids? Probably Not," Center for Immigration Studies, February 2014. www.cis.org. Marshall Fitz "Piecemeal Immigration Proposals Miss the Point: A Path to Citizenship Is a Political and Policy Imperative," Center for American Progress, December 11, 2012. www.americanprogress.org. Conor Friedersdorf "The Thorny Issue of Illegal Immigration and the Rule of Law," Atlantic, August 5, 2011. Juan Carlos Guzmán and Raúl C. Jara "The Economic Benefits of Passing the DREAM Act," Center for American Progress, October 2012. www.americanprogress.org. William P. Hoar "Lawmakers Advocate Amnesty for 11 Million Lawbreakers," New American, June 3, 2013. Immigration Policy Center "The Fallacy of 'Enforcement First': Immigration Enforcement Without Immigration Reform Has Been Failing for Decades," American Immigration Council, May 2013. www.immigrationpolicy.org. Fawn Johnson "Immigration Dreams Become Reality, Finally," National Journal, June 15, 2012. Mark Krikorian "Enforcement, then Amnesty, on Immigration," National Review, vol. 66, no. 2, February 10, 2014. Robert Lynch and Patrick Oakford "The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants," Center for American Progress, March 20, 2013. www.americanprogress.org. Warren Mass "Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border," New American, April 8, 2013. Christopher Matthews "The Economics of Immigration: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why," Time, January 30, 2013. Ira Mehlman "Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act," Townhall.com, July 1, 2011. www.townhall.com. David North "'You Can't Deport 11 Million People' Statement Reflects Mistaken Image," Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, March 2013. www.cis.org. Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny "The Economic Consequences of Amnesty for Unauthorized Immigrants," Cato Journal, Winter 2012. Eric Posner "There's No Such Thing as an Illegal Immigrant," Slate, February 4, 2013. www.slate.com. Robert Schlesinger "The Unilateral Presidency," U.S. News & World Report, November 21, 2014. Peter Skerry "Splitting the Difference on Illegal Immigration," National Affairs, Winter 2013. Irwin M. Stelzer "The Perils of Reform," Weekly Standard, vol. 18, no. 23, February 25, 2013. Cesar Vargas "Don't End My American DREAM," Politico, July 23, 2013. www.politico.com. Lorraine Woellert "Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Has Economic Benefits," Bloomberg, March 14, 2013. www.bloomberg.com.

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition) Fitz, Marshall, et al. "Legalization of Unauthorized Immigrants Would Benefit the US Economy." Immigration Reform, edited by Noël

Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2016. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010962209/OVIC?u=mthoodcc&sid=OVIC&xid=55e1a980. Accessed 27 Mar. 2018. Originally published as "Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers,", 8 Feb. 2013.

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010962209