While only 6 percent of working-age native-born Americans do not have a high school diploma, the share of working-age immigrants without a high school diploma is over 25 percent. And though immigrants represent 16 percent of the U.S. workforce, they represent 44 percent of workers without a high school diploma.
Salam clearly sees it as a mistake that the U.S. encourages more low-skill immigration than high-skill immigration. However, this is not as obviously correct as it appears. One interesting question is how much the U.S. raises the productivity of low-skilled workers when they cross the border. If the answer is “a lot,” then the case for restricting low-skilled immigration is not particularly strong.
From the conservative point of view, the dire scenario is one in which low-skilled immigrants and their families ultimately consume more in government services than they produce. The libertarian answer would be “more immigration, less social welfare spending,” neither of which seem like popular policy positions at the moment.
And getting less popular…
The (counterfactual) change in productivity of the children, and future generations, would seem to matter too. If the descendants of highly productive, low-skilled, immigrants simply add to the ranks of the American low-skilled, less-productive, then it would seem that we would have a bit of a Ponzi scheme.
An obvious offer for a ‘deal’ from conservatives to both liberals and libertarians would be ‘reduce welfare first’ and ‘enforce immigration law first’ (in some way they can rely upon and trust not to be fraudulent or temporary) and ‘then increase legal immigration’.
But the liberals have shown they have zero intention of taking or making such an offer. That tends to indicate they are more excited about the prospect of immigration shifting the electoral situation in their favor in the long term, and thus any other consideration is very much subordinate to that priority. They can be reasonable about costs and benefits and selectivity later, after they’ve achieved their great strategic victory.
More immigration, more (and more innovative) adult schooling programs.
The world’s filled with low-income adults who would benefit from learning an extra language or extra job skills or a college level immersion in general culture. But there’s not much education that’s really aimed at adults. Which is kind of a shame. Maybe there ought to be more community colleges, more Devry Technical Institutes, more ICS schools.
What percentage are net tax payers? 10%? 20%? If so, then it’s hard to see how any low-wage immigration is economically justified. Let’s have the employers cover all of the costs and see how many low-skill immigrants are hired. There’s really no “ultimately” about it. As for the arguments from the immigrants welfare, I’d like to see just one person try to convince a skeptic to care about the immigrant’s welfare. Please, no appeals to a Christified Ayn Rand.
What percentage of anyone is a net taxpayer? 10%? 20%?
Argument from a government “net fiscal deficit” with immigrants is utterly facile, as the whole point of most of government is to redistribute from the haves to the have nots. At least immigrants aren’t receiving Social Security, Medicare, or welfare. Indeed, if they are paid on the books and get their payroll taxes deducted, I’d expect you’d find they are on average more likely to be net taxpayers than citizens.
As Brian Caplan points out, when you bring in a working age immigrant, it’s the *other* country that gets stiffed by paying for the social cost of years of child-rearing and schooling, and receiving none of the benefits of a lifetime of productive labor. Being a “net taxpayer” does not matter. If a person comes over and provides $12,000 in productivity and receives $11,000 dollars in benefits (which is outrageously far fetched) our society is still better off, moreso given that we invested absolutely nothing to get that person
I neglected consumption so my extreme example isn’t very good – it should be that net lifetime productivity should be compared against private consumption and public benefits, and given the real expense of raiding children, a working immigrant immediately becomes a net contributor to raising native born children, even if they get a few tax credits
If the answer is “a lot,” then the case …
A big number times a small number is (in this case) still a small number.
What percentage of anyone is a net taxpayer?
Few. And fewer still do anything productive in a world where most things are done by machine.
Our society is mostly defined by leisure and arts. What is so great about importing a new taste in leisure and arts? Another net dollar in GDP is a paltry compensation for putting up with more recreational drug dealing, dog fighting, genital mutilation, civic mistrust, etc etc. The libertarian creed here seems to be, “to gain some more GDP, we had to burn the village.”
That “dire scenario” is the current facts on the ground. Low-skilled immigrants to the USA already consume more in taxes (net of spending on their dependents) than they pay. I simply quit commenting on Bryan Caplan’s Econlog immigration posts in part because of his relentless anti-empiricism. Various folks, including my humble self, posted comments with links to very high quality sources showing that low-wage immigrants cost more now than they’re worth (yes, counting their wages and their productivity). Caplan and his cheering section ignored them (well, some of the cheering section beclowned themselves calling statistical facts “racist”). Among other things, it is clear from gov’t statistics that low-wage immigrants (like low-wage natives!) don’t even come close to paying for their own health care.
The “libertarian answer” of “more immigration, less social welfare spending” might be okay, but only if implemented in the proper order: first cut social spending, second open the gates. However, glibertarians seem determined to do things backwards no matter how great the assault on the taxpayer. I think it’s clear why: the glibertarians think they might obtain increased immigration, but they don’t think they can win less social spending. I can’t prove it, but I suspect the glibertarians secretly chortle at the prospect of mass immigration driving social spending through the roof. “That’ll teach them! Those namby-pamby social-spending voters will learn their lesson good and hard! Then we libertarians will swoop in to save the day with massive social-program cuts! Finally we will be seen as saviors rather than as callous skinflints!”