Immigration and the Social Safety Net
There are numerous organizations, Asian and otherwise, that consider comprehensive immigration reform to be of utmost importance. Very legitimate issues such as family reunification, protections for immigrant labor, and straightforward pathways to legal status drive their advocacy.
On a more macro level, it’s much less clear (in my mind at least) what the goals of immigration reform should be. That is, what does the ideal immigration policy look like? Totally open borders? Quotas based on labor skills? No immigration at all?
The reality of whatever policy or policies we choose is that they have direct effects on the function of our economy and, perhaps a major consideration, our ability to finance basic social services including education, health care, and welfare.
Recent trends in the labor skills of immigrants indicate an increasing concentration in low-skilled manual labor and thus low pay. Moreover, those with low levels of skill tend to utilize a significantly greater share of public assistance than they pay in taxes, creating a net fiscal burden. Particularly in states with high levels of immigration (not even accounting for undocumented workers) such as California, New York, and Illinois, the strain on the budget for social services is not insignificant.
The point is not to suggest that we should have an immigration policy that disqualifies people based on their earning potential–but we also cannot expect to have a functioning social safety net and make it available to anyone around the world that wants it.
Thoughts?
Comments are closed.
I think you are only seeing one side of the immigration debate if you think of immigration as low-skilled manual labor. For those immigrants coming from areas other than the Americas, immigration only happens for those who are highly educated and/or wealthy. The companies/universities that hire/use such immigrant labor are just as active in the immigration debate as those who want family reunification/labor protection/etc. Just as too many immigrants in low wage jobs drive down the wages for those jobs, too many immigrants working in high-tech/high paying jobs also drive down wages. See this article for the effect it is having on many science fields: http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/
I don’t think picking and choosing which jobs are worthy for immigrants and which aren’t will solve people’s fear of immigration. Yeah, that first generation immigrant might be an orange picker, but what if his daughter discovers the cause of Autism. What is that worth to the economy? Personally I favor easy, yet targeted immigration NOT controlled by corporations. How to achieve that? I haven’t got a clue.
The Immigration Policy Center has published a report on immigrants’ use of health services and public benefits.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/publicservices09-2006.pdf
Undocumented immigrants obviously do not qualify for federal public benefits, but even documented immigrants (like lawful permanent residents, U status holders, etc.) face major restrictions in their ability to access benefits, regardless of their history of employment, paying taxes, etc. Moreover, immigrants who are in fact eligible for federal public benefits are less likely than US citizens to use such benefits.
You are right to point out a straining safety net – through which many are falling. I think your argument lacks an important context – as Ami points out, the “immigrant group” you reference is not homogeneous – it is a community as diverse as its needs.
I get that the intention around this posting comes from an economically conservative place, but I think it’s an argument with a very slippery slope. To take it to the extreme, I can see this argument in the “wrong hands” as justification for Arizona’s SB 1070 in which state authorities are allowed to question individuals based on the suspicion that they may be undocumented. Of course, I’m not saying that is the argument you are making. BUT by making a spurious correlation of high usage of safety net services to immigrant groups (thanks for the report, FemBot), you are reinforcing a perception that, in my opinion, can dehumanize immigrant groups and reduce them to solely the services that they may or may not use.
Here’s where we do agree – that whatever policies are chosen will have direct effects on the function of our economy and, our ability to finance basic social services. What if we chose to focus on high quality community schools, preventative health measures, better access to post-secondary education? Instead of focusing on one of many factors that impact the strain on our safety net, why can’t we focus on the return on investment we all receive when immigrants can access culturally competent preventative health care that won’t make them go broke and depend on state systems? A functioning safety net does not “blame the victim” – it anticipates, innovates, and engages voices that are otherwise not heard by those in power.