Posted by: Richie Bernardo

Immigration, and how to handle it, continues to be a contentious topic in the United States in 2018. Recent issues include court battles over the Trump administration’s travel ban on certain countries, along with the possible upcoming end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. But political differences aside, there’s no question that immigration as a whole affects the economy.

In light of recent developments in U.S. immigration policy, WalletHub compared the economic impact of foreign-born populations on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We determined which states benefit the most — and least — from immigration using 19 key indicators. Our data set ranges from median household income of foreign-born population to jobs generated by immigrant-owned businesses as a share of total jobs. Read on for our findings, additional commentary from a panel of experts and a full description of our methodology.

1. Main Findings
2. Ask the Experts
3. Methodology

Main Findings Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/32248/geochart-immigrant.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2DYU46s>

 

State Economic Impact of Immigrants

Overall Rank*	State	Total Score	‘Workforce’ Rank	‘Socioeconomic Contribution’ Rank	‘Brain Gain & Innovation’ Rank	‘International Students’ Rank
1	New York	74.96	3	4	2	3
2	California	73.80	2	2	4	10
3	New Jersey	72.43	1	3	3	23
4	Massachusetts	62.16	10	9	10	1
5	Delaware	60.88	7	19	1	4
6	District of Columbia	60.49	5	27	12	1
7	Maryland	58.45	12	6	7	19
8	Illinois	58.09	6	13	11	8
9	Connecticut	58.01	8	5	13	9
10	Washington	56.94	13	16	5	12
11	Florida	54.95	4	7	22	33
12	Virginia	53.87	14	10	9	27
13	Texas	49.66	9	12	20	22
14	Michigan	49.29	18	21	6	15
15	Pennsylvania	47.93	20	29	8	6
16	Nevada	47.57	11	8	23	50
17	Hawaii	46.02	15	1	39	28
18	Arizona	43.76	17	15	29	17
19	Rhode Island	42.92	19	14	32	5
20	Georgia	42.81	16	24	15	31
21	Minnesota	37.51	29	23	14	25
22	Ohio	37.49	25	28	17	18
23	New Hampshire	36.54	27	17	30	13
24	North Carolina	36.43	21	30	19	36
25	Oregon	35.82	22	18	31	16
26	Missouri	35.36	35	40	16	11
27	Indiana	34.41	32	41	24	7
28	Colorado	33.53	24	25	26	29
29	Wisconsin	31.81	39	35	21	35
30	Kansas	31.42	37	33	25	21
31	Vermont	31.42	33	20	36	20
32	Iowa	30.08	44	38	28	14
33	Alaska	27.64	28	11	47	51
34	Kentucky	26.53	36	51	18	44
35	New Mexico	26.25	26	22	46	46
36	Nebraska	24.96	45	42	35	24
37	West Virginia	24.77	47	37	33	32
38	North Dakota	24.72	23	45	41	30
39	Utah	24.58	38	32	44	34
40	Alabama	24.32	46	49	27	38
41	Oklahoma	23.89	42	34	43	26
42	Arkansas	23.09	40	43	38	39
43	Maine	22.99	43	26	42	48
44	Tennessee	22.40	34	46	37	42
45	South Carolina	22.01	31	44	40	47
46	Louisiana	21.84	30	50	34	41
47	Idaho	19.54	49	31	50	37
48	South Dakota	18.06	41	47	48	40
49	Montana	18.00	51	39	45	43
50	Wyoming	17.72	48	36	51	45
51	Mississippi	15.02	50	48	49	49

1=Largest Economic Impact

 

Ask the Experts

With immigration reform continuing to hold a prominent place in 2018’s political climate, we asked a panel of experts to share their thoughts on the following key questions:

1. Do you think the immigration plan proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration?
2. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the U.S. is below zero in recent years — that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue?
3. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart?
4. Should the U.S. tighten its legal-immigration policies?
5. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states?
6. What recourse, if any, does the Trump administration have to punish sanctuary cities that will not cooperate with federal immigration agents?

< >

• Stephen Mumme Professor of Political Science at Colorado State University
• Joel S. Fetzer Professor of Political Science at Pepperdine University
• Idean Salehyan Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Dallas
• Peter O'Brien Professor of Political Science at Trinity University and author of "The Muslim Question in Europe: Political Controversies and Public Philosophies"
• Paul Apostolidis Professor and Judge & Mrs. Timothy A. Paul Endowed Chair of Political Science in the Whitman College
• Margaret Peters Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of California, Los Angeles
• Jay Gonzalez Professor of Public Administration at Golden Gate University, Former Commissioner of Immigrant Rights in the City and County of San Francisco and Author of “Immigration and America's Cities”
• Elizabeth F. Cohen Associate Professor of Political Science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University
• Chris Rudolph Associate Professor of International Relations in the School of International Service at American University
• Brad Jones Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of California, Davis

Stephen Mumme Professor of Political Science at Colorado State University Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? No more effective than the current border fence. At the moment, the administration has authorization under the 2006 Secure Fence Act for just under 700 miles of fencing. 652 miles of various fencing is already erected. The Trump administration will need new legislation authorizing a further extension of the physical barriers along the boundary. And they will need funding. The most likely short-term initiative is the enlargement and further hardening of fencing in those areas now served by pedestrian and Normandy fencing along the land boundary. The problem of adding fencing along the riparian boundary (Rio Grande River) is that it will require taking possession of more private property, and these exercises of eminent domain by the federal government have been very unpopular in Texas. The evidence shows that the fencing in and through and near major urban areas can be effective in those areas but simply pushes the flow elsewhere, often to more remote and perilous areas of the international boundary. Mexican migration to the US has already declined substantially—it has picked up a tad just recently but the overall numbers are considerably lower than they were in 2010. The reasons attributed to the decline are modest improvements in the Mexican economy, demography (an aging population), and border security measures. But the internal Mexican variables are thought to be the more important structural determinants of Mexican emigration to the United States. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue? Much depends on the U.S. economy. Historically, Mexican emigration to the U.S. tracks rather closely to economic differentials between the two countries. Economic recession in Mexico in the mid-1990’s coupled to boom years in the U.S. combined to strengthen both push and pull forces driving Mexican migration. If U.S. protectionism spikes in the near term that will damage the Mexican economy and that is sure to drive renewed Mexican northward migration. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? Our immigration agencies (CBP/ICE) have not been well served by U.S. immigration law, which needs a comprehensive overhaul. What is poorly understood in this debate is that many of our unauthorized migrants have been invited to this country by our fellow American citizens. Most Mexican unauthorized immigrants have been offered employment in this country and are true economic migrants. These folks are not criminals; they are legally civil offenders and they need to be treated as such. Many have been in the US a decade or longer (in fact, US immigration law and higher restrictions in recent years have made this problem worse by elevating the risk of return). The proper response of immigration agencies is to focus on the criminal aliens and focus on employers offering work to those without proper authorization to be in the country. As for those folks who have been here awhile (Dreamers, for instance), they should be left alone until Congress creates a pathway for regularization of status and permanent residency. The simple fact is this: these people are wanted and needed in the U.S. economy or they would not be here in the first place. There is no need for the U.S. to cut its nose to spite its face here. Most of these migrants are, in fact, a national asset. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? No. Not unless it should be in the context of comprehensive immigration reform and a shift away from strictly unilateral measures. We already do an extraordinary job vetting and checking legal admits. Immigration policy in a dynamic economy like ours will always benefit from periodic fine-tuning. Having said that, a key concept in immigration regulation is the idea of reciprocal engagement between sending and receiving countries. Getting a handle on immigration with Mexico requires engaging Mexico in labor flows, economic development, and migration regulation. Our failure to recognize the value of collaborating with Mexico across the spectrum of needs (migration/security, etc.) means that we cannot get to the source of our problems which are internationally based, international interdependent, and only susceptible to cooperative international solutions. There is no short term unilateral fix, and the sooner this country comes to grips with that and commits to greater engagement with its neighbor states, the safer and wealthier we are sure to be. To this I would add that half of all unauthorized immigrants in this country are thought to be visa overstays (a factor that much diminishes the expected value of boundary barriers). Some attention to this issue as well as the federal E-Verify program is reasonable and should be built into comprehensive immigration reform. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? Most economists would say it depends. There is no facile answer to this question. What I would say is that, as I mentioned above, most of them are economic migrants invited to and working in this country. They are contributing directly to the economy. They contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits and services. The degree of impact depends on the industry and community. But vilifying migrants as net negatives to the U.S. economy has no sure basis in fact. What recourse does the Trump administration have to punish sanctuary cities who will not cooperate with federal immigration agents Well, the obvious technique would be withholding federal funds in areas like transportation, education, law enforcement, etc. But the Trump administration would need additional legal authority to do so in most areas and that depends on Congress. I don’t have a good read on what administrative authority the president now has to condition further assistance (block grants; other grants) under existing statutes, but he may have some wiggle room here. But the consequences of doing so could be self-defeating, generating or contributing to other social problems that cities can blame on the president’s administration. I find it interesting that quite a few law enforcement authorities in sanctuary cities embrace the concept of soft immigration measures, knowing that community trust is so central to effective policing. A spike in urban violence and crime doesn’t strike me as a win-win for the Trump administration. Joel S. Fetzer Professor of Political Science at Pepperdine University Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? It will almost certainly be effective in increasing the number of migrants who lose their lives trying to cross the border and in boosting the profits of immigrant and drug smugglers (often the same people). It may or may not actually reduce entries. Here, the record is not promising. As the ancient Chinese can tell you, a wall is only as good as the people who guard it, and I seriously doubt that Washington possesses the will to pay the exorbitant sums needed to make such a barrier truly impermeable. Even with a Berlin-style wall (which would do wonders for foreign relations), the Border Patrol would continue to find many tunnels underneath every year, and smugglers would still be able to get some migrants through. But we should be careful what we wish for. If all 12 million undocumented migrants suddenly disappear, many businesses in California and elsewhere would suddenly find themselves critically short of workers. Consumers would also experience a significant price increase in immigrant produced goods and services (think strawberries from the Central Valley of California). Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue? This trend will likely continue if the social, political and economic conditions of 2016 remain. The Mexican demographic and economic situation has stabilized since the major in-flows of the 1990s. But if US anti-trade policies cause economic turmoil and perhaps even political unrest in Mexico, Mexican citizens may well feel obliged to start migrating again. Of course, the major source of Latin American immigrants now and for the foreseeable future is Central America, where the poverty and drug-cartel-caused violence are much more severe. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? Overall, we should adopt immigration laws that are compatible with our economic needs, not with the xenophobic rhetoric useful in winning elections in majority-white constituencies. US employers need foreign-born workers, and international job candidates possess many skills that too many native-born Americans lack. In some of the most dirty, dangerous and disagreeable professions, US-born individuals are simply unwilling to perform the work that immigrants do, unless employers pay wages that would bankrupt the companies. By and large, immigrants and natives do not compete directly for the same jobs; rather, the two groups find themselves in different labor markets. The level of destruction of immigrant families that has been occurring since the 1990s would be much reduced if we allowed migrant heads of household to bring their families here instead of forcing the dependents to stay in their home country or subjecting them to life-threatening hazards on a potential trip to the US. An economically rational immigration policy would be a major first step toward making our laws more family-friendly. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? I personally would be opposed to such a policy in general. Many economic models suggest that the total system will be most efficient and national economies will be most productive if labor is allowed to flow to where it is needed most. Capital is largely free to cross national boundaries, so substantial restrictions on labor migration don't make economic sense from a global perspective. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? Across all immigrants and over the long run, they're an economic benefit. States may well have to pay more to educate immigrants' children, but economically this expense should be seen as an investment. The kids will eventually grow up to take productive jobs, earn reasonable salaries, and pay taxes back into the states' coffers. Their teachers, presumably US citizens, would also owe their jobs to immigration. The most reputable academic studies of the effects of migration on the local labor market (cf. David Card's classic article on Mariel Cubans in Miami in 1980) show that immigrants do not significantly lower the wages or increase the unemployment rate of native workers. What recourse does the Trump administration have to punish sanctuary cities who will not cooperate with federal immigration agents? At the end of the day, their options are not good. The most obvious tactic would be to cut off funds for policing, but then the states could reasonably blame Trump for increasing the crime rate. Local police in Los Angeles and San Francisco don't want to enforce immigration law because then the hundreds of thousands of undocumented residents will refuse to testify in court against really violent criminals or give the police tips about suspicious activities. It is easy to forget that in places like Los Angeles, undocumented immigrants are part of the day-to-day fabric of urban life, and most people who live here don't want to rip undocumented Mexican or Chinese friends from their homes or put Muslim neighbors in concentration camps - the way Franklin Roosevelt did to Japanese Americans during World War II. So I think Trump is going to have much more trouble getting "sanctuary cities" to submit to his will than he anticipated. Idean Salehyan Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas at Dallas Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? Not at all. Since the early 1990s, there has been a significant expansion of fencing along the US-Mexican border, coupled with more agents and technology to monitor it. Yet, surveys of recent migrants and communities in Mexico indicate that, although they are aware of increased border security, there is little deterrent effect. People smugglers have found ways to go under, over, and around the border wall. In addition, a large percentage of people smuggled into the country enter through legal ports of entry, either hiding in vehicles or with false documents. It is unlikely that a wall alone will be sufficient to deter illegal migration. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think thistrend will continue? This development is largely a function of what is going on in the US economy. With a weak labor market, and fewer low skilled jobs, people are finding it harder to gain employment in the United States. As long as the labor market - especially for jobs that do not require college education - remains weak, the magnet for people to come to the United States isn't there. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? Clearly, mass deportation would be a humanitarian crisis, especially for those who have family in the United States legally. I don't think the American public would tolerate images in the news of a parent being deported while their crying children are left behind. That said, we do need to acknowledge that people entering illegally did break the law, and as a nation of laws, there will be penalties for it. Having the undocumented come forward, pay a fine, and have their status adjusted, would be the most humane way to deal with the issue. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? Far from it. There are sectors of the economy that simply would not function as they do today without migration. Agricultural work, construction, restaurants and hospitality, and other low-skilled occupations depend on immigrant labor. People intuitively know that. Native-born workers are simply not lining up to pick strawberries in California, or work as dishwashers in Chicago. Access to migrant workers helps those businesses thrive, employ higher skilled workers such as managers, and keep consumer prices lower. For those sectors in which there is a domestic labor shortage, it makes absolute sense to significantly increase legal work visas. Increasing legal work visas will have additional benefits as well. People will no longer risk their lives to enter the country illegally, the market for human traffickers will dry up, and the US will have more information about exactly who is coming. That will enable the Department of Homeland Security to focus its resources on real threats coming across the border such as drugs and criminals. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? Legal immigrants are certainly a benefit to states. People who come as adults to work were not educated in the United States nor had childhood healthcare expenses, which are a drain on state budgets. Basically, we are getting workers in the labor force, without paying the upfront investment in their education. These workers pay income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes like everyone else, and over a lifetime are a fiscal boon to states. Undocumented migrants are perhaps a different story and it is hard to quantify their fiscal impact. They do pay sales taxes and contribute in other ways to state budgets, but they are sometimes paid under the table and not on official payrolls. The best evidence I've seen suggests that the net fiscal impact is a wash. But, if we were to legalize their status and get undocumented immigrants on the books, there could be real fiscal gains. What recourse does the Trump administration have to punish sanctuary cities who will not cooperate with federal immigration agents? They could certainly restrict federal funds to some of these localities. In Texas, the state government may be moving to punish these cities through budgetary means and other states may follow suit. However, this is a misguided policy. Law enforcement depends on the trust of the community to report crimes and serve as witnesses. If a significant number of people are not willing to talk to the police for fear of deportation, it makes their job much harder. It also diverts law enforcement resources away from tackling serious crimes, to enforcing immigration laws. Taxpayer dollars would be better spent responding to violent crimes, and not having local police conduct immigration raids. Peter O'Brien Professor of Political Science at Trinity University and author of "The Muslim Question in Europe: Political Controversies and Public Philosophies" Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? No. Nearly 70% of undocumented migrants come either by sea or air or, more likely, come legally and then stay after their visas expire. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? Rights should be attached to personhood rather than nationality. Any person resident in a territory longer than, say, 6-12 months, should have equal rights, including civil, political and family reunification rights. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? The mountains of research on this topic are inconclusive. While migrants can be a drain on welfare states, they bring a benefit to economy and state in the form of cheap labor and tax revenues, not to mention industry and innovation. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? No, because the USA (along with European colonialism) played and plays a large role in creating the impoverished conditions of the Global South that contribute to the urge/need to migrate. Paul Apostolidis Professor and Judge & Mrs. Timothy A. Paul Endowed Chair of Political Science in the Whitman College Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? No, I do not. My investigations of employment in the food-processing and urban construction/renovation industries indicate quite clearly that these major economic sectors, like many others in the US, structurally depend on unauthorized migrant labor. Increased border militarization will have important effects, however: it will make the already harrowingly dangerous and sometimes lethal ordeal of crossing the border even more perilous and traumatizing for the migrant workers on whose labor the US economy relies. That trauma is there, whether we recognize it or not, in every 99 cent fast food cheeseburger consumed in this country and every home improvement project carried out by migrant day laborers. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? As it currently stands, there is no way to do this. The law is unjust, and enforcing it necessarily means breaking apart families. The law needs to be changed to acknowledge the reality of US dependence on migrant labor and the valuable and legitimate presence of unauthorized migrants in local communities across the country -- not just as workers but also as neighbors, artists, family members, and partners in collective endeavors, including political efforts -- to make these communities and the nation flourish. My studies of the remarkable experiments in community action among migrant workers in day labor and food processing, even under appalling working conditions, show how it isn't just a matter of fully accepting migrant workers into U.S. society. Migrant workers also can teach America a great deal about what democracy means and how to practice it, if others will listen to them. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? No. I have spoken to that above. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? Study after study demonstrates that immigrants, including those who are unauthorized, produce a new economic benefit to states and to the country at large. Again, however, it's important to resist the tendency to reduce the question of fairness and justice toward immigrants to a narrowly economic cost/benefit calculation. Millions of immigrants, including millions without authorization, are already vital contributors to US local communities and the nation not only through their labor but in countless other ways as well. Elementary principles of justice demand that they be accorded equal rights and freedoms. Margaret Peters Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of California, Los Angeles Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? No. About half of the undocumented population are visa over stayers -- people who entered the country legally but then did not leave when they were supposed to. The wall will have no effect on this group and more people are likely to try to enter legally and overstay their visas if entering through the US-Mexico border is made more difficult. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue? Perhaps. That trend was largely driven by a growing Mexican economy and a slowing US economy. Now that the Mexican economy is slowing due to the economic uncertainty over NAFTA and the US economy is growing, we might see that trend reverse. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? More employer sanctions. If you take away the incentive to hire an undocumented immigrant, there is less incentive for people to stay. That said, any mass deportation program is likely to break apart families, including taking parents away from US citizen children or forcing US citizen children to move back to the country of their parents' origin, countries that they may have never even visited and where it is unlikely that they will get the same level of education or have the same opportunities in life than they would have had in the US. US citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for permanent residence until they are 18. Any mass deportation program is either forcing these children to live far apart from their parents or live in a country that they do not know and where they won't have the same opportunities, neither of which is a good option. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? No. We have pretty tight immigration policies as it is and they are not working for economy. If they were working, we wouldn't have so many undocumented immigrants employed by US businesses. We need more legal migration to fill jobs and keep our economy growing. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? A benefit. (1) Immigrants typically take the least skilled jobs allowing Americans to take jobs that require more skills and move up at their company. This also helps companies be more profitable and makes goods and services cheaper for consumers. (2) Most immigrants come once they are working age, meaning that US taxpayers do not have to pay for their education and many return home to retire, again lessening the burden on taxpayers. This is why most economists find only a small effect, if any effect, of immigrants on the fiscal system. (3) They add dynamism to the economy -- think of all the businesses in Silicon Valley that are started by immigrants. To get faster economic growth, the US either needs to greatly increase labor productivity or increase the number of people in the US. As productivity growth has been slow, the only way to get faster growth is to increase immigration. Jay Gonzalez Professor of Public Administration at Golden Gate University, Former Commissioner of Immigrant Rights in the City and County of San Francisco and Author of “Immigration and America's Cities” Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? If the border wall is constructed as an uninterrupted solid wall dug deep into the earth to prevent tunneling and very high with barb wires on top reinforced by breach sensors, guard towers, and monitored 24-hours like a prison wall then it will be effective at reducing illegal immigration. However, this type of construction, maintenance and security will be extremely expensive given the very long porous geography (i.e., desserts, mountains, lakes, etc.) between the U.S. and Mexico. Moreover, the optics are not going to match the Statue of Liberty and the line "... the land of the free and the home of the brave." If it is not going to be constructed as such, it will not be effective at reducing illegal immigration. Because the risks of breaching a wall or fence, crossing the Sonoran desert with coyotes, or tunneling to Tijuana will still be worth it for many migrants who are running away from extreme poverty and persecution in Mexico and Central America. Many feel they have nothing to lose so why not persevere. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue? The trend will continue as long as the Mexican economy continues to grow and reach poor communities. For the last three years, the economy has been growing at a 2.0%-2.6% rate. Inflation is down. Unemployment is down. Number of families below the poverty level is down. The U.S. business is helping this growth by creating manufacturing and service jobs in Mexico. But if American help goes away, then migration will increase again. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? Status quo with increased used of modern technology to discourage unauthorized border crossings. The U.S. policy under President Obama has already been firm with deportations of criminal immigrants and border security. Trump could simply aim to "beat" Obama's criminal immigrant deportation record and be humane by extending DAPA and DACA. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? No. U.S. non-immigrant and immigrant policies are already tight and tough. They are already tougher than most OECD member. U.S. embassies and consulates do not just give out student (F1/J1) and visitor/business B1/B2 visas without rigorous review. The rejection rates are very high. In some countries, 9 out of 10 applications are denied. To get a U.S. Green Card you have to go through rigorous security, financial and political clearances, and then to go from Green Card to U.S. Citizen is another level vetting and face-to-face interviews. But the demand to come, legally and illegally, to the U.S. will always be high. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? In many cost-benefit analyses, immigrants are an economic gain to States. What recourse does the Trump administration have to punish sanctuary cities who will not cooperate with federal immigration agents? There are more than 300 sanctuary cities. They have emerged because of their love and compassion for fellow human beings. Punishing them by withholding federal funds is only going to be counterproductive. Firstly, most sanctuary cities receive only between 5-10% of their budget from the federal government. So the impact will not be strong. Cities will just tighten their belts or look to other sources of revenue. Secondly, the largest policy areas where cities rely on the feds for money are law enforcement programs and homeland security, like community policing and detention. Cutting these funds will counter what President Trump would like to achieve -- a more secure America. For those of us who have worked in government, we know that smooth interpersonal relations between local police and federal police is really what makes for successful operations, whether it’s immigration, disasters, presidential visit, surveillance, etc. Local law enforcement officials build trust with their communities to be effective. In most sanctuary cities, many of them belong to immigrant families themselves and have to go back to their immigrant neighborhoods. How would they look to their friends and family if they conducted raids on one of their own establishments or community center? Elizabeth F. Cohen Associate Professor of Political Science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? Technically, any wall under discussion is actually composed of fencing. The 2000-mile US border with Mexico already contains hundreds of miles of fencing. The building of that fencing did not correlate with a reduction in undocumented immigration. The fencing and the militarization of the border has been a source of concern to people who live near the border. Not only has the border become a more violent place, but militarized methods of enforcement have encouraged the building of tunnels and other new means of human smuggling. These kinds of unintended consequences could have the perverse effect of strengthening the organized crime networks that engage in human trafficking and ultimately make them more effective and dangerous. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue? Whether this trend continues is largely contingent upon the stability and health of the US economy and the economies of countries like Mexico that send larger proportions of the overall immigrant population to the US. After the economic crisis of 2008, net Mexican-to-US migration started to dip and this trend has continued. However, if President Trump initiates actions that destabilize the Mexican economy or raise the costs of moving back and forth between the US and Mexico, it is possible that he will actually contribute to a larger and less mobile population of undocumented Mexican immigrants in the US. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? During the course of the Obama administration, the Priorities Enforcement Program (PEP) replaced Secure Communities, which in addition to having no regard for mixed status families, had inflamed many people with workplace raids and local police enforcement. With strict adherence to PEP, ICE could break up fewer families. However, even after PEP was put into effect, families were still being split up by ICE agents and many people were being detained in prison-like facilities for many months or even years. In some cases, this is because of overzealous enforcement practices. However, it is also the case that chronic understaffing, particularly with respect to immigration judges, has made it easier for rights and policy violations to occur. So-called “rocket dockets” prioritize the speedy processing of immigration cases over careful review of each case. Although the Trump administration has returned to the Secure Communities protocol, anyone concerned with families would seek to reinstate PEP and continue to add staff and judges so that families are not needlessly split up or detained for excessively long periods of time. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? Tightening legal immigration seems to be on the agenda of the Trump administration and some members of Congress. Some also want to restructure the visa priority system to prioritize more highly skilled and high-income immigrants. Many in the industries where immigrant workers represent a large proportion of the workforce, for example construction, hospitality and agriculture, are gravely concerned about the destabilizing effect this would have on their businesses. Tightening legal immigration could have the perverse effect of encouraging undocumented immigration. That, in turn, could depress wages. It could also make workplaces less safe, as undocumented workers are often reluctant to report problems like safety violations, harassment, or wage theft, particularly in a hostile immigration enforcement climate. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? Since the 1996 PRWORA changed to welfare law, almost all states have imposed a 3-5 year waiting period on any new arrival before eligibility for social welfare benefits kicks in. (Exceptions do exist for asylees and refugees, but those individuals receive federally funded resettlement aid.) So by the time an immigrant has lived in a state for long enough to receive social welfare benefits, they or someone in their family has been working, paying taxes, and consuming taxable goods for quite some time. Those are critical contributions to many states’ economies. While it is true that immigrants use some resources at higher rates than US born citizens, these effects are generally limited to a period of years after arrival. Other effects are harder to measure. Immigrants generally have higher birth rates than native-born Americans. This means more health care costs, more kids in schools, and a host of related costs. However, because birth rates for native born US citizens are trending downward, and because these trends have portended serious economic problems for countries like Japan, Italy, and other advanced democracies, we might consider ourselves lucky to still be a desirable destination for immigrants. Low birth rates lead to an aging population and that can be economically devastating. What recourse does the Trump administration have to punish sanctuary cities that will not cooperate with federal immigration agents? This is a complicated question for which no one yet has a final or comprehensive answer. Trump has threatened to cut off federal funding to any city that will not cooperate with ICE in enforcing the Secure Communities protocol. Secure Communities requires local police to cooperate with ICE agents in immigration enforcement. Many cities rightly protest that such cooperation shifts costs and work that the federal government should perform and also prevents their own police from doing their jobs. The first thing to keep in mind is that Congress, and not the President, controls the purse strings. All appropriations happen in Congress. So Trump will need congressional cooperation if he wants to punish sanctuary cities by withholding funds. That cooperation many not be hard to come by, however, there are other restrictions on what kinds of funds can be cut off. The Supreme Court case South Dakota v Dole established a precedent in which two standards are applied for such an action. First, the goal of action that the federal government seeks states to engage in must be in the general welfare. Second, the funds being withheld must be somehow connected to the purpose of the action. This means that most of the funds Trump would be withholding will likely be for things like antiterrorism, the prevention of violence against women, criminal prosecution, and community policing. It is very difficult to see how that makes sense, particularly when one takes into account the lack of evidence that Secure Communities enforcement actually lowers crime rates. Chris Rudolph Associate Professor of International Relations in the School of International Service at American University Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? It will certainly have some effect on reducing illegal immigration, but it is difficult to estimate exactly how much. It certainly won’t stop illegal immigration altogether. First, and most obviously, not all illegal immigrants are Mexican. Moreover, not all illegal immigrants in the United States entered clandestinely across the border. It is estimated that about 30-40% of the undocumented population are “out of status” migrants—those who entered legally and then overstayed their visa. The bigger question that doesn’t seem to be asked by the administration is, “Is it worth the cost?” In addition to its construction and operation costs, the wall will be exactly a number of other costs. You will certainly see a rise in the number of migrants using smugglers to get around the wall. There are also political costs. Even before its construction, the wall has significantly strained U.S.-Mexican relations. It may also be affecting America’s image abroad. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue? Politically speaking, net migration really isn’t the issue. The American electorate has shown that its concern is specifically with illegal immigration. If legal Mexican immigrants are leaving and being replaced by undocumented ones, this won’t alleviate political concerns. Unfortunately, data concerning such flows is based on estimates, and these can generally vary widely. I think such studies are also a bit misleading in the sense that, if we are taking them in the context of the U.S.-Mexico border situation, they conflate all migration that crosses the border as Mexican in origin. Mexico is a major transit country for migrants from Central and South America. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? That is certainly a difficult challenge, particularly in cases of children born in the U.S. from undocumented parents. I think we would need to take a comprehensive approach. First, it might be helpful to adjust the number of legal immigrants we allow to enter the country to better conform policy to the existing demand for foreign labor. We are in denial that we need and use low-skilled labor and that migrants generally fill this need. This need not involve permanent immigration, but could come in the form of a new guest worker program with Mexico. Second, we need to increase our cooperation with Mexico. Unfortunately, we’ve taken a giant step backwards along this front. After 9/11, Mexico helped U.S. interests to control illegal immigration by increasing controls along its southern border. This certainly helps to reduce the number of undocumented migrants reaching the U.S. and may serve as a deterrent against illegal immigration from Central and South America. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? I think legal immigration should be expanded rather than tightened. Since illegal immigration is what generates concerns among the American electorate, creating more opportunity for legal immigration might serve to lower levels of undocumented migration. Rather than “tighten” policy, I think it might be time to revisit our preference system. Our preference system is not aimed at coordinating migration to economic needs. Rather, our priority has been on family ties. I don’t propose abandoning this commitment to family unification, but I think our overall preference system needs to be more balanced to include economic interests. Brad Jones Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of California, Davis Do you think the border wall proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration? No. Impediments to entry have proven to have no effect on in-migration. Labor demand and economic factors drive migration. Barriers like those proposed have effectively no effect on migration, except they cost billions of dollars. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the US is below zero in recent years, that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue? Trump's policies, at least as best as we can figure them out, actually will substantially and materially harm the Mexican economy. This, ironically I think, will induce a downturn in the Mexican economy and might promote greater Mexican migration to the U.S. In this sense, migration under Trump may actually increase, not decrease. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart? This is easy. Implement a guest worker program and amend the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. It's seems to be so little understood that Mexican migrants have the same number of "documents" available to them as migrants from any other country. The problem is, labor demand is heavily focused on Mexico. Facilitating what economists call "circular migration" would alleviate all of these problems. Should the U.S. tighten its legal immigration policies? A significant boost to the US economy is driven by so-called "high skilled" labor. Tightening policy in ways that would suppress migrants in this category would be a serious detriment to the U.S economy. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states? This is easy: benefit. And the answer is for two reasons. First, undocumented migrants fill labor demands unfilled by American workers. Since undocumented earn very little but are vulnerable, they do not claim taxes owed to them as refunds. It is a net gain. What recourse does the Trump administration have to punish sanctuary cities who will not cooperate with federal immigration agents? Trump can and will threaten federal funding. The real problem is, so much of the day-to-day economy in these cities and states is dependent upon this labor. Sanctions by way of withholding federal funds would have deleterious effects. Further, to the extent Trump cares about electoral support -- and it's not yet clear he does -- recourse against Sanctuary City status would have repercussions.

Methodology

In order to determine the states in which immigration has the most positive economic impact, WalletHub compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across four key dimensions: 1) Immigrant Workforce, 2) Socioeconomic Contribution, 3) Brain Gain & Innovators and 4) International Students.

We examined those dimensions using 19 key metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing “most positive economic impact.”

We then determined each state and the District’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.

Immigrant Workforce – Total Points: 30

• Share of Foreign-Born Workforce: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Work Visas per Capita: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Jobs Generated by Immigrant-Owned Businesses as a Share of Total Jobs: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Share of Foreign-Born Business Owners: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Share of Active Physicians Who Are International Medical Graduates: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)

Socioeconomic Contribution – Total Points: 30

• Share of Foreign-Born Population: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Share of Second-Generation Immigrant Households: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Share of Income Generated by Immigrant Households: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Median Household Income of Foreign-Born Population: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Net Difference Between State and Local Revenues and Expenditures per Immigrant: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)

Brain Gain & Innovators – Total Points: 30

• Foreign-Born Population Aged 25 & Older with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Foreign-Born STEM Workers as a Share of Total STEM Workers: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• H-1B Visas per Capita: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Share of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Share of Foreign-Born Fortune 500 CEOs: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)

International Students – Total Points: 10

• Number of International Students per Total Students: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Economic Contributions of International Students per Capita: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Direct & Indirect Jobs Created by the Economic Contributions of International Students as a Share of Total Jobs: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)

 

Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, National Academy of Sciences, Partnership for a New American Economy Research Fund, Association of American Medical Colleges, American Immigration Council, Center for American Entrepreneurship, Boardroom Insiders, Time, The Trustees of Indiana University, NAFSA: Association of International Educators and the Institute of International Education.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress