Mediaboss Marketing

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, there was a strong case to cut immigration, which had run at turbo-charged levels for 15 years:

First, Australian real wage growth had remained stillborn for nearly 10 years:

Australias labour underutilisation rate had been stuck at stubbornly high levels:

Whereas average monthly hours worked had collapsed to record lows:

All three indicators pointed to an Australian labour market that has been chronically oversupplied, driven by the tidal wave of migrants, both temporary and permanent.

When combined with the negative impacts on housing affordability, congestion and overall amenity in our major cities, it is clear that Australias mass immigration experiment has unambiguously reduced living standards for the typical Australian household.

The situation is obviously far more fragile now with the economy devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Real unemployment has risen to levels not seen since the 1930s Great Depression and Australian households are facing heavy income losses once emergency income support is wound back.

Thus, the absolute last thing Australian workers need is to be competing for scarce jobs with hundreds of thousands of migrant workers arriving every year.

Yesterday, Labors opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, flagged a new immigration platform aimed at protecting Australian workers:

The draft platform says Labor would favour permanent migration over temporary migration.

Labor will restore public confidence in Australias temporary migration program and ensure that temporary migration does not adversely affect the employment and training opportunities for Australians, particularly young people who suffer from higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, the draft platform says.

Labors priority is to ensure that job opportunities are offered to local workers first and that temporary migration will never be used as a means to undercut local wages, conditions and training opportunities.

The document also says Labor would encourage skilled migrants to move to regional and rural areas where there are skills shortages

Labor aspires to progressively increase Australias government-funded humanitarian intake to 27,000 places per year, the document states. Labor aspires to progressively increase the community-sponsored refugee program intake to 5000 places per year

The document says Labors humanitarian program would accommodate LGBTIQ people who fear persecution.

This is a great start by Labor. But it needs to go much further to restore integrity to the immigration program and maximise living standards.

Below are suggestions on how to practically reduce Australias immigration intake, both temporary and permanent, to sustainable levels.

The number of temporary visas outstanding reached absurd levels at the end of 2019, at nearly 2.5 million people:

The first step to lowering the number of temporary migrants should be to significantly lift the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) from $53,900, which is well below the median Australian wage of $1,100 per week ($57,200 p.a.), according to the ABS:

This TSMIT wage floor has now fallen $3,300 (6%) below the median income of all Australians ($57,200), which includes unskilled workers. Thus, the TSMIT has incentivised employers to hire cheap migrants instead of local workers, as well as abrogated the need to provide training.

The wage floor for all skilled migrants (both permanent and temporary) should be set at least at the 75th percentile of earnings (preferably higher).

This would ensure that the temporary migration scheme is used sparingly by businesses to employ only high skilled migrants, not as a general labour market tool for undercutting local workers and eliminating the need for training.

Second, the federal government should lift English-language and financial requirements for international students, alongside limiting work opportunities.

Raising entry standards would ensure a smaller number of high quality international students, while also ensuring they are financially independent and not reliant on work for income.

In turn, this would lift export revenue per student and reduce competition in the workplace. It would also ensure that students come to Australia to study, not for ulterior motives, such as to work and/or to gain permanent residency.

These measures alone would dramatically reduce temporary migration into Australia.

The permanent migrant program is dominated by the skilled stream, which has set aside 108,000 places for so-called skilled workers:

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, this skilled stream was highly dubious.There was no evidence that Australia was experiencing skills shortages that warranted such a strong intake.

We also know that Australias skilled migrant program has been widely rorted, attracting migrants to areas already heavily oversupplied with workers (e.g. accounting, engineering and IT), with most of these migrants employed at levels well below their claimed skills set.

Skilled migrants generally also have significantly higher unemployment and underemployment than the Australian born population, and are paid less. This is evidenced by the Department of Home Affairs Continuous Survey of Migrants. This surveyshows that migrants have significantly worse labour market outcomes than the general population:

In particular:

Even if we focus on the skilled stream only, both median earnings and unemployment is far worse than the general population:

These are shocking results. Skilled migrants should be paid well above the general population, which comprises both skilled and unskilled workers, as well as have very low unemployment.

Thus, like the temporary skilled visa system, the permanent program has unambiguously undercut workers and contributed to Australias poor wage growth, in addition to crush-loading the major cities and making housing less affordable.

With Australians now facing mass unemployment, and skills shortages virtually non existent across the economy, there is zero rationale for maintaining such a strong permanent migrant program.

Instead, the skilled program should be phased back to historical levels of around 35,000, and be reserved only for truly world-class leaders in their field that Australia cannot foster internally.

Moreover, these highly skilled migrants should have an income pay floor set at least at the 75th percentile of earnings (preferably higher), as for temporary skilled migrants.

No longer should Australian employers be allowed to simply grab a migrant to fill ordinary positions in the labour market cheaply. Instead, they would have to lift wages to attract workers (thus countering anaemic wages growth), as well as commit to training local workers.

Lets also not forget that many migrants come to Australia on temporary visas with the hope of transitioning to a skilled permanent visa.

Therefore, if Australia was to remove the carrot of permanent residency by slashing the skilled intake, it would also reduce the flow of temporary migrants, since the two areas are intrinsically linked.

Cutting immigration in this way is an easy sell for Labor. All it needs to argue is:

Most Australians know these to be true and would resonate with these common-sense arguments.

Labor should also state that it is merely seeking to lower immigration back toward the historical (pre-2004) average, and that the new lower intake would still be at the higher end of developed nations.

Moreover, progressively lifting the humanitarian intake by around 10,000 is smart, provided it is accompanied by large reductions in other categories of immigration, since it automatically counters faux arguments of racism and xenophobia that are likely to emerge from the fake left.

If Labor wants any chance of winning the next election, it must return to its working class roots and represent the interests of regular Australians over inner-city progressives. Otherwise it will remain in the political wilderness.

Leith van Onselen is Chief Economist at the MB Fund and MB Super. Leith has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and Goldman Sachs.

More here:
Labor takes baby steps toward immigration reform - MacroBusiness

Whoever is president the day after inauguration 2021 is going to face serious immigration issues, and he may not be able to get the funds needed to deal with them.

How large is the undocumented alien population, really?

The president should establish a more reliable method for estimating the size of the undocumented alien population.

Pew Research Center's(PEW) estimates of the undocumented alien population are highly respected even the Congressional Research Servicerelies on them. PEW uses aprocess known as the residual method, an approach also used by theMigration Policy Institute(MPI), and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The problem is it doesnt produce reliable results.

The residual method uses data from the Census Bureaus annualAmerican Community Surveys(ACS) to estimate the number of foreign born people in the United States. It subtracts an estimate of the number of lawful immigrants in the United States from the foreign-born population estimate, and the remainder is the estimate of the undocumented alien population.

The ACS surveys are taken from 1 percent of the population, which isnt a statistically significant percentage. Moreover, it asks about a persons race, place of birth, whether he is a citizen of the United States, and other questions that undocumented aliens might not be willing to answer truthfully.

A more reliable method for estimating the size of the undocumented alien population is needed for enforcement purposes and to estimate how many undocumented aliens would participate in a legalization program.

There is also a challenge in trying to track the performance of border security measures, specifically how many aliens successfully cross the border illegally each year. Section 1092 of theFiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act requires the DHS Secretary to make an annual Border Security Metrics Report to Congress on the effectiveness of methods being used to secure the border between ports of entry.

The report must include estimates of the number of undetected unlawful entries; Undetected unlawful entries are illegal border crossings between ports of entry that are not directly or indirectly observed or detected by the Border Patrol.

The problem is that DHS cant count crossings that are not observed or detected.

The solution may be to install a surveillance system that would detect every crossing. This hasnt worked in the past, but that doesnt mean that it shouldnt be tried again with modern surveillance technology.

Immigration court backlog crisis

The backlog was only542,411 casesin January 2017, when PresidentDonald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate panel seeks documents in probe of DHS whistleblower complaint Susan Collins: Trump 'should have been straightforward' on COVID-19 Longtime House parliamentarian to step down MOREtook office. As of the end of July 2020, it was up to1,233,307cases.

The average wait for a hearing is 777 days, which makes meaningful interior enforcement impossible, and it is more difficult to secure the border when undocumented aliens know that they arent likely to be deported once they have reached the interior of the country.

Due process also is affected. The need to hire more judges has made it necessary to lower qualification standards. The immigration judgevacancy announcementdoesnt even ask for immigration law experience.

The immigration court is adjudicating more cases, however. In fiscal 2019, it completed 275,552 cases, the second-highest completion total in its history but at that rate, it would still take four and a half years to clear the backlog, even if no new cases were put on the courts docket.

Comprehensive immigration reform

It has been more than 30 years since the passage of the last comprehensive immigration reform bill with a legalization program, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

IRCA was supposed to establish an interior enforcement program to eliminate the job magnet that draws undocumented aliens to the United States. It was thought that this could be accomplished by establishing sanctions to punish employers that hire immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States.

Approximately 2.7 million aliens were legalized, but the employer sanctions program was only implemented on a token basis. By the beginning of 1997, the 2.7 million legalized aliens had beenreplaced entirely by a new group of undocumented aliens.

We still do not have a large scale, nationwide employer sanctions program.

We need to fund a program to make it more difficult for American employers to exploit undocumented foreign workers. Thats what draws unscrupulous employers to unauthorized workers. The Department of Labor (DOL) could address this problem purely as a labor issue by enforcing federal labor laws that were enacted to curb such abuses.

With additional funding, DOL could mount a large-scale, nationwide campaign to stop the exploitation of employees in industries known to hire large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

Funding

The country is having serious financial difficulties that may make it difficult for the president to get funding to deal with these problems.

According to a Sept. 2, 2020, report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal budget deficit for 2020 has reached $3.3 trillion, which is more than triple the shortfall recorded in 2019. CBO attributes this mainly to the economic disruption caused by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic and the enactment of legislation in response to it.

CBO expects the Federal debt held by the public to reach 98 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020.

Maybe the best we can hope for is that the president wont make the immigration problems any worse than they already are.

Nolan Rappaportwas detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him on Twitter@NolanR1or athttps://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com.

Read more:
Immigration problems our president will face in 2021 | TheHill - The Hill

How many states have, at some point in their history, allowed noncitizens to vote? Take a moment. Guess the answer. Now guess higher.

The answer is 38. Nearly 80% of states at one time extended voting rights to immigrants, without regard to whether they eventually became citizens or not.

Today, the number of states who allow noncitizens to vote is zero. But on Thursday, a three-judge panel unanimously rejected President Trumps latest attempt to exclude noncitizens from the United States Census. The Administration could not, they ruled, ignore undocumented immigrants when conducting Americas once-per-decade reapportionmentthe population count that determines how many Congressional representatives each state receives.

The judges ruling was a blow to Republicans, the party that would likely benefit from the attempt to change the way the count was made. But no less important, the panels decision was a reassertion of one of Americas most enduring and least-well known democratic values. For the vast majority of the past 230 years, immigrantsboth authorized and nothave been allowed to play an important role in the U.S. political process.

In fact, at the dawn of American history, immigrant voting wasnt even controversial. Voting was restricted in ways we would never accept today: by race, age, gender and even wealth. The founders worried about what might happen if they expanded the franchise beyond the relatively small group that possessed it. But the prospect of non-citizens voting didnt worry them.

In our modern political climate, this lack of concern might seem strange. How can you be in favor of restrictions on voting and not care if newly arrived immigrants vote? Yet at the time, this attitude made perfect sense. After all, when your country is brand new, everyone is brand new to your country. Moreover, as political scientist Ron Hayduk points out, the revolutionary slogan no taxation without representation applied in reverse. It was widely accepted that anyone who paid taxes deserved a say in how their money was spent; their birthplace was irrelevant.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

For these reasons, nearly all the original 13 states allowed new immigrants to vote. A few of them changed their minds as populations grew, but these older states were offset by newer ones, which offered noncitizens voting rights as enticement to move west. In 1848, for example, the new state of Wisconsin permitted all declarantsimmigrants who publicly expressed a wish to become citizens in the futureto cast ballots.

So why cant noncitizens vote today? The answer depends on the state, but generally speaking, a combination of factors was at work. The number of immigrants arriving in America gradually increased, which spooked those already here. Newcomers often moved to cities, and state legislatures favored the countryside. There were also the usual accusations of fraud as recent arrivals became associatednot always unfairly, it must be saidwith corrupt political machines. Finally, dont discount good old-fashioned prejudice; as immigrants began showing up from places other than England, Americans became less eager to enfranchise them.

Yet despite all this, it wasnt until 1926 that noncitizen voting in America ceased completely. To put it slightly differently, every President prior to Herbert Hoover was elected with noncitizen help. And for many decades after, nothing prevented states from welcoming immigrants back into the presidential electorate if they chose to. Congress didnt officially ban noncitizen voting for federal offices until 1996. Friends has been around longer than that.

More importantly, in light of President Trumps attempt to shut undocumented immigrants out of the apportionment count, nothing in the Constitution prohibits immigrants from voting once again. While it seems highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible that sometime between now and 2030 Congress could allow immigrants particularly green card holders, who arrived here legally and who have publicly pledged to remain to once again vote in federal elections. Were that to happen, and were the Presidents order to go into effect, it would deny millions of eligible voters equal representation in Congress.

A far more likely possibilityone with historical precedent, and one which a vast majority of Americans supportwould be to restrict the vote to citizens, but to streamline our legal immigration process while providing undocumented immigrants with a pathway to citizenship via immigration reform. As of 2017, nearly 7 million peoplea population roughly the size of Massachusettshad arrived in the U.S. illegally but had lived here for ten years or more. The average unauthorized immigrant arrived in America around the time Finding Nemo arrived in theaters.

By every possible definition, these long-term undocumented immigrants have made America their home. Their careers and families are here. Like all immigrants, they pay taxeswell more than $10 billion in taxes each year. Theyre part of this country. Theyre just not part of the part of this country that can vote.

For all these reasons, it makes sense that over the last century, the alternative to noncitizen voting has not been mass disenfranchisement, but mass citizenship. In 1929, almost the exact same time immigrant voting ceased, Congress allowed any unauthorized person to retroactively gain legal status. The government legalized large groups of immigrants again in 1958, and again in 1965. It legalized 2.7 million undocumented immigrants under Reagan and a million more under Clinton.

President Trump claims that his executive order is designed to benefit American citizens. But what happens if immigration reform passes in 2021, or 2022 or 2023? In that case, millions of American citizens would be denied equal representation in Congress. Thats hardly putting America first.

Politically, its not hard to see why such as strategy would appeal to President Trump. But as his rejected order demonstrates, immigration is not just a cultural or economic issueits a voting-rights issue, and targeting voting rights comes at a tremendous cost to American democracy. By seeking to exclude millions of people living in America from our politics, the Trump Administration and its allies attempted to sever the link between power and accountability, without which our republic cannot function.

In the statement accompanying his executive order, President Trump promised that he was acting consistent with the principles of our representative democracy. But this simply isnt true. Even at a time when we, the people was defined in an unconscionably narrow way, our founders understood that non-citizens contributed to this country, and deserved to be represented. As a matter of principleand now, officially, of law as wellthe same holds true today.

David Litt, a former senior speechwriter for President Barack Obama, is the author of Democracy in One Book or Less: How It Works, Why It Doesnt, and Why Fixing It Is Easier Than You Think and Thanks, Obama: My Hopey, Changey White House Years.

For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Contact us at letters@time.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Immigrants Have Always Played a Key Role in the U.S. Political Process. The Latest Ruling on Trumps Census Plan Is Part of That History - TIME

By Victoria Johnson,Chatham News + RecordStaff

Latino voters have the potential to sway North Carolinas election results, and Latino advocacy groups state and countywide have mobilized to make that happen.

On Sept. 3, the nonpartisan North Carolina Congress of Latino Organizations (NCCLO) and North Carolina Latino Power together launched a statewide Get Out the Vote campaign via Zoom to mobilize 120,000 infrequent Latino voters.

The November elections, beloved community, will be some of the most costly and competitive in the history of our country, NCCLO board member Daniel Sostaita said during the press conference, adding, (The candidates) know that they need the Latino vote today more than ever to win.

According to a 2019 Carolina Demography report, the number of Latinos eligible to vote increased by nearly 50% between 2012 and 2017. In 2012, the report read, just one in four North Carolina Hispanic residents were eligible to vote; in 2017, that number became one in three.

Nationally, 800,000 Latinos turned 18 this year across the U.S., said Matteo Ignacio, a young Latino voter from Durham, during the press conference.

The majority of them were born in the United States or theyve been naturalized and are eligible to vote in the next elections, he said. This means that more or less every 30 seconds a young Latino like me comes of voting age in this country. That is power.

But getting out the vote in 2020 will be different and not just because of COVID-19. This year, many Latino advocacy groups, including the NCCLO, have decided to try out a different, more personal strategy.

Beyond just phone banks, social media and newspaper announcements, Charlotte pastor and NCCLO member David Ortigoza told the News + Record the group plans to go person-by-person by empowering community leaders to reach out to people within their personal networks. They also plan to encourage people to share their personal stories and stakes in the issues the election likely will decide.

The Latino culture (works) better by relationship, he said, adding, We can spend our money to do (other) things, but if you dont get into the relationship, if you dont build a relationship with a Latino person, you will not get in.

Johnny Alvarado (Chatham N+R submitted photo)

In Chatham County, Johnny Alvarado, an NCCLO member and Jordan-Matthews High School teacher, is one of many community leaders trying to get out the Latino vote.

For many years, hes taught Spanish for native speakers and remembers going through hundreds of papers and recommendations to help many of his students qualify for DACA former students with whom he said he still maintains contact.

Many people dont vote, he said. They dont know how to vote. They dont know they can vote. They dont know how to register to vote. Many people arent aware of a lot of things. So my idea is through my contacts, my ex-students and their parents and relatives, we can get out that Latino vote.

Another group in Chatham County has also organized to get out the Latino vote. The group, called Voto Latino Chatham, seeks to increase Chathams registered Latino voters and educate them about the issues at stake in the upcoming elections, said leader Alirio Estevez.

Estevez, a Chatham ESL teacher, created the group in mid-July with the help of the national Voto Latino organization, who provided them training and direction. Originally, he said theyd planned to go door-to-door and hold several voter registration drives at St. Julias church, but the pandemic has forced them to follow a different strategy one thats a lot like the NCCLOs.

With a group of volunteers, about 12, mostly young people, were reaching out to our network of friends and family via text message or social media to make sure theyre registered to vote, Estevez said, and if not, we provided them with a link (connected to the DMV) to register online.

Siler City resident Ruben Ocelot, 20, is volunteering with Voto Latino Chatham alongside his cousins. Besides helping eligible young Latinos register, he said he wants to motivate infrequent Latino voters to cast their ballots and give them reasons to care about the upcoming elections.

In reality, they need to care because maybe their family member is undocumented, and they dont realize the fear that they live with, he said. Even though they might have papers, a family member might not. That (young voter) doesnt know how that family member lives every day, with a fear of When will they pick me up?

Whats at stake

Immigration reform is one of the most important issues for Latino voters this election season, according to state and countywide Latino advocacy groups.

The immigration system is completely broken, Ortigoza said during the Sept. 3 press conference. For that reason, this issue will be very present in the minds of all Latino immigrant citizens when they appear at the polls to vote in the next election.

At least 85% of undocumented Latinos have a one family member who is a citizen and who can vote on behalf of his or her family, he said families that desire immigration reform that provides undocumented members a path toward citizenship.

Ruben Ocelot (left) is a volunteer with Voto Latino Chatham.(Chatham N+R submitted photo)

Ocelot said immigration is the issue that he and Chathams Hispanic community cares most about in the upcoming elections. Many undocumented immigrants and their families live in fear, he said, never knowing if todays the last time they will see each other.

Thats why hes going to vote, he said to be the voice for the voiceless.

My vote is not just for myself, he said. My vote is for each one of you. Its voting because of you guys and myself because I want a better future for us.

Besides immigration reform, Estevez said he thinks many Chatham Latino voters also want more school funding.

They know that the schools need more resources, Estevez said. Theyre not enough. Students need to have after school tutorials, tutoring, and theres no money for that.

During the Sept. 3 press conference, Alvarado spoke about the importance of education reform statewide for other smaller counties who dont have the necessary support systems for Spanish-speaking families and students, like he said Chatham has.

I have personally experienced the disadvantages our Latino families and their children suffer when public schools are not properly prepared, he said. I understand how important it is that public schools hire interpreters, bilingual and bicultural staff for the success of our children.

Health care is another important issue, said Estevez and Ocelot. Many voters have family members who dont have health insurance and have been unable to get care, Estevez said, something the pandemic has only served to worsen. Many also fear Medicaid cuts, he said.

Theyre afraid for their little brothers (and) their little sisters because some politicians want to cut Medicaid, he said. That will impact a lot of children in our area.

Change, better opportunities and better representation thats what hundreds of Latino votes could bring, said Alvarado and Estevez. Many potential Latino voters may feel skeptical about voting, Estevez said, but doing nothing isnt an option.

As somebody said, the politicians only hear people for two reasons: (they) have money or they provide votes, Estevez said, adding: We Latinx lack money, but our potential as voters is our wealth. If we show up en masse, they will have to listen to us.

Chapelboro.com has partnered with the Chatham News + Record in order to bring more Chatham-focused stories to our audience.

TheChatham News + Recordis Chatham Countys source for local news and journalism. The Chatham News, established in 1924, and the Chatham Record, founded in 1878, have come together to better serve the Chatham community as the Chatham News + Record. Covering news, business, sports and more, the News + Record is working to strengthen community ties through compelling coverage of life in Chatham County.

Related

See original here:
'They Will Have To Listen To Us': NC, Chatham Latino Voter Groups Mobilize Latino Vote - Chapelboro.com

Executive Summary

Introduction

In the 2020 presidential campaign, immigration policy is a point of differentiation between presidential incumbent Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. The candidates views of immigration differ largely because of the assumptions being made about the contributions that immigrants make to the economy. While President Trumps policies reflect a view that immigrants harm native-born workers, Joe Bidens proposals assume that immigrants make economic contributions. These basic assumptions lead to drastically different policies. In his almost four years in office, President Trump has cracked down on undocumented immigrants and reshaped the immigration system, while claiming that his measures support the workers and the U.S. economy as a whole. Bidens plan for immigration consists of two major points: dismantle the policies of the Trump Administration and reenact the Obama-era policies, which would include giving the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. This analysis summarizes the immigration policies during the Trump Administrations first term, outlines his second-term goals, and identifies the areas that a Biden Administration could target and reverse regarding an immigration agenda.

The Principles of Each Candidate

Trumps Immigration Agenda

During his first term in office, President Trump created several policies that stem the flow of immigrants into the United States. Where the Trump Administration focuses on deregulation in most areas, immigration is one area that has seen major new regulation, including over 400 executive orders, in the past four years. The presidents justification for regulation and restriction assumes immigrant workers will increase labor market competition and drive down wages of native-born workers. He also contends that low-skilled immigration is responsible for African American and Hispanic unemployment.

Going forward, the Trump Administration plans to end chain migration and the visa lottery system, and instead turn to a merit-based immigration system. Chain migration is when an immigrant in the United States sponsors another family member for admission who can then sponsor other immigrants themselves, and so on, and the visa lottery system randomly selects those who are allowed to immigrate to the United States from a large pool of candidates. The merit-based system favors high-skill immigrants and seeks to eliminate family-based policies.

Bidens Likely Immigration Agenda

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Bidens immigration agenda is far less restrictive than that of the Trump Administration. It mainly involves reviving Obama-era policies while undoing current Trump Administration policies Where Biden pushes regulation in most areas, immigration is not one of them. Biden has proposed relaxing strict immigration policies and instead turning to a model where every type of immigrant, documented or undocumented, could gain access to government resources and a path to citizenship. The driving principles behind many of the Obama-era immigration policies (and now the Biden campaigns policies) are foremost equality and opportunity, but also, economic growth and prosperity.

Surveying the Research

Previous American Action Forum (AAF) research and other academic literature has found that President Trumps reasoning for limiting immigration is largely misguided. One study finds that immigration leads to labor specialization, which increases total factor productivity. Furthermore, the increase in productivity leads to increased income for American workers. Other studies have confirmed the income benefits. One found that native-born U.S. workers experienced long-run and short-run increase in wages during the high levels of immigration between 1990 and 2004. While it is true that new immigrants do bring labor-force competition, those who are directly impacted by increased immigration are other immigrants. On net, immigration leads to a more dynamic labor market and bolsters economic growth.

If the United States were to implement President Trumps proposed idea of removing all undocumented immigrants from the labor force, AAF research has found that gross domestic product (GDP) would decrease by between $380 billion and $620 billion and create a shortage of at least 4 million workers.

To be sure, merit-based immigration does bring economic benefits, too. For example, a study examined the growth of computer science workers on temporary H-1B visas from 1994 and 2001. It found that high-skilled immigration led to the creation of more IT firms in the United States, lowered the price of IT goods, and boosted the wages among non-computer science workers. While there certainly are benefits to high-skilled immigration, it is important not to discount the effects low-skill immigrant workers have on the U.S. economy. Many of the benefits of low-skilled immigration go to employers at least in the immediate term, but have also been shown to benefit consumers. While some estimates have indicated a negative impact of lower-skilled immigrants on native-born workers, these impacts appear to be modest and in the long run are increasingly muted.

Bidens immigration proposals could have positive economic effects if they were to be implemented. AAF research finds that adding foreign workers to the economy does not crowd out employment for native workers. The number of jobs in the United States is not fixed, and as the population and labor force increase, so does total employment. Furthermore, immigrants generate growth and employment opportunities by increasing the total number of people in the United States, leading to increased consumption levels, higher demand, and more production.

Assessing Specific Policies

Outlined below are President Trumps stances on several immigration issues going into the 2020 election that may be targets for reversal in the event of a Biden Administration.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

President Trump announced in 2017 that he would be ending The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. There are about 644,000 young adults under the DACA program in the United States currently. In 2018, AAF research estimated Dreamers contribute $42 billion annually to U.S. GDP, equating to $10.8 billion in tax revenues for the federal government per year. That is compared to $7.4 billion of federal costs per year for Dreamers, which means there is a net positive fiscal impact of $3.4 billion a year (see the AAF video and infographic on this issue) when DACA recipients work in the United States. In ending the DACA program, the Trump Administration is forgoing positive economic contributions, while a Biden Administration would be fostering these contributions.

Since DACA was a major focus of Obama-era immigration policy, Biden would reverse President Trumps efforts to end the DACA program. He would also strengthen the protections for Dreamers and so that they have a path to citizenship. In addition, Biden would make Dreamers eligible for federal student aid, such as loans and Pell grants, as part of his higher-education plan. He also proposed protections for the parents of Dreamers but offers very little detail on what these protections would entail.

Border Security

A main pillar of the Trump campaign in 2016 was to build the border wall between the United States and Mexico to stem the flow of immigrants entering the country. In 2019, about 980,000 people illegally crossed the southern border, the majority being families with children. This is the highest number of border crossings since 2007. The wall would cost around $5.7 billion. President Trump tried to have Mexico pay for the wall indirectly through the United States-Mexico-Canada Trada Agreement (USMCA). An AAF insight found that the USMCA will not generate any substantial economic growth that could increase tax receipts. Thus, it would not be able to fund a wall. After this means for funding the wall failed, President Trump declared a national emergency in February 2019. By doing this, the president invoked his authority to call up and deploy members of the militarys Ready Reserves, seize private lands, and repurpose military construction (MilCon) funding. By repurposing these MilCon funds, President Trump has taken more than half of the budget for other MilCon projects and has faced much backlash from Congress. The Trump Administration announced it has so far received funding for 61 percent of the wall and has finished 235 miles out of the 450 that were promised by the end of the year.

Like President Trump, Biden does not support decriminalizing illegal border crossing, but promises to reduce the number of prosecutions at the border for minor immigration violations.

Biden condemns the southern border wall and supports ending the national emergency that secures funding for the wall from the military as part of his first 100 days in office. Instead, he has proposed investing in technology for better security at the border. He would implement better screening infrastructure such as cameras, sensors, large-scale X-ray machines, and fixed watch towers at points of entry.

Central and South American Migration

Many illegal border crossers are refugees and asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle, a troubled region comprised of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security announced the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The policy and its guidance outline the procedures under which the U.S. government will return certain asylum seekers to Mexico to wait for the duration of their cases pending in the U.S. immigration court system. Since the beginning of his term, President Trump has continuously tried revoking the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the countries of the Northern Triangle. In fact, as of May 2019, TPS designations for El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan have been terminated pending ongoing court rulings. In September 2019, President Trump cut the refugee cap from 30,000 in 2019 to 18,000 in 2020, while also setting a new (and more selective) criteria for those who may be allowed to enter the United States. By August 2020, only 6,674 refugees have been admitted into the United States versus a total of 85,000 in 2016, the last year of Obamas term. The actions taken by the Trump Administration to stem the flow of refugees and asylum seekers will have two consequences: force people to stay in the dangerous conditions of their home countries, and/or push the humanitarian crisis into Mexico.

In order to steady rather than halt the flow of South and Central American immigrants into the United States, Bidens plans would seek to address the factors that cause the need for migration. He has proposed a four-year, $4 billion regional strategy to address the factors driving migration from the Northern Triangle. Aid would be dependent on factors such as gang and gender-based violence, improvements in education, and the implementation of anti-corruption measures. It is unlikely that $4 billion over 4 years is enough to address all the aforementioned issues effectively, if at all. Due to the broad nature of this investment, the best-case scenario is likely negligible improvements in the region. This plan could necessitate significantly more government spending and could even worsen the situation by causing dependency on U.S. funds. Furthermore, Biden has proposed mobilizing private investment in the region, improving security and rule of law, addressing endemic corruption, and prioritizing poverty reduction and economic development. As a part of the plan, Biden would immediately end President Trumps Migrant Protection Protocols program and undo regulations that make it harder for Central American asylum seekers to enter the United States. Biden has proposed to keep TPS programs for the countries which the Trump Administration have terminated, especially the Northern Triangle countries. He would also extend TPS to Venezuelans. As for TPS holders in the United States, Biden has pledged a path to citizenship via legislative immigration reform to those who have built lives in the United States. Lastly, Biden will also open the United States to 125,000 refugees from around the globe, up sevenfold from the 18,000 of the Trump Administrations cap.

COVID-19 and Immigration

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. employers were hiring over 450,000 new immigrant workers a year that worked in a range of different occupations. By June 2020, the White House had issued a proclamation that suspended several immigration programs it claimed present risk to the U.S. labor market during the economic recovery. In the near term, this reduction in immigration will likely harm employers that disproportionately rely on foreign-born workers, specifically in the agricultural, construction, and transportation sectors.

In the long term, halting new immigration to the United States could have negative impacts on productivity, output, and economic growth. Prior AAF analysis has also shown that this move could negatively affect job creation. In the midst of a pandemic, however, a more restricted immigration system, as is being proposed by President Trump, could be beneficial in the short term for economic recovery and reducing the spread of the virus. It is important to note that, should more restrictive measures be taken, it would likely be difficult to undo them as the public health situation stabilizes.

While Biden does not need to directly deal with the effect of COVID-19 on the labor market right now, the situation remains unstable, especially with flu season on the horizon. The United States will still be in recovery come January, even if the public health situation improves. Joe Biden does not seem to have a detailed recovery plan. While it appears as though the Biden campaign does understand immigration as a means toward economic growth and job creation, its plans are sparse when it comes to immigration during the pandemic. Even given the benefits of immigration, an economically unstable time when recovery is needed may not be the ideal moment to welcome 125,000 refugees or grant citizenship to 11 million undocumented individuals. The copy-and-paste nature of Bidens immigration policy does not seem to acknowledge the current public health crisis.

Conclusion

The immigration topics and the respective policy stances of both presidential nominees outlined above hardly scratch the surface of issues that immigrants and U.S. citizens face daily. President Trump has increased regulations, allegedly prioritizing American workers and wages, and is moving toward a merit-based system. Due to pandemic-related immigration policies, the Trump Administration has made it virtually impossible for migrants and refugees to enter the United States, citing health, safety, and labor-market concerns. On the other hand, Bidens approach, which is mostly a rehashing of Obama-era policies, does not seem to acknowledge the difficulty of drastic changes and foreign investment during the pandemic. In the medium- to long-term, however, some aspects of the Biden immigration plan could be an opportunity to expand the U.S. labor force, increase productivity, and ultimately lead to economic growth. There must also be considerations for the public health crisis the country currently faces and how a less restrictive immigration system could affect the number of COVID-19 cases.

Here is the original post:
Comparing Trump and Biden on Immigration - AAF - American Action Forum