Immigration's effects on American worker outcomes

¶ … Immigration hurt American Workers

The era of globalization can be seen as one of the most remarkable periods in the history of human kind. There is an endless and unlimited access to markets around the world, to resources, and to an endless variety of workforce. It is often considered to be a real revolution with similar impact as the industrial revolution or the bourgeoisie revolution. The information era we live in has made available to the production forces around the world the entire array of labor in the world, without any regard for national barriers or cultural differences.

The United States, as one of the most important countries in the world has attracted tens of millions of immigrants in search for a better life and a place to fulfill their American dream. However, at this moment in history, it is considered by some that immigrants are redefining the balance on the work market; more precisely, they are both negatively and positively influencing the number of American workers and in the end the employment rate. Those who support the idea of the immigrant labor force as an efficient means for achieving a higher rate of profit consider that this eventual disequilibrium would eventually rearrange itself whereas the opponents of the immigration flow view it as a real threat to the social security of the American workers. Nonetheless, the two distinctive sides of the issue try to point out the benefits and shortcomings of immigration from various points-of-view.

The positive aspects of the immigration flow are presented by the pro-side of the debate.

One of the main important aspects of the immigration is the benefic economic impact. In this sense, it is wide known fact the idea that America is the result of the flow of immigrants that started to come to the United States since the 17th century (Briggs, 2001). Therefore, it is argued that first and foremost the immigrants represented an essential contribution to the idea of the national identify of the American territory and culture. On the other hand however, in an attempt to preview the negative aspects of immigration, Briggs acknowledges the importance of the immigration issue considering that "few issues have caused the American labor movement more agony than immigration. During periods of mass immigration, unions have struggled to find an appropriate response" (2001, 1). The author discusses the entire issue from its very beginnings in the 1790s. In that context, he points out there were various types of settlers which could have been accounted for immigrants. On the one hand, there were the Europeans, especially the British who, despite their foreign origin, were not viewed as immigrants. On the other hand, there were the African-Americans who came during the slave trade development. At this point, the author mentions that the society was forced to accommodate the increased labor force in the conditions in which the trade was not that developed and there were fewer natural resources than labor force. In this sense, the society had to evolve.

Therefore, the American Revolution followed by the Civil War and the Reconstruction period represented important moments in the history of immigration. The American Revolution gave new perspectives to the American population in terms of national identity and independence from the empire, an element which offered it the possibility to exercise a larger autonomy in international trade which reverberated in the internal labor market. From that point on, the labor force provided by the immigrant flow became essential for the development of the country (Briggs, 2001). The growing economy as well as the independent nature of trade made the U.S. To be forced to import labor force in order to manage to set in place the development plans of the country.

One of the first arguments against the issue of the immigration in relation to the workforce in early America was that it negatively impacted the equilibrium on the labor market. Thus, "immigration was perceived by most workers' organization as a menace to the development of American unionism. Unions have tender to focus on economic issues that impinge on the well being of workers. Hence, they have usually viewed immigrants as a short-run threat to their effort even though most immigrants, over the long run, enlarge the ranks of working people. Hence, immigration has always represented a dilemma for organized labor" (Briggs, 2001). Thus, at that time, similar to our situation today, there were mixed feeling concerning the issue of immigration, taking into account that short-term effects could not be compared to long-term ones.

Another important argument that tries to point out the fact that immigrant workers do affect the flux and the working system in America is one that points out its negative effects on the young generation of American workers. In this sense, "Over the 2000-2005 period, immigration levels remained very high and roughly half of new immigrant workers were illegal. This report finds that the arrival of new immigrants (legal and illegal) in a state results in a decline in employment among young native-born workers in that state. Our findings indicate that young native-born workers are being displaced in the labor market by the arrival of new immigrants" concluded the Center for Immigration Studies (2006). More precisely, in the period analyzed it was noticed that 86% of the newly arrived immigrant workers found employment in the detriment of the young American worker. From this point-of-view, the study shows that there is a certain preference for immigrant employees rather than native ones precisely due to the fact that foreigners are less reluctant to accept low paid jobs and precarious working conditions, concluding that "During the last five years, new immigrants have accounted for an overwhelming share of the growth in the number of employed persons in the United States. Native-born adults and established immigrants have been unable to capture much of the new employment opportunities that have been created in the nation since 2000." (2006).

Aside from the negative effect immigrant workers have on the opportunities of employment for the American workers, they are also considered to be responsible for the influencing of the wages of U.S. workers. In this sense, "recent influential empirical work has emphasized the negative impact immigrants have on the wages of U.S.-born workers, arguing that immigration harms less educated American workers in particular and all U.S.-born workers in general" (Rousmaniere, 2007). In this affirmation there are in fact two distinctive matters to be taken into consideration. On the one hand, there is the issue of the wages of the immigrants. Indeed, they are more willing to reduce their pay in order to have a stable work place. In response, the American employer is more willing to hire the immigrant at the expense of the American worker because he has better chances of raising a profit.

The second issue of the affirmation is the idea related to the less educated American worker. In this sense, it is clear that there are situations in which immigrant workers, depending on the country from which they come, can be better prepared than American workers. From this point-of-view, the immigrant, through his presence tends to raise the level of efficiency and of professional preparedness. This could be a negative aspect for the American worker in the conditions in which he is limited to doing only a certain type of business, and lacking any additional specialization.

Recently, there are more and more arguments that consider the issue of low skilled and low paid workers in America, pointing out that there is a large number of workers with limited skills and education. In this sense, "Alan Greenspan said America has an oversupply of low-skilled, low-educated workers. In fact the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the rolls of millions of unemployed Americans include a disproportionate number of workers who do not have a high school diploma. Official unemployment rates for Americans without a diploma are nearly twice as high as for other Americans" (Beck, 2004). Therefore, from the perspective presented in this situation, it can be said that the importation of low skilled workers can prove to have a negative effect on the situation of the American unemployed.

In relation to this issue however, an additional factor that may play a role in the worsening of the situation on the labor market is not necessarily related to the workers themselves but rather to the quality of the work an industry based on cheap labor and low skilled employees manages to offer. In this sense, it is rather hard to argue the fact that in all cases, the level of skills of immigrants is high enough to support certain requests of the American and international market. However, their engagement in the production process would have an impact on the quality of the work. Therefore, it may be that not necessarily one particular worker would have to suffer, but rather the quality of the work required and thus, the prestige of the U.S. work.

The flow of immigrants and the lack of a proper policy in this area also affect the black labor market (Camarota, 2007). This is a deducted consequence of the inability of the market to absorb all the immigrants coming every year in the country. More precisely, "the number of immigrants -- legal and illegal -- living in the U.S., is growing at an unprecedented rate. U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year. In 2006, the immigrant, or foreign-born population, reached about 38 million in the United States" (Camarota, 2007). The ones who manage to find jobs and employment in the United States tend to impact the legal labor market. The ones that do not find proper employment places influence by increasing the number of people working on the black market. These are mostly illegal immigrants and recent analyses have shown that out of the 38 million people that was of foreign origin in 2006 in America, 12 million of them were illegal immigrants. It is clear in this sense that in the conditions in which they do not poses any kind of identification and visa, they are not allowed to work in the United States and they choose the black market to find means for subsistence.

One other major issue concerning the matter of immigration and the degree in which immigrant workers affect the United States and its employment system is the pressures the former make on the welfare system. It is a rather well-known fact the idea that the welfare policy in the United States, as all over the world, represents an essential political and social element. This is due to the fact that it must take into account the political directions of the forces in power at a certain given time and at the same time it must cater for the needs of the population. Therefore, in the case of the United States, the social policy must take into account, aside from the political aspect, the issue of the population which in its case is more complex than in other regions of the world. The presence of an increased number of immigrants represents indeed a struggle for the social security system as it was considered that they are depending on the welfare system. In this sense, "given the low educational levels of most recent immigrants, we would expect them to be a greater drain on public coffers than the immigrants who came before them. (...) in 1997 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that immigrant households consumed $20 billion more in public services than they paid in taxes each year. Adjusted for inflation, with the current size of the immigrant population today, this figure would be over $40 billion. Immigrants from Latin America place an especially heavy burden on American taxpayers. For example, 57% of household headed by Dominican immigrants in 2004 used at least one major welfare program; 43% of Mexicans took advantage of at least one welfare program; and about a third of the households headed by immigrants from Central America, Cuba and Columbia use the welfare system. In contrast only 18% of native households receive welfare assistance" (Camarota, 2007). Therefore, from this perspective, it can be clearly said that there is a certain pressure in regard to the matter of social welfare and the particular programs that try to help immigrant to integrate in the society.

Finally, studies have been conducted in relation to the eventual harm the continuous flow of immigrants can have on either older immigrants or the minorities. It was concluded that, indeed, there is a certain pressure put on recent immigrants and the African-Americans, the Hispanic, or even the Chinese. In this sense, "virtually all studies of this phenomenon have concluded that the greatest harm is to those American workers who already are the most vulnerable (...) native-born minorities, especially Hispanics and Blacks, and by recent immigrants" (Camarota, 2007). In order to constitute a better image of the situation, the conclusions were placed in figures. Therefore, "the increasing supply of labor, immigration between 1980 and 2000 cost native-born American men an average $1,700 in annual wages by the year 2000. However, the effects of immigration on wages were most profoundly felt by native-born black and Hispanic-Americans who suffered 4.5-5% wage reductions as compared with the 3.5% wage loss felt by native-born white Americans" (Jencks, n.d.).

On the other side of the discussion, those who argue in favor of the immigration of workers inside the U.S. consider part of these arguments and at the same time try to bring new ones that would make their case stronger.

In the first instance, it must be pointed out the fact that indeed, the American nation can be considered to be a nation of immigrants because the number of Europeans that first set foot on the American soli could not have supported the development desires of the 19th century as well as the eventual pressures of the political scene of the century. Therefore, the presence of immigrants in the early decades of the formation of the nation was important and proved to be a benefic element in the overall construction of the United States (Jenkins, 1997). Briggs stresses this point out by arguing the importance of the immigrant population. Thus, "throughout its first 133 years as an independent nation (1788-1921), there were no limits on the number of immigrants who could enter the United States each year. It was the period when the combination of a political and military revolution (from Britain); land purchases (from France, Spain, Mexico, and Russia); boundary negotiations (with Britain); war (with Mexico and Spain); unilateral annexation (of the Hawaiian Islands); and land treaties accompanied by the physical relocation of the native "Indian" population established all of the land boundaries that presently constitute the United States" (Briggs, 1992, 31). Therefore, this comes to show that in the beginning, indeed, the immigrant population represented the founding structure of the labor force.

In trying to debate the issue of immigration, those arguing its negative aspects in regard to the employment rate of the native born workers are responded to with various studies that point out the fact that the decrease in the employment of native born workers would not be the consequence of the employment of immigrant workers. More precisely, "U.S.-born workers did well in some states where the foreign-born population rose rapidly, as well as in other states where growth was below average. They did poorly in places that drew immigrants at a fast rate, but they also did poorly in places that drew few immigrants. Nothing has emerged to conclude that increased immigration helped or hurt the employment prospects for native workers" (the Guardian, 2007). The obvious thing to underline however is the fact that indeed, there is no clear evidence to suggest that the immigrant presence decreased the possibilities of native born workers to find employment. At the same time however, it must also be pointed out that the tone of the arguments is not one sided, in the sense that there is room for interpretation, whereas throughout the arguments of the opposing side, the tone is much more aggressive and the evidence is based strictly on facts and figures which although they cannot be denied, they can be interpreted.

The supporters of a loose immigration policy often argued in support of it that one of the benefits of the import of workers is the accumulation of labor force for posts which do not require high level skills. In this sense, while the opponents of immigration argue that immigrants affect the position of less skilled and less educated workers, the supporters argue the contrary that in fact "foreign workers often take jobs that Americans don't want and won't take" (Associated Press, 2006). Therefore, it can be said that there is not so much the issue of the competition between the immigrants and the native workers. It is more the reluctance of the native workers to take on jobs that in the end are essential to the lives of the Americans. In this sense, one cannot talk about one immigrant worker being better than the native one in the conditions in which the native rarely cares for a job accepted by the immigrant precisely because of the low pay and the somewhat degrading endeavor. Regardless of their actual reasons, it can be concluded that in fact, there is no discussion of a competition, rather than a lack of interest for jobs immigrants are willing to do.

Another argument invoked by the opponents of a loose immigration policy is the idea that immigrants tend to affect the well being of most young workers. However, this category includes precisely the low qualified and not those who had followed their studies and attained a high quality university degree or other high level education diploma. The phenomenon related to the idea that immigrants take away the jobs of the young American workers can be considered somewhat farfetched, taking into account the fact that many of the young unqualified workers do not even have a high school degree (Beck, 2004). Therefore, should the state or the business men agree to hire American workers for the simple fact that they should not support immigration, this would clearly represent a reduction in the quality of the merchandize and of the products made.