This the final part of 4 articles about Immigration in the US. We originally posted this article as a single posting in January. http://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/lies-about-immigration-told-by-trumps-true-believers
Trump and his true believers have raised fears about the health risk immigrants may pose. Some anti-immigration fear mongers claimed that the admission of undocumented immigrants and refugees poses the risk of transmitting smallpox, leprosy, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and Ebola to nonimmigrants. For a number of reasons, these claims are untrue or grossly misleading. Smallpox, for example, has been eradicated from the planet since 1980. The incidence of leprosy, which has not been completely eradicated, but is not very contagious and is treatable, has remained stable in the U.S. at about 100-300 cases per year. This is comparable to the number in Mexico (500) and higher than the number diagnosed in El Salvador (6), Honduras (9), and Nicaragua (21).
While tuberculosis can be transmitted between immigrants who are living or traveling in close contact with each other, this disease is rarely spread by casual contact. The number of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. was about 9500 hundred in 2013 and is declining over time. HIV/AIDS is spread through sexual activity or needle sharing and poses little risk of transmission to U.S. citizens higher than that of transmission between U.S. citizens. The risk posed by Ebola has not been concentrated among immigrants. The only U.S. residents who have contracted Ebola in the continental U.S. were two nurses in 2014.
Other communicable diseases, such as mumps, measles, and whooping cough are vaccine-preventable and present no threat of an epidemic to the U.S. People living in some Latin American countries have vaccination rates comparable or better than people living in the U.S.
None of these concerns about communicable diseases apply to refugees because they are screened before entry to the U.S. Similarly, documented immigrants to the U.S. are also screened for communicable diseases like active tuberculosis. Most diseases imported to the U.S. are by either U.S. citizens returning from trips abroad or from foreign tourists or temporary workers.
Assimilation
Besides people who are opposed to immigration, some people who support it also expressed concerns about the number of immigrants admitted to the country. They believe that if immigrants are too great a percentage of the total population they cannot be assimilated. The number of immigrants as a percentage of the population reached a high point of nearly 15 percent in 1890 before declining to about 5 percent in 1970. Since then the percentage has been increasing and is currently about 14 percent. An essential difference between the immigration stream of 1890 and that in 2016 is its composition. Before 1890 most of the immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe, but by 1910 70 percent of immigrants came from Eastern and Southern Europe. Currently, immigrants from Mexico (28 percent), South or East Asia (26 percent), the Caribbean (10 percent), and Central and South America (17 percent) comprise the immigrant population. Thus, while the immigrant share of the native population has been as large as it is now, it has never been as non-white.
Although the immigrant share of the population has been higher than it is now, immigrants were assimilated. The people who say they are concerned about immigrants’ assimilation to seem to be more concerned about the negative feelings native citizens feel in the presence of immigrants. zzz
Merit-based Immigration
Trump and his true believers want to limit immigrants to this country to what they call high skill workers.
Trump and his true believers expect the merit approach to restricting immigration to workers who will help the economy grow. In addition, Trump and his true believers also seem to assume that merit immigration would reduce the number of immigrants from countries they deem less desirable. Based on the outcomes Canada has experienced from merit-based immigration system, it is unlikely to fulfill Trump’s expectations.
The Canadian merit-based immigration systems select candidates on the basis of their skills, education, adaptability, and family ties or networks. While these qualities permit immigrants to fill labor market needs, they are also highly subjective. Between 2006 and 2015 less than 50 percent of the candidates for immigration were selected for only their economic prospects. The remainder of the immigrants were spouses, partners, children, parents, grandparents, and refugees.
Besides ensuring that high skill immigrants were selected, the Canadian system has not produced the desired economic effects. Immigrant wages and employment, for example, tend to be lower than one would expect based on skill level. Part of the reason for the economic underperformance of the system seems to be the failure to adequately take into account different payoffs for educational attainments in various industries. A bachelor’s degree may not yield the same benefits in physics as in business. Moreover, immigrants’ foreign qualifications may not be recognized by Canadian employers. One immigrant engineer reported that he had designed trains for Siemens in India, but had to obtain another degree in engineering from a Canadian school for an entry-level job at Siemens Canada.
The Canadian merit-based system has not advantaged the number of immigrants from the U.S. and Europe. Between 2011 and 2016 there were more than twice as many immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean than from the U.S. and more immigrants from Africa than from Europe and the U.S. combined. Immigrants from these regions of the world are typically highly skilled, even though they may not be able to obtain jobs that are commensurate with their education. Thus, an unanticipated consequence of a merit-based system is that provides workers who compete with lower skilled native workers.
Conclusion
Wave after wave of immigration in America has followed the same unwitting pattern. Immigrants are first encouraged to come to America. Then as their labor becomes superfluous or too costly, their presence raises national security concerns, or their culture becomes an affront to nativists, resentment, and fear of immigrants grow. In response, policies to restrict immigration are enacted until the pattern oscillates.
Limiting immigration to high skill workers is, in part, to pay deference to the value in entrepreneurship and innovation that immigration has brought to this country. This approach to immigration also addresses the mythical problems that are raised as reasons for wanting to limit immigration. Somehow these high skilled workers are expected to avoid the hostility that afflicts low skill workers. Favoring high skilled immigrants, like the merit approach used by Canada, can also create problems that lead to resentment. Welcoming diversity seems to be the only approach that consistently works.
While tuberculosis can be transmitted between immigrants who are living or traveling in close contact with each other, this disease is rarely spread by casual contact. The number of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. was about 9500 hundred in 2013 and is declining over time. HIV/AIDS is spread through sexual activity or needle sharing and poses little risk of transmission to U.S. citizens higher than that of transmission between U.S. citizens. The risk posed by Ebola has not been concentrated among immigrants. The only U.S. residents who have contracted Ebola in the continental U.S. were two nurses in 2014.
Other communicable diseases, such as mumps, measles, and whooping cough are vaccine-preventable and present no threat of an epidemic to the U.S. People living in some Latin American countries have vaccination rates comparable or better than people living in the U.S.
None of these concerns about communicable diseases apply to refugees because they are screened before entry to the U.S. Similarly, documented immigrants to the U.S. are also screened for communicable diseases like active tuberculosis. Most diseases imported to the U.S. are by either U.S. citizens returning from trips abroad or from foreign tourists or temporary workers.
Assimilation
Besides people who are opposed to immigration, some people who support it also expressed concerns about the number of immigrants admitted to the country. They believe that if immigrants are too great a percentage of the total population they cannot be assimilated. The number of immigrants as a percentage of the population reached a high point of nearly 15 percent in 1890 before declining to about 5 percent in 1970. Since then the percentage has been increasing and is currently about 14 percent. An essential difference between the immigration stream of 1890 and that in 2016 is its composition. Before 1890 most of the immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe, but by 1910 70 percent of immigrants came from Eastern and Southern Europe. Currently, immigrants from Mexico (28 percent), South or East Asia (26 percent), the Caribbean (10 percent), and Central and South America (17 percent) comprise the immigrant population. Thus, while the immigrant share of the native population has been as large as it is now, it has never been as non-white.
Although the immigrant share of the population has been higher than it is now, immigrants were assimilated. The people who say they are concerned about immigrants’ assimilation to seem to be more concerned about the negative feelings native citizens feel in the presence of immigrants. zzz
Merit-based Immigration
Trump and his true believers want to limit immigrants to this country to what they call high skill workers.
Trump and his true believers expect the merit approach to restricting immigration to workers who will help the economy grow. In addition, Trump and his true believers also seem to assume that merit immigration would reduce the number of immigrants from countries they deem less desirable. Based on the outcomes Canada has experienced from merit-based immigration system, it is unlikely to fulfill Trump’s expectations.
The Canadian merit-based immigration systems select candidates on the basis of their skills, education, adaptability, and family ties or networks. While these qualities permit immigrants to fill labor market needs, they are also highly subjective. Between 2006 and 2015 less than 50 percent of the candidates for immigration were selected for only their economic prospects. The remainder of the immigrants were spouses, partners, children, parents, grandparents, and refugees.
Besides ensuring that high skill immigrants were selected, the Canadian system has not produced the desired economic effects. Immigrant wages and employment, for example, tend to be lower than one would expect based on skill level. Part of the reason for the economic underperformance of the system seems to be the failure to adequately take into account different payoffs for educational attainments in various industries. A bachelor’s degree may not yield the same benefits in physics as in business. Moreover, immigrants’ foreign qualifications may not be recognized by Canadian employers. One immigrant engineer reported that he had designed trains for Siemens in India, but had to obtain another degree in engineering from a Canadian school for an entry-level job at Siemens Canada.
The Canadian merit-based system has not advantaged the number of immigrants from the U.S. and Europe. Between 2011 and 2016 there were more than twice as many immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean than from the U.S. and more immigrants from Africa than from Europe and the U.S. combined. Immigrants from these regions of the world are typically highly skilled, even though they may not be able to obtain jobs that are commensurate with their education. Thus, an unanticipated consequence of a merit-based system is that provides workers who compete with lower skilled native workers.
Conclusion
Wave after wave of immigration in America has followed the same unwitting pattern. Immigrants are first encouraged to come to America. Then as their labor becomes superfluous or too costly, their presence raises national security concerns, or their culture becomes an affront to nativists, resentment, and fear of immigrants grow. In response, policies to restrict immigration are enacted until the pattern oscillates.
Limiting immigration to high skill workers is, in part, to pay deference to the value in entrepreneurship and innovation that immigration has brought to this country. This approach to immigration also addresses the mythical problems that are raised as reasons for wanting to limit immigration. Somehow these high skilled workers are expected to avoid the hostility that afflicts low skill workers. Favoring high skilled immigrants, like the merit approach used by Canada, can also create problems that lead to resentment. Welcoming diversity seems to be the only approach that consistently works.
|
|
|