Lou Dobbs says the “establishment” wants open borders…
Why didn’t Republicans fund a border wall when Paul Ryan and Republicans had the majority in the House?
Average Americans know they’re being lied to and don’t like it. The reality is that ALL Americans no matter what race do not want open borders! Activist groups that are pro-illegal are spewing propaganda for the corporations and Chamber of Commerce that want cheap labor….
What’s it all about? Votes and Cheap Labor!
“I guarantee you if fetuses could vote, Democrats would suddenly and magically think that fetuses are a “preferred group” that should be respected and never aborted.”
ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT HOW ILLEGALS TAKE AWAY JOBS AND WELFARE FROM LEGAL CITIZENS:
Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center for Immigration Studies.
This analysis confirms other recent research showing a dramatic increase in the education level of newly arrived immigrants over the last decade. However, our findings show that this increase has not resulted in a significant improvement in labor force attachment, income, poverty, or welfare use for new arrivals. This is true in both absolute terms and relative to the native-born, whose education has not increased as dramatically. In short, new immigrants are starting out as far behind in 2017 as they did in 2007 despite a dramatic increase in their education. Though more research is needed, we explore several possible explanations for this finding.
All figures are for persons 25 to 65; “new immigrants” have been in the United States five years or less.
- The share of newly arrived immigrants with at least a college degree increased from 34 percent in 2007 to 49 percent in 2017; and the share without a high school diploma fell from 34 percent to 16 percent. The education of natives also increased, but not nearly as much.
- Despite the dramatic increase in new immigrants’ education levels, the share of new immigrants in the labor force (working or looking for work) was 73 percent in 2007 and 67 percent 2017. Native labor force participation also fell, from 78 to 76 percent, but because it did not fall as much, the gap with immigrants actually widened.
- The median income of new arrivals was $18,402 in 2017, slightly lower than in 2007. Native income also fell slightly, so the gap between new immigrants and natives stayed about the same, with natives’ income still about twice that of new immigrants.
- The share of new immigrants in poverty was slightly higher in 2017 than in 2007, and the gap with natives widened slightly. Overall, new immigrants remained twice as likely to live in poverty as natives despite immigrants’ much greater increase in education.
- In 2007, 6 percent of new immigrants were on Medicaid; by 2017 it was 17 percent — an 11 percentage-point increase. The share of natives on Medicaid increased from 7 percent to 13 percent — a six percentage-point increase. New immigrants are now more likely to use the program than natives.
- The share of new immigrants living in households receiving food stamps roughly tripled from 4 percent to 13 percent from 2007 to 2017. Among natives, food stamp use also increased, but not as much, from about 6 percent to 10 percent. New immigrants are now more likely to live in a household on food stamps.
Possible Explanations for Findings
- Most socioeconomic measures were no better in 2017 than in 2007 for both new immigrants and natives across all education levels. This is an indication that both were impacted by the Great Recession. But it does not explain why the dramatic increase in immigrant education relative to natives did not result in a substantial narrowing of the gap between the two the groups.
- The lower share of new immigrants who are in the labor force (working or looking for work) may be an indication that the economy does not absorb new entrants as easily as it did a decade ago. Since the newly arrived are all new entrants to the job market, it may explain why their higher education levels have not translated into a dramatic improvement in measures of success.
- The decline in the socioeconomic success among college-educated new immigrants is a particularly striking finding. This may be an indication that the actual marketable skills of new college-educated immigrants are not as high as they were in the past.
- The share of new arrivals who are women increased from 46 percent in 2007 to 53 percent in 2017, but this does not seem to explain the failure of new immigrants to converge with natives in terms of labor force participation or welfare use. However, it does help to explain the lack of convergence with regard to income. Immigrant men’s income did rise significantly relative to native men, while immigrant women’s income did not increase.
- One cause for the surprising lack of improvement among newly arrived immigrants that should be ruled out is a large increase in illegal immigrants. All the evidence indicates that illegal immigrants have become a smaller share of new arrivals.
- An increase in refugee resettlement is also an unlikely cause for our findings. When we remove the primary refugee-sending countries from the data, it makes almost no difference to the findings. Also, refugees are only 3 percent to 6 percent of all new arrivals.
- The government estimates that the number of long-term temporary visa holders in the country over age 25 was no higher in 2015 than in 2008, so it seems unlikely that the inclusion of temporary visitors in the data accounts for our findings. Moreover, long-term visitors should make some measures of well-being look better, not worse. For example, temporary visitors are barred from welfare. In addition, guestworkers, diplomats, and most exchange visitors over the age of 25 should have high rates of labor force participation and relatively high incomes. Finally, foreign students may have low rates of work or low incomes; however, our focus on new arrivals ages 25 to 65 excludes most students.