immigration disadvantages essay

Pros and cons of Immigration

Immigration can give substantial economic benefits – a more flexible labour market, greater skills base, increased demand and a greater diversity of innovation. However, immigration is also controversial. It is argued immigration can cause issues of overcrowding, congestion, and extra pressure on public services. There is also a debate about whether immigration of unskilled workers leads to downward pressure on wages and even unemployment of native workers. This is a look at mostly the economic costs and benefits of immigration.

Benefits of Immigration

1. Increased economic output and living standards. Net immigration will lead to a growth in the size of the labour force and an increase in the productive capacity of the economy. Immigration leads to higher economic growth with a corresponding rise in tax revenues and potential for government spending.

2. Potential entrepreneurs . It is argued that immigrants often arrive with little wealth so have a greater incentive to try and make something for themselves. Also, people who are willing to leave a country and try in a foreign company are the most ambitious and willing to take risks and a result tend to be the more dynamic part of the workforce. Immigrants who are young and mobile are also quite likely to be entrepreneurs – set up businesses which create innovative products. The American economy is an example of how immigrants have moved to America and set up classic American companies – leading to higher living standards and a greater choice of goods and services. For example, (Apple) Steve Job’s father – Abdul Fattah Jandali was from Syria. Alexander Graham Bell (telephone AT&T) from Scotland. Jeff Bezos (Amazon) son of a Cuban immigrant. Sergey Brin (Google) is a Russian immigrant.

3. Increased demand and growth . A fear of immigration is that ‘Immigrants take jobs from native-born population’ However, this is known as the lump of labour fallacy . The belief that the number of jobs remains fixed. However, this is not the case, if immigrants move to the US or UK and gain employment, then they will spend their wages in their new country, creating new demand in the service and goods sector. Far from ‘taking jobs’ immigrants contribute to a growth in GDP. Between 1900 and 1915, 15 million immigrants arrived in the US ( 1 ), but this was a period of low unemployment and high economic growth. Immigration was a major factor in the rapid rate of growth (In US between 1890 to 1910 – economic growth was over 4%.)

4. Better skilled workforce. In the UK, immigrants working in the economy are more likely to have more educational and skilled qualifications. For example, just 20% of UK citizens finished education at 21 or later. But 53% of new immigrants were educated until 21 or later. (LSE study 2012 ) Immigration allows an economy to attract high skilled professionals to fill in job vacancies and contribute to higher tax revenues.

5. Net benefit to government revenues . Because immigrants are more likely to be young and working than native-born citizens, they provide a net benefit to government revenues. Working people pay income tax, but don’t receive benefits, such as education, pensions. Young people are less likely to use health care services than old people. For example, the UK government HMRC show that in 2015/16, EEA nationals paid £15.5bn more in income tax and national insurance than they took out in tax credits and child benefit ( HMRC, 2018 ). A study by Oxford Economics (2018) shows that recent migrants from EEA had the biggest fiscal benefit (+£4.7bn), non-EEA migrants a small cost (£ -9.0), and UK born citizens the biggest net tax burden (-£41.0bn).

• Evaluation – The impact of migration does depend on the type of immigrants. In the UK experience, non-EEA migrants have a bigger fiscal cost, because this includes more old-aged dependents who can migrate due to family reasons (therefore negative tax impact). There is a list of different studies on the fiscal impact of immigration here .

6. Deal with an ageing population. Many economies in the west are facing a demographic crunch with a low birth rate and ageing population causing a rise in the dependency ratio (ratio of old to young workers). This puts pressure on social care, tax revenues and government spending. Immigration is the most effective policy to deal with an ageing population, as it allows shortages in health care and social care to be filled with young workers who make a net contribution to government finances and boost the workforce.

7. More flexible labour market. Immigrants are highly mobile. They move to economies when wages are high and demand for labour strong. This helps to prevent a booming economy from overheating by providing labour to meet the growing demand. However, less obvious is the fact, that if the economy enters a downturn, migration flows often reverse, meaning they don’t stay to try and get unemployment benefits but return home. A good example is Ireland. In the boom years, pre-2007, the economy attracted many construction workers from the EU. When the property market collapsed many construction workers went home – limiting the rise in Irish unemployment. Immigration helped the labour market be more flexible.

8. Solves a skills shortage . If an economy has a shortage of skilled workers such as nurses and doctors, it would take several years to train new workers. But, the health service cannot afford this wait. Immigration enables the shortage to be filled immediately.

9. Filling undesirable job vacancies . Some types of jobs are often difficult to fill by native-born workers due to low wages and/or the prestige attached to that kind of work. For example, farmers often rely on immigrant workers to pick crops. A decline in immigration to the UK in 2019, led to farmers claiming they were unable to pick the harvest because they couldn’t get the seasonal labour. Immigration provides a benefit to businesses and employers who rely on flexible labour to fill job vacancies. Also, if low-skilled jobs are filled by migrants, it enables native-born workers to gain better-skilled work elsewhere.

10. Multi-cultural society . Away from economics, some feel that immigration leads to greater cultural diversity, which gives a country a more diverse and inclusive feel. All countries with immigration have absorbed some aspect of foreign culture into their country – be it cuisine, music, literature or political influences.

Costs of immigration

1. Potential negative impact on real wages. It is argued that low-skilled immigrants put downward pressure on wages. The argument is that an increase in the supply of unskilled labour enables firms to fill vacancies with lower wages than previously. Between 2010 and 2018, the UK had a high rate of net migration, but this was also a period of stagnant real wage growth. The impact on wages tends to be greater for the low-paid and those with few educational qualifications. A recent study by the Bank of England found a rise in immigration had a small impact on overall wages – with a 10% increase in immigration – wages fall by 0.31%. A study Dustmann et al ( 2013 ) find negative effects of immigration for the lower paid; they found that a 1% increase in the ratio of migrants to non-migrants leads to a 0.5% decrease for the poorest 10%.

• The impact on wages is uncertain. There are conflicting studies depending on the type of immigration. Most recent studies in the UK suggest if there is a negative effect on real wages it tends to be small. Also, many factors affect wages apart from migration levels.

2. Real GDP per capita could fall . Often supporters of immigration point to how it increases real GDP, and this is true. A rise in the population will ceteris paribus, increase national output. But a more useful measure is GDP per head. If immigration is of low-skilled and/or those not in labour markets, it will lead to a fall in real GDP per head.

3. Structural unemployment . Immigration could lead to some displacement of native-born workers who then experience structural unemployment. For example, if migrants gain unskilled labour because they are willing to work for lower wages. Those native-born low-skilled workers may find it harder to gain new employment in higher-skilled occupations.

4. Pressure on public services . Immigration and a rise in local populations put higher pressure on social services, such as schools, hospitals, roads and public transport. In theory, higher growth would lead to more tax revenue to enable higher spending. But, migration tends to be focused in particular areas (e.g near borders). Local people can feel a deterioration in the quality of public amenities because the population is growing faster than the number of schools. In the UK, the pro-Brexit vote was often highest in areas like Lincolnshire and Dover, which had recently experienced an influx of migrants without any corresponding increase in investment.

• If migration is more evenly spread out, these problems can be avoided. For example, parts of Scotland suffer from declining populations, but ironically migrants are often attracted to over-crowded areas like the south and London, where other migrants already live.

5. Housing costs If migrants move to areas with limited housing stock, migration can put upward pressure on rents and house prices, reducing living standards and increasing housing poverty for both migrants and native-born population who experience high living costs. In the UK, housing costs are a major problem – especially in areas like London and the south where it has been hard to find places to build new housing. Studies such as the Migration Advisory Committee ( 2018 ) found that a 1% increase in the UK’s population due to migration increased house prices by 1%. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) found that between 1991 and 2015 immigration had contributed to a 20% rise in house prices ( Study p.76 )

6. Disharmony from rapid immigration . Whilst some like a more multi-cultural society which occurs from immigration, others are less welcoming of this change and feel like their culture and background is threatened by immigrants who don’t fit into their existing society. This is especially an issue with immigrants who don’t learn the native language, have different religions and belief systems and live in mostly isolated communities.

• Evaluation: Often dislike of immigration is strongest in communities where the rate of immigration is very low. Areas with high rates of immigrants are more likely to appreciate the benefits of immigration.
• The extent of migration

This shows net migration into the UK. Figures of over 300,000 net migration in 2015 led to greater concerns over the sustainability of maintaining that level of migration and were a factor in the Brexit vote in 2016.

Reasons for migration

The reasons for migration are important. Migrating for work purposes are different to migration to embark in higher education. Also, it depends on the type of work workers are coming for. For example, in the UK, some jobs are hard to fill – health care workers, fruit pickers. Migration of these job types may be more encouraged.

• Impact of immigration in UK
• Economic effect of a cut in immigration

28 thoughts on “Pros and cons of Immigration”

I study immigration as a process, types of immigration and opportunities in different countries. Thanks for the helpful article.

THis is not a helpful article what does (Apple) Steve Job’s father – Abdul Fattah Jandali was from Syria. Alexander Graham Bell (telephone AT&T) from Scotland. Jeff Bezos (Amazon) son of a Cuban immigrant. Sergey Brin (Google) is a Russian immigrant. mean, what does (apple)(google)(amazon) and (telephone AT&T) mean mam.

Is this an article or a book?

It is a Video ☺️

Thank you for this. I needed to write an essay on my opinion on immigration, supported by facts.

I came here to do a speech on the pros and cons of immigration

Thank you, I needed to write a short essay on immigration about pros and cons. I found your website was very helpful.

Do you still have your essay? =)

I have to do a debate on this if you have anything I could use.

Do you have the essay by any chance?? 😅😅

Hi!! I was wondering if you still have your essay? 🙂

Immigration has changed the world. It is very important we need to be united as a human being.

Sadly, unity isn’t always the case. With large numbers of immigrants, they create their own community and can often fail to integrate properly as a result. You don’t have to integrate if all those around you are of the same culture as yourself.

“Also, if low-skilled jobs are filled by migrants, it enables native-born workers to gain better-skilled work elsewhere.”

This would be good if companies actually trained people. Many companies now only want experienced people, leaving the jobs that immigrants fill as the only viable alternative for some. If immigrants are filling those jobs, those unskilled and inexperienced native born workers are left without jobs and unable to get experience to get a job elsewhere. I have done fruit packing for agencies myself in the past as a fill-in when I have been between jobs, now all agency work is done by immigrants, so this option is closed to us as an alternative means of income.

I mean you are ignoring SO MANY other factors that contributed to economic growth and expansion between 1890 and 1920….like literally so many. No way could the growth during that time be contributed to immigration. The majority of financial gain came from WW1 where the U.S emerged with a small empire. We used this opportunity to further spread our influence into other countries like the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Nicaragua; taking financial control of these countries in the process. We also went on the gold standard in 1900, causing prices to rise and increase productivity in the mining industry and other related industries. The Federal Reserve was established as well, bringing with it more economic security. We also raised taxes like crazy after WW1 to help pay back loans taken out by the government during the war which ended up over quadrupling the tax income for the country…..economics is not a solitary concept. It is related to everything and affects everything. All factors need to be taken into account before taking a random statistic out of context to help support your agenda. Bt I’m all for legal immigration, I’m just not for unsupported research on which these claims are based off of

wwI was not for 25 years dumbo

where is the report button???

Even during the 1890 and 1920, there was substantial immigration to the US, exception being they were all from Europe.

I think immigration is always good because it makes diversity in a nation in terms of culture, tradition etc.

That’s fine when the two cultures can co-exist. It becomes a problem when the cultures have laws and religions that are completely at odds.

who was the publisher

http://www.economicshelp.org

Hallo I’m Nona

This was kind of very helpful,

This was helpful. Thanks.

mass immigration is the only thing i havent made my mind about it. the more i read about it, the more complex it becomes to me.

Comments are closed.

27 Immigration Pros and Cons

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Immigration has both positive and negative impacts on host countries, and immigration policies need to be cleverly designed to promote positive outcomes and reduce concerns for the local population.

Advantages of immigration include the fact migrants help stimulate economic growth, fill labor market gaps, and introduce cultural diversity for local populations to enjoy. Without migration, populations would decline within a generation for all G7 nations.

However, disadvantages of immigration include conflict of values and attitudes between immigrant and local populations, potential costs to the taxpayer, and potential changes to a nation’s collective identity.

The below pros and cons play ‘devil’s advocate’ and not all reflect my personal views – in fact, some I don’t have a strong opinion about one way or another. But it’s also worth noting that I myself am an immigrant!

Immigration Pros and Cons

Pros of immigration.

1. Economic Growth: There is consensus among mainstream economists (e.g. Ehrlich & Pei, 2021) that an absorbable rate of immigration leads to a phenomenon called the “immigration surplus”, at least in the short-term. This is an observable phenomenon whereby immigration tends to cause an increase in the wages of locals. Notably, this surplus tends to be higher if the immigrant are highly-skilled, as Borjas (1995, p. 15) argues: “immigration surplus may be larger when the immigrant flow is composed of skilled workers.”

2. Fills Gaps in the Labor Market: A well-designed immigration policy will attract workers who will fill jobs that are unfillable with the local labor force. For example, visa classes can be introduced in industries that may not be attractive to locals, or in industries such as medicine where there is a lack of skilled workers among the local population.

3. Cultural Diversity : Immigration brings cultural diversity to the host country, leading to a more multicultural society, and introducing an exciting mix of cultural festivals, foods, and belief systems that can provide locals with a richer array of cultural experiences from the comfort of their home cities.

4. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Studies such as this one by Vandor (2021) suggest that immigrants are more likely to start businesses, stimulating innovation and economic growth. Hypotheses suggest that this may be because the cohort of people who engage in voluntary migration may be more likely to take risks and may set up businesses due to discrimination in the workforce.

5. To Maintain Population Growth: Wealthy and developed nations tend not to have sufficient fertility rate to maintain sufficient population growth. To maintain current population, a nation needs a replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman . Furthermore, population growth has been one of the main drivers of economic prosperity within nations over the past 100 years. So, population growth is a good thing for the prosperity of a nation, at least in the short-term. But as the following data shows, no G7 nation has a fertility rate that matches replacement rate:

6. To pay for Aging Populations: As noted above, many developed nations turn to immigration because their local population does not reproduce at a high enough rate to replace the aging local population. If there are insufficient working-age people compared to retirees, there is a lot of strain on the nation’s budget. The costs of welfare for the elderly needs to be paid by a large working-age population that is only large enough thanks to immigration!

6. Global Connections: Immigration can foster international relationships and cooperation, which can be beneficial for trade and diplomacy. The more interconnected a nation is with its global partners, the more they are likely to trade, interact, travel, and support one another. This promotes not only economic prosperity between nations, but also regional peace and stability.

7. Increased Consumer Demand: A larger population due to immigration boosts demand for goods and services, stimulating the economy. For example, a large nation like the USA has a competitive advantage partly because of the large domestic consumer market that businesses can tap into in order to grow and prosper. Simply, large countries have large domestic markets that are good for domestic companies.

8. Tax Revenues: Immigrants contribute to tax revenues, helping to fund public services. For example, this article argues that immigrants pay around 30% of the taxes in the USA, despite only accounting for about 13.5% of the population. (Note that other studies from right-wing sources have found the opposite – see the ‘cons’ section).

10. Global Humanitarian Reputation: Accepting refugees and immigrants can improve a country’s international reputation. Furthermore, it can ensure a nation maintains a commitment to being a good global citizen, absorbing its fair share of the asylum seekers living in camps around the world waiting for a host nation to accept them.

11. New Ideas: Immigrants can bring new ideas and perspectives that enhance innovation and creativity. For example, Elon Musk is an immigrant to the USA, having been born in South Africa and educated in Canada. He made the USA home and brought with him innovative entrepreneurship that gave us SpaceX and Tesla.

12. Managing Seasonal Demand: A well-designed migration system can also help manage seasonal demand, such as for seasonal worker visas where temporary migrants come to a nation during harvest season in the USA and Australia, or to work at the ski resorts in Canadian winters.

Cons of Immigration

1. Job Competition: Immigration can occasionally lead to increased competition for jobs, potentially impacting the employment opportunities for locals. While many migration systems attempt to offset this by enforcing labor market impact statements upon employers before hiring overseas workers, there are undoubtedly case studies of people missing out on a job that was given to an immigrant, especially if the immigrant is on an open work visa (I can even think of a situation where my wife missed a job that was given to an immigrant).

2. Overpopulation: Excessive immigration can lead to uncontrolled population growth, leading to overcrowding and strain on infrastructure. Immigration needs to have a long-view, where the ‘immigrant surplus’ isn’t just short-term, but pays for longer-term situations such as when migrants rely on the nation’s welfare system and where they can offset the costs of new schools, transit infrastructure, etc. (Ehrlich & Pei, 2021).

3. Cultural Friction: The integration of new cultures may lead to social tension and conflict. This is often due to unacceptable discrimination and prejudice. However, some valid concerns may exist when cultural norms come up against one another in public spaces.

4. Exploitation: Immigrants, particularly those undocumented, may be exploited by employers due to their precarious status. This commonly happens to people whose visa is tied to a specific job. In such cases, the boss has strong coercion over the employee, who can be sent back to their home country if they lose their job, which can make them feel stuck with a bad or exploitative boss.

5. Tax Strain: While earlier I cited a study that immigrants pay more into the tax system than they get out, other studies (Grubel & Grady, 2011) have noted that immigrants to Canada cost taxpayers $6,051 per immigrant. This same study also noted that “newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians.” However, without questioning the findings of the study, it is worth noting as a matter of media literacy for my readers that both the study and the newspaper in which it was reported have known right-wing ideological stances.

6. Wage Suppression: The introduction of low-skilled immigrant workers could potentially suppress wages in certain sectors. I noted earlier that this is not the case for skilled migration. But unskilled migrants have less of an immigrant surplus effect (Ehrlich & Pei, 2021), which implies that a good immigration policy that is sustainable for a nation should not have an open door to unskilled migration, and ensure there is a strong mix of skilled migrants entering the country.

7. Security Concerns: Some argue that immigration could pose a security risk. This is likely dependent on the effectiveness of immigration controls. It is hard to deny that there would be case studies out there of immigrants committing serious crimes and even leading to deaths of locals. Nevertheless, this study by Ajzenman, Dominguez and Undurraga (2022) found that immigration does not overall increase crime rates.

8. Social Integration Issues : Immigrants might struggle to integrate into the host society, leading to social divisions and situations where migrants tend to cluster together in suburbs. This is a reasonable and understandable phenomenon – chain migrants who move to be with family and friends will want to live together, after all.

9. Brain Drain: When skilled migrants come to a nation for work, there is a negative effect on the other end – in their home nation. The emigration of skilled workers from their home countries can lead to a brain drain, which might slow development in those countries.

10. Economic Dependence: Immigrants who cannot find work may depend on social welfare systems, leading to economic burden on the host country. I have already cited mixed insights from two different studies on this topic, but on a case-by-case basis, this of course has happened in some circumstances.

11. Language Barriers: Language differences can lead to communication difficulties and slow integration into society. This is one reason why migrants often have to take language tests. I needed to take one when I came to Canada, even though English is my first language.

12. Shifts in National Identity: Large-scale immigration can lead to concerns about shifts in national identity and cultural norms. This is one key worry of many people, who want to feel as if they live among people who share their values; without sufficient positive regard between immigrants and locals, concerns may occur.

13. Housing Demand: An increase in population due to immigration can lead to higher demand for housing, leading to potential housing shortages or increased housing costs. In nations like Australia and Canada, where housing prices have soared over the past 20 years, migration is one of many factors – but still an important concern that needs to be considered by policy makers before deciding to allow for migration to happen.

14. Political Polarization: Immigration can be a polarizing issue and lead to political unrest or division. While this is not a reason in and of itself to stop immigration from happening, it is still a possible negative externality of a migration policy.

15. Public Health Concerns : If not properly managed, immigration can lead to public health concerns, especially if immigrants come from regions with endemic diseases. For example, before I migrated to Canada, I had to get a full health check-up and had to be tested for various diseases, so I wouldn’t bring them to the country and so I wouldn’t put undue pressure on the public health system.

Nations with highest Migration

I thought it might be interesting to conclude with some graphs for you, demonstrating how your country compares to other countries in terms of migrants per year.

There are two ways we could dissect this: total migration, and migration per capita. I think per capita makes more sense, because it shows how many migrants a country takes in, in proportion to its population, giving a more accurate reflection of how open a nation is to immigration.

I thought it was really interesting that the USA and Germany are number 1 and 2 for overall raw migration figures, they’re not even in the top 20 for migrants per capita

1. Raw Migration Figures

Here that is, as a table:

2. Migrants per Capita

Read Next: Why do People Migrate?

As an immigrant to Canada, I am grateful for the change to enjoy migration. However, having been settled here for some time, I, too am concerned about having a smart and controlled migration system. I enjoyed many benefits of migration – from the fact I come from one liberal western nation to another (Australia to Canada) so there was minimal culture shock and shared values between my home and host nations. My then partner, now wife, is also Canadian, so my transition was very easy. But I’m also proud to have started a business in Canada and be making a net contribution to my new home. As an immigrant, I do think it’s the migrant’s population to do their civic duty and contribute to the positive development of their new home.

Ajzenman, N., Dominguez, P., & Undurraga, R. (2022). Immigration, crime, and crime (mis) perceptions. Available at SSRN 4258034 .

Ehrlich, I., & Pei, Y. (2021). Endogenous immigration, human and physical capital formation, and the immigration surplus. Journal of Human Capital , 15 (1), 34-85.

Grubel, H. & Grady, P. (2011). Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State. Fraser Institue .

Vandor, P. (2021). Are voluntary international migrants self-selected for entrepreneurship? An analysis of entrepreneurial personality traits. Journal of World Business , 56 (2), 101142. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101142  

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Green Flags in a Relationship
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Signs you're Burnt Out, Not Lazy
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Toxic Things Parents Say to their Children

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• | International Freedom and Trade International Freedom and Trade
• | Policy Briefs Policy Briefs
• | May 23, 2018

The Benefits of Immigration: Addressing Key Myths

• Daniel Griswold
• Download Publication PDF

America’s historical openness to immigration has enriched its culture, expanded economic opportunity, and enhanced its influence in the world. Immigrants complement native-born workers and raise general productivity through innovation and entrepreneurship. Immigrants continue to integrate successfully into American society.

America is a nation of immigrants. That is not a cliché but a simple fact. Almost all Americans today either immigrated themselves or descended from immigrants, whether from England and Germany in the colonial era, Ireland, Eastern Europe, and Scandinavia in the 19th and early 20th centuries, or Latin America and Asia in more recent decades. Today one out of every four people residing in the United States are either first- or second-generation immigrants. Immigration has enriched the United States throughout its history, economically as well as culturally and socially.

Contrary to what some of our leaders and pundits tell us, immigrants strengthen the US economy by filling key jobs in important industries, starting businesses, filing patents, creating new products, and keeping America demographically younger. A large majority of immigrants embrace America’s culture of freedom and opportunity. Immigration is both a sign and a source of American dynamism. US immigration policy should move toward welcoming more hard-working immigrants to build a stronger US economy.

Facts about Immigration

Immigrants come to the United States because of the freedom and opportunity it offers. They come to work and build a better life for themselves and their families. Immigrants fill niches in the labor market, typically at the higher and lower ends of the skill spectrum, where the supply of native-born workers tends to fall short of demand by US employers. Without immigrants our economy would be less productive and dynamic.

• Immigrants boost America’s economic growth and raise the general productivity of American workers by providing much-needed skills. Immigrant workers allow important sectors of the economy to expand, attracting investment and creating employment opportunities for native-born Americans. A recent study by the International Monetary Fund concluded, “Immigration significantly increases GDP per capita in advanced economies.”
• Immigrants fuel entrepreneurship. Immigrants are more likely to start a business than native-born Americans, whether it’s a corner shop or high-tech startup. Among startup companies that were valued at more than $1 billion in 2016, half were founded by immigrants. Among Fortune 500 companies, 40 percent were founded by immigrants or their children.
• Immigrants generate new products, ideas, and innovation. Immigrants make up 17 percent of the US workforce, while filing one-third of the patents and accounting for more than one-third of US workers with a PhD in one of the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering, and math. One study found, “More than half of the high-skilled technology workers and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are foreign born.”
• Without immigrants and their children, the United States would soon begin to experience demographic decline. The number of US-born workers with US-born parents is already declining, and will shrink by eight million from 2015 to 2035. Immigrants extend the sustainability of federal retirement programs by slowing the rise in the ratio of retirees to workers. Without a growing workforce, the US economy would begin to lose its dynamism and leadership role in the global economy.
• Three-quarters of immigrants in the United States reside here legally. The number of unauthorized immigrants has stabilized in recent years at 11 to 12 million. Most illegal immigrants arriving today enter the country legally but then overstay their visas; thus, a wall on the US-Mexican border will not stop most illegal immigration. The most cost-effective policy for reducing illegal immigration remains the expansion of opportunities for legal entry and work.

Five Myths and Realities of Immigration

1. Myth: America is being flooded with mass immigration.

Reality: The rate of US immigration today is well below its historical average and below that of many other advanced nations.

• According to the Census Bureau, the number of foreign-born residents of the United States was 43.7 million in 2016, or 13.5 percent of the total US population. Although growing in recent decades, the immigrant share of the US population is still below its peak of nearly 15 percent in 1910. In many other developed nations, such as Canada and Australia, the foreign-born are a much higher share of the population than in the United States.
• More importantly, the rate of net migration to the United States today is far below what it has been in previous historical periods. The United States accepts about 1.1 million permanent legal immigrants per year, which is a high number in nominal terms but is historically modest as a share of the US population. The current annual US net migration rate (both legal and illegal, minus emigration), is 3.3 per 1,000 US residents. That is less than half of the US migration rate in the peak years of the Great Atlantic Migration from 1880 to 1910 and below the historical US average since 1820 of 4.3 per 1,000.

2. Myth: Immigrants depress wages and take jobs from Americans.

Reality: There is no evidence that immigrants cause higher unemployment among Americans or depress average wages.

• Immigrants typically complement American workers rather than compete directly with them for jobs. As immigrants supply labor, they also increase demand for housing and other goods and services, creating employment opportunities for native-born workers. This is why, over time, there is no correlation between immigration and the general unemployment rate. In fact, the number of jobs and the size of the workforce tend to grow together.
• For those same reasons, empirical studies have found that immigration has only a small and generally positive impact on average wages. A study cited in the 2017 National Academy of Sciences report on the economic consequences of immigration found that the only native demographic group negatively impacted is adults without a high school diploma. The wage impact on this group is small, in the range of 1 to 2 percent, and the size of this group has declined to less than 10 percent of the working-age population. Evidence also shows that as immigrants move in, native-born Americans tend to stay in school longer and upgrade their education, raising their productivity and wages. For more than 90 percent of American workers, immigration either raises wages or has no impact.

3. Myth: Immigrants increase the danger of crime and terrorism.

Reality: Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. The risks from immigrant terrorism are relatively low compared to other dangers. 

• Immigrants are less prone to crime for a number of reasons. After surveying the available evidence, a major 2015 study on immigrant integration by the National Academy of Sciences concluded, “Far from immigration increasing crime rates, studies demonstrate that immigrants and immigration are associated inversely with crime. Immigrants are less likely than the native born to commit crimes, and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have much lower rates of crime and violence than comparable nonimmigrant neighborhoods.”
• Foreign-born terrorists have committed deadly attacks on US soil, most tragically on September 11, 2001. But the terrorists responsible for the deaths that day were temporary visitors in the United States on nonimmigrant tourist and student visas. Terrorist acts by permanent immigrants are much less of a theat. According to research by Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, from 1975 to 2017, “. . . the chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by a chain immigrant or a diversity visa recipient was about 1 in 723 million per year,” a risk far lower than death by domestic homicide.

4. Myth: Immigrants impose a fiscal burden on US taxpayers.

Reality: Most immigrants pay more in taxes over their lifetimes than they consume in government benefits.

• Immigrants on average are net contributors to government. Immigrants tend to produce more of a fiscal surplus, or less of a deficit, than similarly educated native-born Americans because they are eligible for fewer government benefit programs. The children of immigrants are also more beneficial for government budgets than the children of native-born Americans because they tend to achieve higher levels of education, earnings, and tax paying.
• Higher-skilled immigrants are especially beneficial to government finances. According to the 2017 National Academy of Sciences report, an immigrant arriving in the United States at age 25 with a four-year college degree will, over his or her lifetime, pay $514,000 more in taxes than government services consumed (at net present value). An immigrant with an advanced degree will pay a surplus of almost $1 million. Immigrants without a high school diploma impose a lifetime cost on government of $109,000, but the cost is much smaller than that of a native-born adult without a high school diploma.

5. Myth: Immigrants are no longer assimilating into American culture.

Reality: As with immigrant waves before them, today’s immigrants and their children are learning English and assimilating into American society.

• Immigrants are acquiring proficiency in English at comparable rates to immigrants in the past. Second- and third-generation immigrants are overwhelmingly fluent in English. As the 2015 National Academy of Sciences report concluded, “Today’s immigrants are learning English at the same rate or faster than earlier immigrant waves.”
• In other important ways, immigrants are adapting to and integrating into American society. The 2015 National Academy of Sciences report also found that immigrants are more optimistic than native-born Americans about achieving the American Dream. Rates of intermarriage between native-born Americans and immigrants have been rising, including among ethnic and racial minorities.

Related Content

• | Expert Commentary Expert Commentary

The Immigration Reality: We Need Workers, Not a Wall

• February 13, 2018
• | Research Papers Research Papers

Reforming the US Immigration System to Promote Growth

• October 31, 2017
• | Data Visualizations Data Visualizations

Net US Immigration Rate Well within Historical Norm

• March 16, 2017

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Illegal Immigration — Pros and Cons of Immigration

Pros and Cons of Immigration

• Categories: Illegal Immigration

About this sample

Words: 519 |

Published: Aug 1, 2024

Words: 519 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Pros of immigration, cons of immigration, conclusion:.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 838 words

2 pages / 766 words

1 pages / 569 words

1 pages / 681 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is a topic that has been widely debated for decades. It refers to the act of entering a country without proper authorization or overstaying a visa. Illegal immigration is a significant issue, and it affects [...]

Immigration has become one of the most pressing issues affecting not only individual countries, but also the global community. While some see it as a threat to their cultural and economic identities, others consider it a [...]

The phenomenon of illegal immigration, a global challenge with far-reaching implications, cannot be fully grasped without considering the intricate interplay between internal and external factors. While domestic conditions [...]

Illegal immigration has been a long-standing and contentious aspect in the United States, and its dynamics and consequences continue to evolve. In the years 2023-2024, the landscape of illegal immigration witnessed various [...]

The resent research indicates that illegal Immigration population is declining for the first time in the last ten years, as the nation undergoes a tough economy period discourages people from sneaking into the USA”. Illegal [...]

Alba, D. (2019). Trump's Border Wall: A Reality Check. Journal of International Affairs, 72(2), 119-125.Boushey, H., Hersh, A., & John, J. (2020). Who Bears the Economic Costs of the Trump Border Wall? Center for American [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

9 Advantages and Disadvantages of Immigration

Migration, whether it be within or across borders, comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. 

It is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of immigration to fully understand its impact on societies.

This article will explore the benefits of immigration as well as the challenges and drawbacks it presents.

• Redaction Team
• June 10, 2023
• Business Planning , Entrepreneurship

Advantages of Immigration

• Economic Benefits : Immigration provides numerous economic advantages to the receiving country. Immigrant workers often fill job vacancies in sectors where there is a shortage of local labor, contributing to the productive capacity of the economy. They bring diverse skills and expertise that help drive innovation and enhance productivity. This can lead to increased GDP growth and a stronger local economy.
• Lower-skilled Labor : Immigrants who work in lower-skilled jobs may be willing to work for lower wages, which can benefit certain industries and make goods and services more affordable for consumers. This can create cost advantages for businesses and stimulate economic growth.
• Fill Job Vacancies : In countries experiencing demographic challenges, such as under-population or an aging workforce, immigrants can help fill job vacancies and address labor shortages. This ensures the continuity of essential services and maintains the functioning of key industries.
• Cultural Diversity : Immigration allows for the enrichment of societies through cultural diversity. Immigrants bring their customs, traditions, and perspectives, fostering a multicultural environment that promotes tolerance, understanding, and the exchange of ideas. This can contribute to a stronger global economy by promoting international cooperation and collaboration.
• Remittances : Immigrants often send money back to their home countries, known as remittances. These financial transfers can significantly contribute to the economic development of their countries of origin. For example, the GDP of Guatemala heavily relies on remittances provided by immigrants.

Disadvantages of Immigration

• Pressure on Public Services : A significant influx of immigrants can put extra pressure on public services such as healthcare, education, and social care. Local governments may face challenges in meeting the increased demand, potentially leading to strained resources and longer waiting times for services.
• Impact on Wages : In some cases, immigrants willing to work for lower wages can create downward pressure on wages in certain industries. This can lead to concerns among native workers who may face increased competition for employment opportunities.
• Social Problems : Rapid increases in population due to immigration can sometimes lead to social problems. Language barriers, cultural clashes, and difficulties in assimilation can create social tensions and strains within communities. However, it is important to note that these issues are not inherent to immigration and can be mitigated through effective integration policies.
• Brain Drain : Developing countries may experience a loss of skilled workers, known as brain drain, as individuals seek better opportunities abroad. This can impede the development of the countries of origin, as valuable skills and expertise are lost.

Conclusion of Pros and Cons of Immigration

In conclusion, immigration has both advantages and disadvantages that must be considered. It provides economic benefits, fills labor gaps, promotes cultural diversity, and supports the global economy through remittances.

However, it can also create pressure on public services, impact wages, and give rise to social challenges. 

By implementing appropriate policies and strategies, societies can maximize the benefits of immigration while addressing its potential drawback, similar to the advantages and disadvantages of cultural diversity .

Privacy Overview

Immigration: Pros and Cons of Immigration

This essay about the cons of immigration explores the economic, social, and cultural challenges that can arise in host countries. It discusses how immigration can increase job competition, particularly in low-wage sectors, and potentially suppress wage growth. The essay also examines the strain on public resources such as healthcare, education, and social services, highlighting the initial economic burden on local systems. Socially, it outlines how the influx of new cultural groups can lead to xenophobia, social fragmentation, and a lack of cohesion. Culturally, the potential for conflict and perceived threats to national identity are considered, along with the impact of brain drain on immigrants’ home countries. The essay concludes by suggesting that these negative impacts can be mitigated through inclusive policies and effective community planning to foster integration and capitalize on the benefits of immigration.

How it works

Migration emerges as a multifaceted quandary fraught with diverse economic, societal, and cultural ramifications for both recipient nations and migrants themselves. While the positive facets of migration are frequently accentuated, it is imperative to reckon with its potential adversities. These detriments can materialize across various domains, encompassing economic strains, societal frictions, and cultural discord, impacting both migrant populations and indigenous inhabitants.

Economically, a pivotal apprehension associated with migration is the conceivable escalation in labor market competition, particularly within low-wage sectors. This phenomenon can precipitate the displacement of native laborers and suppress wage escalation, notably within sectors reliant on unskilled manpower.

Furthermore, the influx of migrants can strain public resources such as healthcare, education, and welfare services, particularly if migrants necessitate substantial support to acclimatize to their newfound surroundings. While migrants do contribute to the economy through fiscal contributions and expenditure, the initial fiscal strain on public coffers can be considerable, particularly in locales grappling with elevated influxes.

Socially, migration can engender discord and dissension within societal frameworks. As novel cultural enclaves take root within host nations, resistance from indigenous populations can emerge, fostering xenophobia and social disintegration. The endeavor of integrating substantial migrant populations can exacerbate these tensions, culminating in segregated enclaves and a dearth of social coherence. This schism is frequently exacerbated by disparities in language, faith, and cultural norms, impeding effective intergroup communication and mutual comprehension.

Culturally, while diversity typically augments societal vibrancy, it can also precipitate strife if not managed adeptly. Disparities in cultural mores can instigate misconceptions and biases, potentially resulting in discriminatory conduct towards migrants. Moreover, the perceived encroachment upon national identity and values can elicit a defensive response from indigenous populations, potentially catalyzing nationalist or protectionist measures. This cultural dissonance can pose an existential quandary for nations, especially in cases where substantial disparities exist between the values and customs of migrant and indigenous populations.

Furthermore, migration can occasion brain drain in origin nations, particularly when emigration predominantly comprises highly skilled and educated individuals seeking greener pastures. This exacerbates global inequities and can impede development in migrants’ countries of origin, which forfeit invaluable human capital imperative for their advancement and progress.

Notwithstanding these challenges, it is pivotal to underscore that many of these drawbacks can be assuaged through judicious policymaking and inclusive community planning. Ensuring that migrants have access to requisite resources and support for seamless integration into society can mitigate myriad potential adversities. Policies advocating diversity and inclusion, alongside those fostering equitable economic opportunities for all, can facilitate the cultivation of cohesive communities that reap the benefits of migration’s positive facets.

In summation, while migration may engender myriad challenges for recipient nations, it also represents a dynamic force capable of conferring substantial societal enrichment and diversity. The crux of harnessing migration’s benefits lies in cognizance and remediation of potential drawbacks through discerning and inclusive policy formulation. This equilibrium can empower nations to cultivate robust, diversified communities primed to thrive in an increasingly interconnected global milieu.

Cite this page

Immigration: Pros And Cons Of Immigration. (2024, May 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/immigration-pros-and-cons-of-immigration/

"Immigration: Pros And Cons Of Immigration." PapersOwl.com , 1 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/immigration-pros-and-cons-of-immigration/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Immigration: Pros And Cons Of Immigration . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/immigration-pros-and-cons-of-immigration/ [Accessed: 27 Aug. 2024]

"Immigration: Pros And Cons Of Immigration." PapersOwl.com, May 01, 2024. Accessed August 27, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/immigration-pros-and-cons-of-immigration/

"Immigration: Pros And Cons Of Immigration," PapersOwl.com , 01-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/immigration-pros-and-cons-of-immigration/. [Accessed: 27-Aug-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Immigration: Pros And Cons Of Immigration . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/immigration-pros-and-cons-of-immigration/ [Accessed: 27-Aug-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

Should the us federal government provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

• Path to Citizenship – Overview
• Path to Citizenship – Economic Security
• Path to Citizenship – Fair Process
• Border Fence or Wall
• Driver’s Licenses
• Mass Deportations
• Economic Burden
• Terrorist Threat
• Disadvantage American Workers
• Higher Crime

More on the Immigration Debate

• States (and DC) That Allow Driver’s Licenses for People in the Country Illegally
• Are DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the DREAM Act Good for America?
• Sanctuary Cities: Top Pros and Cons

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Immigration – Pros & Cons
• Take Action
• History of Path to Citizenship Legislation
• Historical Timeline
• Discussion Questions
• Did You Know?
• DACA and the DREAM Act
• Sanctuary Cities
• US Undocumented Immigrant Population Estimates
• Demographics of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States, 2019
• Illegal Immigration around the World
• Unaccompanied Immigrant Children – Demographic Data

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

• Foreign Affairs
• CFR Education
• Newsletters

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

• Defense & Security
• Diplomacy & International Institutions
• Energy & Environment
• Human Rights
• Politics & Government
• Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

• Europe & Eurasia
• Global Commons
• Middle East & North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

How New Tobacco Control Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on U.S. Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

• Backgrounders
• Special Projects
• United States

Book by Max Boot September 10, 2024

• Centers & Programs
• Books & Reports
• Independent Task Force Program
• Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

• Students and Educators
• State & Local Officials
• Religion Leaders
• Local Journalists

NATO's Future: Enlarged and More European?

Virtual Event with Emma M. Ashford, Michael R. Carpenter, Camille Grand, Thomas Wright, Liana Fix and Charles A. Kupchan June 25, 2024 Europe Program

• Lectureship Series
• Webinars & Conference Calls
• Member Login

The U.S. Immigration Debate

• The United States is home to more foreign-born residents than any other country in the world. In 2022, immigrants composed almost 14 percent of the U.S. population.
• Congress has failed for decades to agree on how to address immigration challenges, leaving many policy questions up to the courts and executive branch.
• President Joe Biden has reversed many of the Donald Trump administration’s restrictive policies, even while implementing his own in response to a historic influx of migrants.

Introduction

Immigration has been a touchstone of the U.S. political debate for decades, as policymakers have weighed economic, security, and humanitarian concerns. However, Congress has continued to disagree on comprehensive immigration reform, effectively moving some major policy decisions into the executive and judicial branches of government and fueling debate in the halls of state and municipal governments.

Former President Donald Trump has put efforts to reshape asylum, border, and deportation policy at the center of his political movement. President Joe Biden had pledged to reverse Trump’s first-term actions and reform the system, but the end of pandemic-related border restrictions and a historic surge in migration have complicated his plans.

What is the immigrant population in the United States?

• Immigration and Migration
• Border and Port Security
• Donald Trump

Immigrants composed an estimated 13.9 percent of the U.S. population in 2022, amounting to roughly 46 million people out of a total of almost 335 million, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released in April 2024. Together, immigrants and their U.S.-born children made up about 27 percent of U.S. inhabitants, per the Current Population Survey. Though the share of the population that is foreign born has steadily risen since 1970, when there were fewer than ten million immigrants in the country, recent figures still fall below the record high of 14.8 percent in 1890. 

As of 2022, Mexico was the top country of origin for U.S. immigrants, with Mexicans constituting 23 percent of the total immigrant population. Other major countries of origin include India (6 percent); China, including Hong Kong and Macau (5 percent); and the Philippines (4 percent).

Undocumented immigration. The U.S. government estimated the undocumented population to be some eleven million people in 2022. This total represents a slight decrease from 11.8 million before the 2008 economic crisis [PDF], which led some immigrants to return to their home countries and discouraged others from coming to the United States. In fiscal year 2023 (FY 2023), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) apprehended nearly 2.5 million people trying to illegally cross the southern U.S. border, a record high.

Until 2013, almost all of those trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens, and most were individuals seeking work. Between 2013 and 2021, most immigrants came from Asia, particularly China and India. Mexico has since regained its status as the top country of origin, and Central Americans have made up an increasingly larger share of migrants at the southern U.S. border. Generally, they are coming not for work but to make asylum claims, and many of them are unaccompanied children. Some of these immigrants have different legal rights from Mexican nationals in the United States: Under a 2008 anti–human trafficking law, unaccompanied minors from noncontiguous countries have a right to a hearing before being deported to their home countries. The increase in Central American migration has strained the U.S. immigration system. At the end of FY 2023, there were nearly 2.8 million cases pending in immigration courts, the most on record.

Though many of the policies that aim to reduce unlawful immigration focus on enforcement at the border, individuals who arrive in the United States legally and overstay their visas comprise a significant portion of the undocumented population. A Center for Migration Studies report found that, between 2010 and 2018, individuals who overstayed their visas far outnumbered those who arrived by crossing the border illegally.

Legal immigration. The United States granted more than one million individuals [PDF] legal permanent residency in FY 2022, close to pre-pandemic levels. Some 58 percent of them were admitted on the basis of family reunification. Other categories included: employment-based preferences (27 percent), refugees (3 percent), diversity (4 percent), and asylees (5 percent). As of late 2023, more than four million applicants were on the State Department’s waiting list [PDF] for family- and employer-related immigrant visas, nearly a third of whom were from Mexico.

Hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals work legally in the United States under various types of nonimmigrant visas. In FY 2023, the United States granted more than  265,000 visas for high-skilled workers  [PDF], known as H1B visas, and over 310,000 visas for temporary workers in agriculture and other industries, or H2A visas. H1B visas are capped at 85,000 per fiscal year, with exceptions for certain fields .

Immigrants made up 18.6 percent of the U.S. civilian workforce [PDF] in 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, up from 18.1 percent the previous year. Compared to those born in the United States, greater shares of immigrants worked in service fields (21.8 percent of all foreign-born people); production, transportation, and material moving (15.2 percent); and natural resources, construction, and maintenance (13.8 percent). 

How do Americans feel about immigration?

A February 2024 poll by Gallup showed that 28 percent of surveyed Americans considered immigration to be the top problem facing the United States. In a separate Gallup poll conducted that same month, the majority of respondents felt that illegal immigration was a “critical” threat to U.S. national security.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted in April found that some 60 percent of the registered voters surveyed believed that undocumented immigrants currently in the United States should be allowed to stay, with 36 percent of respondents saying that undocumented immigrants should have the opportunity to apply for citizenship. In addition, a large majority of Americans still consider immigration to be overall good for the country.

How has Congress tried to address the issue?

The most recent push for an immigration policy overhaul was in 2013, following a decade in which Congress debated numerous immigration reforms, some considered comprehensive and others piecemeal. (Comprehensive immigration reform refers to omnibus legislation that attempts to address the following issues: demand for high- and low-skilled labor, the legal status of the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the country, border security, and interior enforcement.) The last major legislation to make it through Congress was under President Ronald Reagan in 1986, when his administration granted legal amnesty to some three million undocumented residents; in 1990, President George H.W. Bush further expanded legal immigration by increasing the cap for immigrant visas from 270,000 to 700,000, though he lowered the quota to 675,000 after several years. In 2007, President George W. Bush worked with congressional Democrats to reach a compromise on a new comprehensive bill, but it ultimately failed to win enough support in the Senate.

President Barack Obama pressed hard for a comprehensive bill that would pair a path to legalization for undocumented residents with stronger border security provisions. The Democrat-led Senate passed this legislation in 2013, but the bill stalled in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Both Presidents Trump and Biden put forward their own plans, which were not seriously considered by Congress.  

What was the Obama administration’s approach?

With legislation thwarted, Obama focused on executive action, a tactic that his successors continued. In 2012, his administration began a program known as DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , which offered renewable, two-year deportation deferrals and work permits to undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the United States as children and had no criminal records. 

Obama characterized the move as a “ stopgap measure ” and urged Congress to pass the DREAM Act , or Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors—legislation first introduced in 2001 that would have benefited many of the same people. Since then, more than 830,000 people have participated in DACA, and it’s estimated that almost 1.2 million more were eligible as of 2023. Obama attempted to extend similar benefits to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents through a program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), but the Supreme Court effectively killed it in 2016.

In 2014, Obama also grappled with a surge of more than sixty thousand unaccompanied minors at the southern border, mostly from Central America. He directed $750 million in aid to the region to improve conditions there. Meanwhile, his administration faced criticism for its enforcement policies, including detaining children in poor conditions and overseeing the deportation of more people— approximately three million —than either the Bill Clinton or George W. Bush administrations had.

What was the Trump administration’s approach?

Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump. He blames previous administrations for failing to secure the southern border, and in his first term, he advocated for sharply reducing both legal and illegal immigration. He repeatedly used executive action to reshape asylum, deportation, and border policy.

Border security and enforcement . Trump vowed to expand the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which he claimed would stop drugs and gangs from entering the country. He was unsuccessful in securing funding from Congress, leading to a federal government shutdown in 2019 and a subsequent declaration of a national emergency , which allowed him to divert funds to build the wall.

Other enforcement measures under Trump included increasing border personnel; sending thousands of active-duty troops to the border; threatening Mexico with tariffs if it did not increase its own border enforcement; and attempting to cut federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities, or jurisdictions that refuse to enforce federal immigration directives.

Trump also ratcheted up previous administrations’ deterrence efforts. He implemented a zero-tolerance policy, under which authorities arrested and prosecuted everyone caught crossing the southern border without authorization. This caused thousands of family separations , since by law children must be held apart from parents facing criminal prosecution. (Presidents Bush and Obama likewise faced criticism for child detention, but they did not make separations a matter of policy.)

DACA . Trump sought to end DACA, calling it unconstitutional. The move spurred multiple legal challenges and, in June 2020, the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s plan . A December 2020 federal court ruling forced the Trump administration to resume accepting new applicants.

Travel bans and refugee cap . Trump aimed to sharply reduce the number of refugees and other immigrants granted legal entry into the United States. In 2017, he instituted a ban on immigration and travel from several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Somalia, and Yemen. The original order was rejected by the courts, but the Supreme Court upheld a more limited version. Trump also lowered the cap on the number of refugees the United States accepts each year to less than fifteen thousand for FY 2021—the lowest figure in the history of the U.S. refugee program . Additionally, he ended temporary protected status (TPS)—a program that allows migrants from certain crisis-stricken nations to live and work in the United States for a limited period—for several countries.

Asylum policy . Trump implemented new restrictions on asylum seekers. In 2018, the administration began “metering” asylum applications, or only accepting a limited number [PDF] each day. The next year, it launched the Migrant Protection Protocols , also known as the “Remain in Mexico” program, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases were processed in U.S. courts. At the same time, it sought “safe third country” agreements with several Latin American countries, which would have allowed U.S. authorities to send asylum seekers who traveled through those countries back there. Only an agreement with Guatemala was implemented before that country terminated it in 2021. Additionally, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, previously a rarely used public health law, to deny asylum on health-related grounds amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comprehensive reform effort . Like his immediate predecessors, Trump proposed broad immigration reform . His would have created a merit-based system to replace the current one,  which prioritizes family reunification. It also included an expansion of the border wall and an employment verification system known as E-Verify, but it did not address the status of current undocumented residents. Congress ultimately did not take up the proposal.

What has been Biden’s approach?

Ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Biden campaigned on overturning almost all of Trump’s immigration policies. Since then, the Biden administration has reduced immigration enforcement within the United States, ended the travel bans, expanded green-card access for certain undocumented immigrants, and ended the controversial Title 42 policy, though it did initially maintain many pandemic-related restrictions. The administration also initially halted construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, though it has since moved forward with plans to build additional sections; expanded TPS protections; terminated the Remain in Mexico program (with Supreme Court approval); and raised the refugee cap to 125,000 for fiscal years 2022–24. 

However, Biden’s efforts to undo Trump-era policies have been challenged by a historic influx of migrants at the southern border. The record surge in border crossings has prompted the administration to implement several new restrictions since 2023, including a so-called transit ban allowing the government to deny asylum to migrants who did not previously apply for protection in a third country. In addition, the administration can temporarily bar asylum requests when the number of illegal crossings exceeds a certain threshold; since the start of 2024, illegal crossings have slowed . 

Meanwhile, Biden has worked with Latin American leaders to increase aid to refugee populations, improve border management, and better coordinate emergency responses, even as his own comprehensive immigration reform bill and other border security legislation have failed in Congress. His administration has also launched efforts to accelerate the reunification of migrant families, including by reinstating the Central American Minors (CAM) program, which reunites children in the so-called Northern Triangle countries with their parents in the United States, and by creating a family-reunification task force. Additionally, Biden has pledged to invest $4 billion to address the drivers of migration from Central America, and he has sought to revive DACA; the Department of Homeland Security continues to accept and process renewal requests amid ongoing legal challenges to the program.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with cfr analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.  weekdays., the world this week, a weekly digest of the latest from cfr on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. every friday., think global health.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.  Weekly.

How are state and local authorities handling these issues?

States vary widely in how they treat unauthorized immigrants. Some, including California and Massachusetts, allow undocumented immigrants to apply for drivers’ licenses, receive in-state tuition at universities, and obtain other benefits. At the other end of the spectrum are states such as Texas, where the legislature passed a law [PDF] mandating that local governments and law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal immigration officers.

The federal government is generally responsible for enforcing immigration laws, but it delegates some immigration-related duties to state and local law enforcement. However, the degree to which local officials are obliged to cooperate with federal authorities is a subject of intense debate: dozens of counties across thirteen states are home to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement.

The degree to which local officials are obliged to cooperate with federal authorities is a subject of intense debate.

President Trump decried these sanctuary jurisdictions and reinstated a controversial Obama-era program known as Secure Communities, in which the FBI shares fingerprints of suspects collected by state and local law enforcement with federal immigration authorities. Under the program, state and local agencies also hand over individuals presumed to be in the country illegally. Biden terminated the program shortly after taking office. 

A range of court rulings during the Trump era increased pressure on states. In 2018, the Justice Department launched a lawsuit against California over sanctuary jurisdictions, which was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court. It filed similar suits against New Jersey and Washington, and a federal court ruled in 2020 that the Trump administration could withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, including New York City. Under Biden, the Justice Department reversed this stance, leading the Supreme Court to dismiss several pending cases .

The ongoing border crisis has driven increasing controversy over local responses. After Trump called on states to deploy National Guard contingents to the southern border, several governors refused. Others, including Texas’s Greg Abbott, embraced Trump’s views, continuing to expand the border wall and seeking to boost the role of state and local law enforcement in carrying out federal immigration policy. In the Biden era, Abbott has sought to impose stronger enforcement at the Texas-Mexico border despite federal opposition. The governor signed a law in December 2023 making it a state crime to cross the border into Texas illegally and authorizing law enforcement to arrest and deport migrants. The bill remains on hold amid legal challenges; several other states are attempting to enact similar legislation.

Recommended Resources

This CFR Backgrounder explains who is responsible for securing the U.S. border.

This timeline traces changes to U.S. postwar immigration policy.

The Washington Post ’s Eduardo Porter and Youyou Zhou argue that the United States’ efforts to limit immigration a century ago actually helped diversify the country .

In this CFR webinar, experts discuss how immigration is shaping political conversations ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

On this episode of The President’s Inbox , the American Immigration Council’s Dara Lind breaks down the situation at the southern border .

The Migration Policy Institute’s Muzaffar Chishti, Kathleen Bush-Joseph, and Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh look at Biden’s immigration record at his term’s three-year mark.

• Central America

Emily Lieberman, Nathalie Bussemaker, Samuel Parmer, and Danielle Renwick contributed to this Backgrounder. Will Merrow created the graphics.

• How many immigrants are in the U.S.?
• What has Congress done?
• What was Obama’s approach?
• What was Trump’s approach?
• What is Biden’s approach?
• What’s happening at the state and local levels?

More From Our Experts

How Will the EU Elections Results Change Europe?

In Brief by Liana Fix June 10, 2024 Europe Program

Iran Attack Means an Even Tougher Balancing Act for the U.S. in the Middle East

In Brief by Steven A. Cook April 14, 2024 Middle East Program

Iran Attacks on Israel Spur Escalation Concerns

In Brief by Ray Takeyh April 14, 2024 Middle East Program

Top Stories on CFR

Monetary Policy

What Is the U.S. Federal Reserve?

Backgrounder by James McBride , Anshu Siripurapu and Noah Berman August 15, 2024 Renewing America

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Don’t Reinvent the Wheel to Govern AI

Blog Post by Jack Corrigan and Owen J. Daniels August 20, 2024 Net Politics

What Georgia’s Foreign Agent Law Means for Its Democracy

In Brief by Marc Goedemans August 21, 2024

Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

As time progresses, more and more people from different countries come into the United States. They help combating demographic issues, resolve worker shortages and help the economy by participating in a number of fields. However, some people fear that they may cause crime in America, deprive native-born residents of job opportunities and put the country in debt. In the following text, I will review both the supportive and the opposing side and add my own opinion.

It is important to mention how immigrants tend to affect the economy of the country. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, they are quite dedicated employees and represent over a third of America’s workforce in certain fields. The immigrants’ presence helps resolve worker shortages and issues that could have otherwise severely damaged the country’s economy. By residing in the country, they assist the senior part of the population by outnumbering retirees and supporting the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security (Sherman et al., 15 August 2019). Children of said immigrants may benefit not only their households, but America’s economy in general.

Immigrants have had a positive effect on working spaces in America. According to the statistics received from the US Bureau of Labor, the participation of foreigners in the workforce was 3.4 percent higher than for native residents. Immigrants had a higher employment rate as well, which was 3.6 percent higher than among locals (Sherman et al. 15 August 2019). The former partake in jobs that have a crucial impact on US economy and communities. Although immigrants without undergraduate degrees tend to be the main focus of this phenomenon, they represent a significant amount of employees in some industries. Employers will face dire consequences if foreigners will no longer have the chance to come to America or stay there.

Yet another important advantage is that immigrants improve the situation in specific fields. The decreased growth rates among the native-born part of America’s population leads to the conclusion that immigrant families contribute to its increase (Sherman et al. 15 August 2019). The recent data received from the Census Bureau states that immigrant-fronted households account for almost 40 percent of household growth. This creates quite a promising future for the housing industry.

At times, families of immigrants who work in jobs with low salaries require financial aid. Programs similar to SNAP and Medicaid assist them in such cases, just like they do with many other US residents. Most foreign-born US residents who receive aid from such programs tend to either be employed themselves or married to a person who works. Nearly 77 percent of those who get financial aid either worked or were married to an employee (Sherman et al., 15 August 2019). This is known as a common feature among low wage workers.

It is necessary to emphasize that the immigrants who receive aid from such programs eventually have higher employment rates. According to data from the years 1999 to 2015, most of the foreign born citizens who benefit from such programs were employed most of the time (Sherman et al., 15 August 2019). The received data reviewed by CBPP demonstrates the connection between financial aid and employment during any year.

Currently, most Western countries, including the US, are experiencing a demographic problem caused by a low birth rate and a large amount of retired citizens. This issue leads to a spike in the dependency ratio, which may severely damage the economy (Pettinger, 14 November 2020). Immigration is the easiest and most useful way of combatting this situation, for it helps fill the country with a significant number of young workers who contribute to government finances and increase the amount of workforce.

Immigrants may also have a positive effect on the demand of the service and goods area. They are known for being one of the causes of GDP growth (Pettinger, 14 November 2020). Even at the beginning of the 20 th century, immigration has lead to the fast rate of growth. Said economic growth was measured to be over four percent. This adds to the large list of the positive effects foreign-born residents have on US economy.

Unfortunately, there are some negative views related to this aspect. Some people fear that immigration may lead to the decrease in average job wages and job opportunities (Nowrasteh, 2 May, 2018). As mentioned before, many immigrants without college degrees usually partake in occupations with low salaries. This, in turn, raises concern that employers will no longer create vacancies with decent wages. According to George Borjas’ research, the increase in population has negatively affected salaries in Miami. However, findings that responded to the research have implied that the professor may have changed whom he had surveyed. This leads to the possible conclusion that the discoveries are somewhat biased. Moreover, there are researches that invalidate those fears, since the smallest immigration surplus ignores the positive contributions caused by immigrants.

Some people fear that immigration may lead to a spike in violent crimes. This concern has been around for over a few centuries in America (Nowrasteh, 2 May, 2018). However, as multiple findings from the years 1896, 1909, 1931 and more recent ones have shown, this is not true. According to statistics, Texas’ crime rate was mostly caused by native residents, as opposed to both legal and illegal immigrants (Nowrasteh, 2 May, 2018). The following years have witnessed an even larger decrease in crime among immigrants compared to US-born residents.

The people opposed to immigration fear that their presence may lead to government debt and budget issues. They justify it by stating that foreigners tend to take more from the government than the amount they give to tax revenue (Nowrasteh, 2 May, 2018). In a way, the people opposed to immigration imply that foreign-born US residents seek nothing but benefit, without wanting to be useful to their country of residence. Fortunately, there is some data that can debunk this viewpoint.

What invalidates this fear is that recent findings have shown that immigrants have an almost non-existent effect on the government budget. The model provided by the National Academics of Sciences in their survey related to economics and immigration has demonstrated that native-born US residents are more likely to poorly affect government than foreign born citizens (Nowrasteh, 2 May, 2018). There are two groups of immigrants that may negatively affect the economy: high school dropouts under 25 and highly educated citizens over 64. However, said negative effect is rather minimal, almost nonexistent.

There is a quite common misconception in the list of anti-immigration arguments, which claims that it is easy to move to the United States. In reality, this is false, for the process may take decades. This caused a rather low flow of immigration compared to other OECD countries (Nowrasteh, 2 May, 2018). Another reason for this situation is that other countries are significantly more open to legal immigration. This, perhaps, could explain the existence of illegal immigrants in the United States as well.

Having reviewed the data, I have come to the conclusion that most of the arguments against immigration are either based on negative biases or misinformation. There are many studies that debunk the negative views on that issue and reviewing them has made me certain about my support of immigration. Foreign-born citizens are just as valid as native-born citizens are, and their existence needs to be destigmatized. That way, a brighter future for immigration in the US can be created.

Works Cited

Nowrasteh, Alex. “The 14 Most Common Arguments against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong.​ Cato Institute 2.5. 2018.” (2019).

Pettinger, Tejvan. “ Pros and Cons of Immigration ”. EconomicsHelp., 2020

Sherman, Arloc, et al. “ Immigrants Contribute Greatly to US Economy, Despite Administration’s Public Charge Rule Rationale .”Center on Budget and Policy Priorities., 2019.

• Immigration Controversy in the United States
• The Irish Emigration to America
• The Migrant and Immigration Issues in the US Society
• Immigration and Healthcare in the United States
• The State of Foreign Born Latinos in Haiti
• Lobo Family: The Case of Migration
• Substantial Prejudice Against Immigrants
• Immigration in American Economic History
• Title 42 and Its Effects on Immigrants
• Abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention Centers
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, April 3). Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-advantages-and-disadvantages/

"Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages." IvyPanda , 3 Apr. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages'. 3 April.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages." April 3, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

1. IvyPanda . "Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages." April 3, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages." April 3, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

9 Pros and Cons of Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is defined as the act of crossing a national border without permission with the purpose of living full-time in a new nation. When discussing the topic of illegal immigration, every country deals with these border crossings to some extent.

In North America, however, the primary topic involving illegal immigration involves unauthorized border crossings from Mexico into the United States.

There is a benefit to illegal immigration from an ethical standpoint. Opening one’s borders to allow people to have the chance to start a new life for themselves is a morally correct position. Although some will always take advantage of an open borders policy, the benefits to society by having welcoming arms will outweigh the negatives that come from bad actors.

The disadvantage of illegal immigration is that, by definition, it is a legally incorrect course of action to take. There are legal methods of immigration available in most nations today. Skipping that legal process de-emphasizes the costs and sacrifices that many households make to start a new life for themselves that does follow the law.

Here are some more of the key pros and cons of illegal immigration to discuss.

List of the Pros of Illegal Immigration

1. It provides local economies with a boost. Illegal immigrants might cross the border without permission, but they can still contribute to local society. Many of these immigrants find work in cash-under-the-table positions that are needed, but not often worked, by those with citizenship or a legal immigration status. Increases in production create improvements in living standards and that eventually helps everyone find more success.

2. It creates more diversity within the culture. Diversity can provide a number of positive impacts to a society. It allows the society to grow because there are new ideas, perspectives, and cultures contributing to it. It offers everyone the chance to experience higher levels of growth because there is more access to information. Illegal immigrants combine their knowledge and skills to that of everyone else to create a stronger, responsive, and more productive outlook.

3. It reduces the costs of deportation. The vast majority of illegal immigrants break no other laws beyond their initial unpermitted border crossing. Deporting illegal immigrants is a costly venture. In FY 2016, ICE spent $3.2 billion to identity illegal immigrants, arrest them, detain them, and then remove them from the United States. They handled 240,000 of the 450,000 deportations which took place that year. Each deportation conducted by ICE cost an average of $10,854 per illegal immigrant deported. Stopping just 100 deportations could save $1 million.

4. Most illegal immigrants have established residency. In the United States, as of 2012, about 60% of the population that immigrated to the country illegally has been present for at least 10 years. At the same time, the illegal population that has been in the U.S. for less than five years has dropped from about 40% to less than 20% in the from 2004-2012. One in three undocumented immigrants above the age of 15 lives with a child that is a U.S. citizen. About one in three undocumented immigrants even own their own homes and pay property taxes.

5. It eliminates the cost of child care for legal children, but illegal parents. About 4 million children in the United States have citizenship, but their parents do not. If the government deports these parents, then it falls onto the government to care for them if there are no legal family members involved. Children who have their parents deported become withdrawn, anxious, and may suffer from depression. The cost of foster care per child averages about $160 per day. Multiply that figure by 4 million and that’s a cost that can be eliminated if illegal immigration was transitioned to legal immigration.

List of the Cons of Illegal Immigration

1. Many illegal immigrants fit into a less-educated, lower-income demographic. The fiscal impact of illegal immigration is generally based on the taxes they pay minus the costs they create. A net increase in the economy can occur when immigrants are more-educated and have a higher income level. Many illegal immigrants do not fit into that category, which means they create a net fiscal drain for many communities.

2. Illegal immigration creates an ongoing security threat. Illegal immigration provides the means and opportunity for terrorism to exist. It presents opportunities for crime. A vast majority of illegal immigrants may follow all the laws, but not all of the do. Yet criminal aliens make up 27% of the total population of federal prisoners, despite the fact that they are an estimated 9% of the total adult population in the United States. In 2003, more than 55,000 illegal immigrants had been arrested nearly 460,000 times, while committing nearly 700,000 criminal offenses.

3. It changes employment dynamics. A free market economy relies on supply and demand for pricing and wages. If there is a lack of skilled labor available to a market, then wages go up. If there is a lot of the same product, then the price for that product goes down. When illegal immigration is present, the job market is suddenly given more workers than it would normally have if those who crossed illegally were not present. More workers correlate to depressed wages, which ultimately means the value of work is priced lower.

4. Illegal immigration can lead to overcrowding. Illegal immigration can change the population dynamics of a community very rapidly. In California, about 50% of the students starting school are either immigrants or a child of immigrants. With the added capacity of these students, nearly 15% of schools in the U.S. exceed their capacity by at least 6%, and sometimes as much as 25%.

The pros and cons of illegal immigration are variable based on each community. Some can take on more illegal immigrants without issue, while others struggle with those who are already present. Without a meaningful dialogue, this issue will remain unresolved. That is the purpose of these key points – to start the conversation.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

Impact on the Job Market

• Will Wages Drop?

Effect on the Treasury

The bottom line.

• Government & Policy

The Pros and Cons of Immigration Reform

How it affects job growth and wages

Daniel has 10+ years of experience reporting on investments and personal finance for outlets like AARP Bulletin and Exceptional magazine, in addition to being a column writer for Fatherly.

Immigration reform refers to the effort to make changes to the policy that governs the entry of immigrants into the United States. It can be a contentious issue for many Americans and one that has not yet been resolved by their political leaders.

The Trump administration reduced the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., a group that totaled roughly 10.5 million people in 2017, according to the Pew Research Center. While former President Trump cited an array of reasons for this action, from human trafficking concerns to abstract population caps—“our country is full,” he announced in April 2019—his argument was always largely an economic one.

The thinking of former President Trump and his supporters set up one of the biggest ideological battlefronts of the 2020 presidential election.

Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris , and Cory Booker all advocated downgrading illegal border crossings to a civil offense. Even President Joe Biden, who served as vice president when close to three million undocumented immigrants were deported, was quick to play up their positive contributions to society.

So who’s right and who’s wrong when it comes to undocumented workers and the economy? We’ll look beyond the heated rhetoric and explain what researchers from both sides of the political spectrum have to say. 

Key Takeaways

• Former President Trump limited immigration into the U.S., especially across the southern border.
• The 2020 presidential election presented a stark contrast in the two parties' positions on immigration to the U.S.
• In terms of the impact on jobs, undocumented workers often take low-skill jobs in which American citizens have little interest, and they are more willing to work nights and weekends.
• In the long run, increased immigration has a very small positive impact on the wages of native-born Americans.
• First-generation immigrants cost the government more per capita, but their children cost less than native-born Americans.

Trump’s hard line on undocumented immigrants was wrapped in the assumption that those immigrants take jobs from American citizens.

On the surface, this seems a pretty logical conclusion for a cohort that represents nearly 11 million people. But immigration advocates said this argument ignores the dynamic nature of the  job market .

Contributions of Immigrants to the U.S. Economy

First, it’s important to recognize that immigrants aren’t just workers—they’re also consumers who buy goods and services. Some researchers believe mass deportation would therefore shrink overall economic output.

An analysis by New American Economy, a bipartisan research and advocacy organization focused on immigration policy, concluded that such a policy would result in a $1.6 trillion reduction in GDP.

What’s more, undocumented workers often take low-skill jobs in which American citizens have little interest, including those in labor-intensive fields such as agriculture and forestry. Another NAE report found that low-skilled immigrants were 18% more likely to work in jobs that required unusual hours than their U.S.-born counterparts.

Because birthrates are dropping in the U.S.—the average American woman in 2021 was having 1.7 children, according to The World Bank—some experts say immigrants can help fill a hole in the labor market that will ultimately boost the economy.

“The future growth prospects of the U.S. economy are severely constrained by a lack of working-age population growth,” the Conference Board's non-partisan Committee for Economic Development (CED) wrote in a 2018 policy brief.

Because roughly half of the immigrants from Latin America are between the ages of 18 and 35, the U.S. doesn’t have to shoulder the cost of their schooling. Bringing in even 100,000 of these immigrants annually would represent an injection of human capital that would otherwise cost us $47 billion in education and childcare costs, says the CED.

Immigration reform helped ramp up deportations, secured funds for a longer border wall, and suspended the entry of most new immigrants because of COVID-19.

Will Wages Drop?

One of the claims you’ll often hear amnesty critics say is that allowing more workers to compete for American jobs will suppress wages for existing employees.

Wages Increase and Decrease

The basic rules of  supply and demand  would seem to support that claim. When the number of workers goes up, the amount companies have to pay presumably goes down.

However, a number of studies have shown that the impact on wages among low-skilled workers is relatively modest. Most put it at less than 1%. Researchers Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri actually found that in the long run, increased immigration had a very small positive impact, 0.6%, on the wages of native-born Americans.

But even if pay for these jobs were to decrease, that might not be the case in every field. Supporters of immigration reform say that the availability of more workers is a  boon  for businesses, which benefit from lower  production costs .

Demand for Skilled Workers Can Grow

This theoretically strengthens demand for high-skill jobs that don’t face as much competition from undocumented workers, such as managers and accountants. Therefore, reform could presumably boost wages, at least marginally, for jobs that require a college degree.

According to one analysis, the fiscal impacts of immigrants are generally positive at the federal level when projected over a future time horizon of 75 years.  

One of the most contentious concerns is over the effect that illegal immigration has on government coffers.

A path to citizenship for workers who are already in the country means many of them would contribute federal and state income taxes for the first time. But they would also have access to a range of benefits to which they’re currently locked out—education at public schools, Medicaid , nutrition assistance, and the earned income tax credit .

Financial Cost vs. Contribution of Immigrants

In 2017, researchers Robert Rector and Jamie Bryan Hall of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation analyzed the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which would limit the number of visas given to low-skilled workers.

They suggested that immigrants without a high school degree—the typical level from Latin America is a 10th-grade education—receive, on average, $4 in government benefits for every $1 they contribute in taxes.

Rector and Hall concluded that the 4.7 million low-skilled immigrants estimated to enter the U.S. in the next decade would be a net drag on the Treasury of $1.9 trillion.

But a 2016 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report paints a very different picture. Using data from 1994-2013, the authors agreed that first-generation immigrants cost the government more on a per-capita basis than citizens born in the U.S., based on their lower earning power.

However, the NAS found that their children are actually less of a drag on the federal and local budgets than their peers. That’s because second-generation immigrants exhibited “slightly higher educational achievement, as well as their higher wages and salaries.” As a result, they pay more in taxes.

Adding to Social Security

There’s also some evidence that immigrants help bolster Social Security, which retiring Baby Boomers are pressuring with withdrawals. Back in 2013, Chief Actuary Stephen Goss of the Social Security Administration and other researchers estimated that roughly 1.8 million immigrants used a Social Security card that did not match their name to gain employment in 2010.

The result? These individuals tended to pay far more into the system than they pulled out in benefits. At the time, Goss asserted that undocumented residents kicked $13 billion into Social Security through payroll taxes, but only gained $1 billion in benefit payments.

Former President Trump repeatedly drove home the idea that Honduran and Mexican immigrants take jobs away from U.S. citizens and suppress their pay. “We are proposing an immigration plan that puts the jobs, wages, and safety of American workers first,” Trump said on May 16, 2019, at a White House event announcing a new visa program that would limit Latino recipients.

What's a Good Immigration Policy?

Broadly speaking, a good immigration policy could be one that secures U.S. borders yet welcomes immigrants with an achievable path to legal residency and citizenship. It could support the nation's security and prosperity while strengthening its future by admitting people from around the world.

How Many Immigrants Entered the U.S. Illegally in 2022?

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, there were 2.2 million illegal border crossings, not including those at official checkpoints, just at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Do Undocumented Immigrants Hurt the U.S.?

This can be a primary point of contention among U.S. politicians. Some argue that undocumented immigrants are a severe drain on U.S. resources and threaten the financial lives of Americans. Others demonstrate that they often take lower paying jobs that are going unfilled, contribute to the economy as consumers and taxpayers, and support social welfare programs. Their children tend to go on to contribute to the U.S. economy more substantially.

Former President Trump energized his Republican base with his get-tough approach to immigration, arguing that unlawful residents are an unmitigated drain on the American economy.

However, those who cross into the U.S. without documentation also lower costs for their employers and represent a sizable consumer group. Indeed, some research indicates that they actually create more job opportunities than they take.  

While some studies have shown that illegal immigration suppresses wages in low-skill segments of the workforce, the effect over time, if any, appears to be minimal.

And while first-generation immigrants may cost the government more than native-born workers because of their lower incomes, many pay far more into Social Security than they receive. They also add younger workers to the nation's aging labor force.

Pew Research Center. " Key findings about U.S. immigrants ."

AP. " 'Our country is full': Trump says migrants straining system ."

The Washington Post. " Where 2020 Democrats stand on Immigration ."

New American Economy. " Undocumented Immigrants ."

New American Economy. " Immigrants Substantially More Likely to Work Nights and Weekends than U.S.-Born, New Study Finds ."

The World Bank. " Fertility rate, total (births per woman) - United States ."

Committee for Economic Development. " The Power of More Foreign-Born Workers ."

Committee for Economic Development. " The Power of More Foreign-Born Workers ," Introduction.

Whitehouse.gov. " Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak ."

NBER Working Paper Series. " Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the Theory and the Empirics ," Abstract.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. " New Report Assesses the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration ."

The Heritage Foundation. " Trump-Endorsed Immigration Bill Would Save Taxpayers Trillions ."

Social Security Administration. " Actuarial Note Number 151: Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds ."

WhiteHouse.gov. " Remarks by President Trump on Modernizing Our Immigration System for a Stronger America ."

New York Times. " Why Illegal Border Crossings Are at Sustained Highs ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Benefits/disadvantages of immigration

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Immigration - advantages and disadvantages

Benefits/disadvantages of immigration. (2016, Aug 16). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/benefitsdisadvantages-of-immigration-essay

"Benefits/disadvantages of immigration." StudyMoose , 16 Aug 2016, https://studymoose.com/benefitsdisadvantages-of-immigration-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Benefits/disadvantages of immigration . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/benefitsdisadvantages-of-immigration-essay [Accessed: 27 Aug. 2024]

"Benefits/disadvantages of immigration." StudyMoose, Aug 16, 2016. Accessed August 27, 2024. https://studymoose.com/benefitsdisadvantages-of-immigration-essay

"Benefits/disadvantages of immigration," StudyMoose , 16-Aug-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/benefitsdisadvantages-of-immigration-essay. [Accessed: 27-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Benefits/disadvantages of immigration . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/benefitsdisadvantages-of-immigration-essay [Accessed: 27-Aug-2024]

• Disadvantages of Illegal Immigration in Malaysia Pages: 3 (889 words)
• Illegal Immigration and it’s Benefits  Pages: 4 (937 words)
• The benefits of federalism to business outweigh the disadvantages in Australia Pages: 6 (1669 words)
• Benefits and Disadvantages of Solar Energy Pages: 9 (2516 words)
• The benefits or disadvantages of Human Resources Pages: 4 (965 words)
• The Benefits of Modern Technology Outweighs Its Disadvantages Pages: 2 (477 words)
• Benefits and Disadvantages of Technology and Its Influence on People Pages: 2 (412 words)
• Immigration citizenship Pages: 5 (1457 words)
• Research Paper on Illegal Immigration Pages: 6 (1711 words)
• Ethnographic Research Paper: Latino-American Immigration Experience Pages: 9 (2606 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Global migration: causes and consequences.

• Benjamin Helms Benjamin Helms Department of Politics, University of Virginia
•  and  David Leblang David Leblang Department of Politics, Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.631
• Published online: 25 February 2019

International migration is a multifaceted process with distinct stages and decision points. An initial decision to leave one’s country of birth may be made by the individual or the family unit, and this decision may reflect a desire to reconnect with friends and family who have already moved abroad, a need to diversify the family’s access to financial capital, a demand to increase wages, or a belief that conditions abroad will provide social and/or political benefits not available in the homeland. Once the individual has decided to move abroad, the next decision is the choice of destination. Standard explanations of destination choice have focused on the physical costs associated with moving—moving shorter distances is often less expensive than moving to a destination farther away; these explanations have recently been modified to include other social, political, familial, and cultural dimensions as part of the transaction cost associated with migrating. Arrival in a host country does not mean that an émigré’s relationship with their homeland is over. Migrant networks are an engine of global economic integration—expatriates help expand trade and investment flows, they transmit skills and knowledge back to their homelands, and they remit financial and human capital. Aware of the value of their external populations, home countries have developed a range of policies that enable them to “harness” their diasporas.

• immigration
• international political economy
• factor flows
• gravity models

Introduction

The steady growth of international labor migration is an important, yet underappreciated, aspect of globalization. 1 In 1970 , just 78 million people, or about 2.1% of the global population, lived outside their country of birth. By 1990 , that number had nearly doubled to more than 150 million people, or about 2.8% of the global population (United Nations Population Division, 2012 ). Despite the growth of populist political parties and restrictionist movements in key destination countries, the growth in global migration shows no signs of slowing down, with nearly 250 million people living outside their country of birth as of 2015 . While 34% of all global migrants live in industrialized countries (with the United States and Germany leading the way), 38% of all global migration occurs between developing countries (World Bank, 2016 ).

Identifying the causes and consequences of international labor migration is essential to our broader understanding of globalization. Scholars across diverse academic fields, including economics, political science, sociology, law, and demography, have attempted to explain why individuals voluntarily leave their homelands. The dominant thread in the labor migration literature is influenced by microeconomics, which posits that individuals contemplating migration are rational, utility-maximizing actors who carefully weigh the potential costs and benefits of leaving their country of origin (e.g., Borjas, 1989 ; Portes & Böröcz, 1989 ; Grogger & Hanson, 2011 ). The act of migration, from this perspective, is typically conceptualized as an investment from which a migrant expects to receive some benefit, whether it be in the form of increased income, political freedom, or enhanced social ties (Schultz, 1961 ; Sjaastad, 1962 ; Collier & Hoeffler, 2014 ).

In this article we go beyond the treatment of migration as a single decision and conceive of it as a multifaceted process with distinct stages and decision points. We identify factors that are relevant at different stages in the migration process and highlight how and when certain factors interact with others during the migration process. Economic factors such as the wage differential between origin and destination countries, for example, may be the driving factor behind someone’s initial decision to migrate (Borjas, 1989 ). But when choosing a specific destination, economic factors may be conditioned by political or social conditions in that destination (Fitzgerald, Leblang, & Teets, 2014 ). Each stage or decision point has distinguishing features that are important in determining how (potential) migrants respond to the driving forces identified by scholars.

This is certainly not a theoretical innovation; migration has long been conceived of as a multi-step process, and scholars often identify the stage or decision point to which their argument best applies. However, most interdisciplinary syntheses of the literature on international labor migration do not provide a systematic treatment of this defining feature, instead organizing theoretical and empirical contributions by field of study, unit or level of analysis, or theoretical tradition (e.g., Portes & Böröcz, 1989 ; Massey et al., 1993 ; European Asylum Support Office, 2016 ). Such approaches are undoubtedly valuable in their own right. Our decision to organize this discussion by stage allows us to understand this as a process, rather than as a set of discrete events. As a result, we conceptualize international labor migration as three stages or decision points: (a) the decision to migrate or to remain at home, (b) the choice of destination, and (c) the manner by which expatriates re-engage—or choose not to re-engage—with their country of origin once abroad. We also use these decision points to highlight a number of potential new directions for future research in this still-evolving field.

Figure 1. Global migration intentions by educational attainment, 2008–2017.

Should I Stay or Should I Go, Now?

The massive growth in international labor migration in the age of globalization is remarkable, but the fact remains that over 95% of the world’s population never leave their country of origin (United Nations Population Division, 2012 ). Figure 1 shows the percentage of people who expressed an intention to move abroad between 2008 and 2017 by educational attainment, according to data from the Gallup World Poll. Over this time period, it appears that those who were highly educated expressed intent to migrate in greater numbers than those who had less than a college education, although these two groups have converged in recent years. What is most striking, however, is that a vast majority of people, regardless of educational attainment, expressed no desire to move abroad. Even though absolute flows of migrants have grown at a near-exponential rate, relative to their non-migrating counterparts, they remain a small minority. What factors are important in determining who decides to migrate and who decides to remain at home? 2

From Neoclassical Economics to the Mobility Transition

Neoclassical economic models posit that the primary driving factor behind migration is the expected difference in wages (discounted future income streams) between origin and destination countries (Sjaastad, 1962 ; Borjas, 1989 ; Clark, Hatton, & Williamson, 2007 ). All else equal, when the wage gap, minus the costs associated with moving between origin and destination, is high, these models predict large flows of labor migrants. In equilibrium, as more individuals move from origin to destination countries, the wage differential narrows, which in turn leads to zero net migration (Lewis, 1954 ; Harris & Todaro, 1970 ). Traditional models predict a negative monotonic relationship between the wage gap and the number of migrants (e.g., Sjaastad, 1962 ). However, the predictions of neoclassical models are not well supported by the empirical record. Empirical evidence shows that, at least in a cross-section, the relationship between economic development and migration is more akin to an inverted U. For countries with low levels of per capita income, we observe little migration due to a liquidity constraint: at this end of the income distribution, individuals do not have sufficient resources to cover even minor costs associated with moving abroad. Increasing income helps to decrease this constraint, and consequently we observe increased levels of emigration as incomes rise (de Haas, 2007 ). This effect, however, is not monotonic: as countries reach middle-income status, declining wage differentials lead to flattening rates of emigration, and then decreasing rates as countries enter later stages of economic development. 3

Some research explains this curvilinear relationship by focusing on the interaction between emigration incentives and constraints : for example, increased income initially makes migration more affordable (reduces constraints), but also simultaneously reduces the relative economic benefits of migrating as the wage differential narrows (as potential migrants now have the financial capacity to enhance local amenities) (Dao, Docquier, Parsons, & Peri, 2016 ). The theoretical underpinnings of this interaction, however, are not without controversy. Clemens identifies several classes of theory that attempt to explain this curvilinear relationship—a relationship that has been referred to in the literature as the mobility transition (Clemens, 2014 ). These theories include: demographic changes resulting from development that also favor emigration up to a point (Easterlin, 1961 ; Tomaske, 1971 ), the loosening of credit restraints on would-be migrants (Vanderkamp, 1971 ; Hatton & Williamson, 1994 ), a breakdown of information barriers via the building of transnational social networks (Epstein, 2008 ), structural economic changes in the development process that result in worker dislocation (Zelinsky, 1971 ; Massey, 1988 ), the dynamics of economic inequality and relative deprivation (Stark, 1984 ; Stark & Yitzhaki, 1988 ; Stark & Taylor, 1991 ), and changing immigration policies in destination countries toward increasingly wealthy countries (Clemens, 2014 ). While each of these play some role in the mobility transition curve, Dao et al. ( 2016 ) run an empirical horse race between numerous explanations and find that changing skill composition resulting from economic development is the most substantively important driver. Economic development is correlated with an increase in a country’s level of education; an increase in the level of education, in turn, is correlated with increased emigration. However, traditional explanations involving microeconomic drivers such as income, credit constraints, and economic inequality remain important factors (Dao et al., 2016 ). The diversity of explanations offered for the mobility transition curve indicates that while most research agrees the inverted-U relationship is an accurate empirical portrayal of the relationship between development and migration, little theoretical agreement exists on what drives this relationship. Complicating this disagreement is the difficulty of empirically disentangling highly correlated factors such as income, skill composition, and demographic trends in order to identify robust causal relationships.

Political Conditions at the Origin

While there is a scholarly consensus around the mobility transition and the role of economic conditions, emerging research suggests that the political environment in the origin country may also be salient. We do not refer here to forced migration, such as in the case of those who leave because they are fleeing political persecution or violent conflict. Rather, we focus on political conditions in the homeland that influence a potential migrant’s decision to emigrate voluntarily. Interpretations of how, and the extent to which, political conditions in origin countries (independent of economic conditions) influence the decision to migrate have been heavily influenced by Hirschman’s “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” framework (Hirschman, 1970 , 1978 ). Hirschman argues that the opportunity to exit—to exit a firm, an organization, or a country—places pressure on the local authorities; voting with one’s feet forces organizations to reassess their operations.

When applied to the politics of emigration, Hirschman’s framework generates two different hypotheses. On the one hand, politicians may allow, encourage, or force the emigration of groups that oppose the regime as a political safety valve of sorts. This provides the government with a mechanism with which to manage potential political challengers by encouraging their exit. On the other hand, politicians—especially those in autocracies—may actively work to prevent exit because they fear the emigration of economic elites, the highly skilled, and others who have resources vital to the survival of the regime. 4

A small number of studies investigate how local-level, rather than national, political circumstances affect a potential migrant’s calculus. The limited empirical evidence currently available suggests that local conditions are substantively important determinants of the emigration decision. When individuals are highly satisfied with local amenities such as their own standard of living, quality of public services, and overall sense of physical security, they express far less intention to migrate compared with highly dissatisfied individuals (Dustmann & Okatenko, 2014 ). Furthermore, availability of public transport and access to better education facilities decreases the propensity to express an intention to emigrate (Cazzuffi & Modrego, 2018 ). This relationship holds across all levels of wealth and economic development, and there is some evidence that satisfaction with local amenities matters as much as, or even more than, income or wealth (Dustmann & Okatenko, 2014 ).

Political corruption, on both national and local levels, also has substantively important effects on potential migrants, especially those who are highly skilled. Broadly defined as the use of public office for political gain, political corruption operates as both a direct and an indirect factor promoting emigration. 5 Firstly, corruption may have a direct effect on the desire to emigrate in that it can decrease the political and economic power of an individual, leading to a lower standard of living and poorer quality of life in origin countries. If the reduction in life satisfaction resulting from corruption is sufficiently high—either by itself or in combination with other “push” factors—then the exit option becomes more attractive (Cooray & Schneider, 2016 ). Secondly, corruption also operates through indirect channels that influence other push factors. Given the large literature on how political corruption influences a number of development outcomes, it is conceivable that corruption affects the decision-making process of a potential migrant through its negative effect on social spending, education, and public health (Mo, 2001 ; Mauro, 1998 ; Gupta, Davoodi, & Thigonson, 2001 ).

The combination of its direct and indirect impacts means that corruption could be a significant part of a migrant’s decision-making process. At present there is limited work exploring this question, and the research does not yield a consensus. Some scholars argue that political corruption has no substantive effect on total bilateral migration, but that it does encourage migration among the highly skilled (Dimant, Krieger, & Meierrieks, 2013 ). This is the case, the argument goes, because corruption causes the greatest relative harm to the utility of those who have invested in human capital, who migrate to escape the negative effect on their fixed investment. In contrast, others find that a high level of corruption does increase emigration at the aggregate level (Poprawe, 2015 ). More nuanced arguments take into account the intensity of corruption: low to moderate levels of corruption lead to increased emigration of all groups, and especially of the highly skilled. But at high levels of corruption, emigration begins to decrease, indicating that intense corruption can act as a mobility constraint (Cooray & Schneider, 2016 ). All of these existing accounts, however, employ state-level measures of corruption by non-governmental organizations, such as those produced by Transparency International. Scholars have yet to harness micro-level survey data to explore the influence of personal corruption perception on the individual’s decision-making process.

The Land of Hopes and Dreams

Given that an individual has decided to emigrate, the next decision point is to choose a destination country. Advanced industrial democracies, such as those in the OECD, are major migrant-receiving countries, but so are Russia and several Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (World Bank, 2016 ). A country’s constellation of political, economic, and social attributes is crucial to understanding an emigrant’s choice of destination. Potential migrants weigh all of these factors simultaneously when choosing a destination: will the destination allow political rights for the migrant and their children, is access to the labor market possible, and does the destination provide an opportunity for reunification with friends and family? In this section we focus on the non-economic factors that draw migrants to certain countries over others. In addition, we emphasize how skill level adds layers of complexity to a migrant’s calculus.

Political Environment, Both Formal and Informal

As noted earlier, traditional neoclassical models and their extensions place wage differentials and associated economic variables at the heart of a migrant’s choice. Gravity models posit that migrants choose a destination country based on their expected income—which itself is a function of the wage rate and the probability of finding employment in the destination—less the costs associated with moving (Ravenstein, 1885 ; Todaro, 1969 ; Borjas, 1989 ). A rigid focus on economic factors, however, blinds us to the empirical reality that a destination country’s political environment influences what destination a migrant chooses (Borjas, 1989 ). A country’s legal and political rights structure for migrants, as well as its level of tolerance for newcomers, is critical to migrants discriminating between an array of potential destinations. Fitzgerald, Leblang, and Teets ( 2014 ) argue, for example, that states with restrictive citizenship policies and strong radical right anti-immigrant parties will receive fewer migrants, while states with relatively liberal citizenship requirements and weak radical right political movements will receive more migrants. In the rational actor framework, migrants seek countries with hospitable political environments to maximize both their political representation in government and their access to labor market opportunities as a result of citizenship rights and social acceptance (Fitzgerald et al., 2014 ).

Using a broad sample of origin countries and 18 destination countries, they find that relative restrictiveness of citizenship policies and level of domestic support for the radical right are substantively important determinants of global migratory flows. Further, they find that these political variables condition a migrant’s choice of destination: the relative importance of economic factors such as the unemployment rate or the wage differential diminishes as a destination country’s political environment becomes more open for migrants. In other words, when migrants are choosing a destination country, political considerations may trump economic ones—a finding that is an important amendment to the primarily economics-focused calculus of the initial stage of the immigration decision.

However, prior to choosing and entering a destination country, a migrant must also navigate a country’s immigration policy—the regulation of both migrant entry and the rights and status of current migrants. While it is often assumed that a relatively more restrictive immigration policy deters entry, and vice versa, a lack of quantitative data has limited the ability of scholars to confirm this intuition cross-nationally. Money ( 1999 ) emphasizes that the policy output of immigration politics does not necessarily correlate with the outcome of international migrant flows. There are a number of unanswered questions in this field, including: is immigration policy a meaningful determinant of global flows of migration? Do certain kinds of immigration policies matter more than others? How does immigration policy interact with other political and economic factors, such as unemployment and social networks?

Only a handful of studies analyze whether or not immigration policy is a significant determinant of the size and character of migratory flows. Perhaps the most prominent answer to this question is the “gap hypothesis,” which posits that immigration rates continue to increase despite increasingly restrictive immigration policies in advanced countries (Cornelius & Tsuda, 2004 ). Some subsequent work seems to grant support to the gap hypothesis, indicating that immigration policy may not be a relevant factor and that national sovereignty as it relates to dictating migrant inflows has eroded significantly (Sassen, 1996 ; Castles, 2004 ). The gap hypothesis is not without its critics, with other scholars arguing that the existing empirical evidence actually lends it little or no support (Messina, 2007 ).

A more recent body of literature does indicate that immigration policy matters. Brücker and Schröder ( 2011 ), for example, find that immigration policies built to attract highly skilled migrants lead to higher admittance rates. They also show that diffusion processes cause neighboring countries to implement similar policy measures. Ortega and Peri ( 2013 ), in contrast to the gap hypothesis literature, find that restrictive immigration policy indeed reduces migrant inflows. But immigration policy can also have unintended effects on international migration: when entry requirements increase, migrant inflows decrease, but migrant outflows also decrease (Czaika & de Haas, 2016 ). This indicates that restrictive immigration policy may also lead to reduced circular migrant flows and encourage long-term settlement in destination countries.

Disaggregating immigration policy into its different components provides a clearer picture of how immigration policy may matter, and whether certain components matter more than others. Immigration policy is composed of both external and internal regulations. External regulations refer to policies that control migrant entry, such as eligibility requirements for migrants and additional conditions of entry. Internal regulations refer to policies that apply to migrants who have already gained status in the country, such as the security of a migrant’s legal status and the rights they are afforded. Helbling and Leblang ( 2017 ), using a comprehensive data set of bilateral migrant flows and the Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) data set, find that, in general, external regulations prove slightly more important in understanding migrant inflows (Helbling, Bjerre, Römer, & Zobel, 2017 ). This indicates that potential migrants focus more on how to cross borders, and less on the security of their status and rights once they settle. They do find, however, that both external and internal components of immigration are substantively important to international migrant flows.

The effects of policy, however, cannot be understood in isolation from other drivers of migration. Firstly, poor economic conditions and restrictive immigration policy are mutually reinforcing: when the unemployment rate is elevated, restrictive policies are more effective in deterring migrant flows. An increase in policy effectiveness in poor economic conditions suggests that states care more about deterring immigration when the economy is performing poorly. Secondly, a destination country’s restrictive immigration policy is more effective when migrants come from origin countries that have a common colonial heritage. This suggests that cultural similarities and migrant networks help to spread information about the immigration policy environment in the destination country. Social networks prove to be crucial in determining how much migrants know about the immigration policies of destination countries, regardless of other cultural factors such as colonial heritage or common language (Helbling & Leblang, 2017 ). In summary, more recent work supports the idea that immigration policy of destination countries exerts a significant influence on both the size and character of international migration flows. Much work remains to be done in terms of understanding the nuances of specific immigration policy components, the effect of policy change over time, and through what mechanisms immigration policy operates.

Transnational Social Networks

None of this should be taken to suggest that only political and economic considerations matter when a potential migrant contemplates a potential destination; perhaps one of the biggest contributions to the study of bilateral migration is the role played by transnational social networks. Migrating is a risky undertaking, and to minimize that risk, migrants are more likely to move to destinations where they can “readily tap into networks of co-ethnics” (Fitzgerald et al., 2014 , p. 410). Dense networks of co-ethnics not only help provide information about economic opportunities, but also serve as a social safety net which, in turn, helps decrease the risks associated with migration, including, but not limited to, finding housing and integrating into a new community (Massey, 1988 ; Portes & Böröcz, 1989 ; Portes, 1995 ; Massey et al., 1993 ; Faist, 2000 ; Sassen, 1995 ; Light, Bernard, & Kim, 1999 ). Having a transnational network of family members is quite important to destination choice; if a destination country has an immigration policy that emphasizes family reunification, migrants can use their familial connections to gain economically valuable permanent resident or citizenship status more easily than in other countries (Massey et al., 1993 , p. 450; Helbing & Leblang, 2017 ). When the migrant is comparing potential destinations, countries in which that migrant has a strong social network will be heavily favored in a cost–benefit analysis.

Note, however, that even outside of a strict rational actor framework with perfect information, transnational social networks still may be quite salient to destination choice. An interesting alternative hypothesis for the patterns we observe draws on theories from financial market behavior which focus on herding. Migrants choosing a destination observe the decisions of their co-ethnics who previously migrated and assume that those decisions were based on a relevant set of information, such as job opportunities or social tolerance of migrants. New migrants then choose the same destination as their co-ethnics not based on actual exchanges of valuable information, but based solely on the assumption that previous migration decisions were based on rational calculation (Epstein & Gang, 2006 ; Epstein, 2008 ). This is a classic example of herding, and the existing empirical evidence on the importance of transnational social networks cannot invalidate this alternative hypothesis. One could also explain social network effects through the lens of cumulative causation or feedback loops: the initial existence of connections in destination countries makes the act of migration less risky and attracts additional co-ethnics. This further expands migrant networks in a destination, further decreasing risk for future waves of migrants, and so on (Massey, 1990 ; Fussel & Massey, 2004 ; Fussel, 2010 ).

No matter the pathway by which social networks operate, the empirical evidence indicates that they are one of the most important determinants of destination choice. Potential migrants from Mexico, for example, who are able to tap into existing networks in the United States face lower direct, opportunity, and psychological costs of international migration (Massey & Garcia España, 1987 ). This same relationship holds in the European context; a study of Bulgarian and Italian migrants indicates that those with “social capital” in a destination community are more likely to migrate and to choose that particular destination (Haug, 2008 ). Studies that are more broadly cross-national in nature also confirm the social network hypothesis across a range of contexts and time periods (e.g., Clark et al., 2007 ; Hatton & Williamson, 2011 ; Fitzgerald et al., 2014 ).

Despite the importance of social networks, it is, again, important to qualify their role in framing the choice of destinations. It seems that the existence of co-ethnics in destination countries most strongly influences emigration when they are relatively few in number. Clark et al. ( 2007 ), in their study of migration to the United States, find that the “friends and relatives effect” falls to zero once the migrant stock in the United States reaches 8.3% of the source-country population. In addition, social networks alone cannot explain destination choice because their explanatory power is context-dependent. For instance, restrictive immigration policies limiting legal migration channels and family reunification may dampen the effectiveness of networks (Böcker, 1994 ; Collyer, 2006 ). Social networks are not an independent force, but also interact with economic and political realities to produce the global migration patterns we observe.

The Lens of Skill

For ease of presentation, we have up to now treated migrants as a relatively homogeneous group that faces similar push and pull factors throughout the decision-making process. Of course, not all migrants experience the same economic, political, and social incentives in the same way at each stage of the decision-making process. Perhaps the most salient differentiating feature of migrants is skill or education level. Generally, one can discuss a spectrum of skill and education level for current migrants, from relatively less educated (having attained a high school degree or less) to relatively more educated (having attained a college or post-graduate degree). The factors presented here that influence destination choice interact with a migrant’s skill level to produce differing destination choice patterns.

A migrant’s level of education, or human capital, often serves as a filter for the political treatment he or she anticipates in a particular destination country. For instance, the American public has a favorable view of highly educated migrants who hold higher-status jobs, while simultaneously having an opposite view of migrants who have less job training and do not hold a college degree (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2010 ; Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2015 ). Indeed, the political discourse surrounding migration often emphasizes skill level and education as markers of migrants who “should be” admitted, across both countries and the ideological spectrum. 6 While political tolerance may be a condition of entry for migrants in the aggregate, the relatively privileged status of highly educated and skilled migrants in most destination countries may mean that this condition is not as salient.

While it is still an open question to what extent immigration policy influences international migration, it is clear that not all migrants face evenly applied migration restrictions. Most attractive destination countries have policies that explicitly favor highly skilled migrants, since these individuals often fill labor shortages in advanced industries such as high technology and applied science. Countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all employ so-called “points-based” immigration systems in which those with advanced degrees and needed skills are institutionally favored for legal entry (Papademetriou & Sumption, 2011 ). Meanwhile, the United States maintains the H-1B visa program, which is restricted by educational attainment and can only be used to fill jobs in which no native talent is available (USCIS). Even if destination countries decide to adopt more restrictive immigration policies, the move toward restriction has typically been focused on low-skilled migrants (Peters, 2017 ). In other words, even if immigration policy worldwide becomes more restrictive, this will almost certainly not occur at the expense of highly skilled migrants and will not prevent them choosing their most preferred destination.

Bring It on Home to Me

This article began by asserting that international labor migration is an important piece of globalization, as significant as cross-border flows of capital, goods, and services. This section argues that migrant flows enhance flows of capital and commodities. Uniquely modern conditions such as advanced telecommunications, affordable and efficient international travel, and the liberalization of financial flows mean that diasporas—populations of migrants living outside their countries of origin—and home countries often re-engage with each other (Vertovec, 2004 ; Waldinger, 2008 ). This section reviews some of the newest and most thought-provoking research on international labor migration, research that explores diaspora re-engagement and how that re-engagement alters international flows of income, portfolio and foreign direct investment (FDI), trade, and migratory flows themselves.

Remittances

As previously argued, migration is often driven by the prospect of higher wages. Rational, utility-maximizing migrants incur the cost of migration in order to earn increased income that they could not earn at home. But when migrants obtain higher wages, this additional increment to income is not always designated for individual consumption. Often, migrants use their new income to send remittances, direct transfers of money from one individual to another across national borders. Once a marginal financial flow, in 2015 remittances totaled $431 billion, far outpacing foreign aid ($135 billion) and nearly passing private debt and portfolio equity ($443 billion). More than 70% of total global remittances flow into developing countries (World Bank, 2016 ). In comparison with other financial flows such as portfolio investment and FDI, remittances are more impervious to economic crises, suggesting that they may be a countercyclical force to global downturns (Leblang, 2017 ).

Remittances represent one of the most common ways in which migrants re-engage with their homeland and alter both global income flows and distribution. Why do migrants surrender large portions of their new income, supposedly the very reason they migrated in the first place, to their families back home? New economics of labor migration (NELM) theory argues that immigration itself is motivated by a family’s need or demand for remittances—that remittances are an integral part of a family’s strategy for diversifying household financial risk (Stark & Bloom, 1985 ). Remittances “are a manifestation of informal contractual agreements between migrants and the households from which they move,” indicating that remitting is not an individual-level or purely altruistic action but rather occurs in a larger social context, that of one’s immediate or extended family (European Asylum Support Office, 2016 , p. 15).

The impact of migrant remittances on countries of origin is multifaceted yet somewhat ambiguous. Most scholarly work focuses on whether remittances positively or negatively influence existing economic conditions. A number of studies find that remittances modestly reduce poverty levels in developing countries (Adams & Page, 2005 ; Yang & Martinez, 2006 ; Acosta, Calderon, Fajnzybler, & Lopez, 2008 ; Lokshin, Bontch-Osmolovski, & Glinskaya, 2010 ). On other measures of economic well-being, such as growth, inequality, and health, the literature is quite mixed and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. For instance, some studies find that remittances encourage investment in human capital (Yang, 2008 ; Adams & Cuecuecha, 2010 ), while others find no such effect and suggest that families typically spend remittances on non-productive consumption goods (Chami, Fullenkamp, & Jahjah, 2003 ). Here we can only scratch the surface of the empirical work on remittances and economic outcomes. 7

Some of the most recent research in the field argues that remittances have a distinct political dimension, affecting regime support in developing countries and altering the conditions in which elections are held. Ahmed ( 2012 ), grouping remittances with foreign aid, argues that increased remittances allow autocratic governments to extend their tenure in office. These governments can strategically channel unearned government and household income to finance political patronage networks, which leads to a reduced likelihood of autocratic turnover, regime collapse, and mass protests against the regime. More recent research posits nearly the exact opposite: remittances are linked to a greater likelihood of democratization under autocratic regimes. Escriba-Folch, Meseguer, and Wright ( 2015 ) argue that since remittances directly increase household incomes, they reduce voter reliance on political patronage networks, undermining a key tool of autocratic stability.

Remittances may also play an important role in countries with democratic institutions, yet more research is needed to fully understand the conditions under which they matter and their substantive impact. Particularly, remittances may alter the dynamics of an election as an additional and external financial flow. There is evidence of political remittance cycles : the value of remittances spikes in the run-up to elections in developing countries. The total value of remittances to the average developing country increases by 6.6% during election years, and by 12% in elections in which no incumbent or named successor is running (O’Mahony, 2012 ). The effect is even larger in the poorest of developing countries. Finer-grained tests of this hypothesis provide additional support: using monthly and quarterly data confirms the existence of political remittance cycles, as well as using subnational rather than cross-national data (Nyblade & O’Mahony, 2014 ). However, these studies do not reveal why remittances spike, or what the effects of that spike are on electoral outcomes such as vote share, campaign financing, and political strategy.

Remittances represent a massive international financial flow that warrants more scholarly attention. While there are numerous studies on the relationship between remittances and key economic indicators, there remains much room for further work on their relationship to political outcomes in developing countries. Do remittances hasten the downfall of autocratic regimes, or do they contribute to autocratic stability? In democratic contexts, do remittances substantively influence electoral outcomes, and if so, which outcomes and how? Finally, do remittances prevent even more migration because they allow one “breadwinner from abroad” to provide for the household that remains in the homeland? While data limitations are formidable, these questions are important to the study of both international and comparative political economy.

Bilateral Trade

The argument that migrant or co-ethnic networks play an important role in international economic exchange is not novel. Greif ( 1989 , 1993 ) illustrates the role that the Maghrebi traders of the 11th century played in providing informal institutional guarantees that facilitated trade. This is but a single example. Cowen’s historical survey identifies not only the Phoenicians but also the “Spanish Jews [who] were indispensable for international commerce in the Middle Ages. The Armenians controlled the overland route between the Orient and Europe as late as the nineteenth century . Lebanese Christians developed trade between the various parts of the Ottoman empire” (Cowen, 1997 , p. 170). Rauch and Trindade ( 2002 ) provide robust empirical evidence linking the Chinese diaspora to patterns of imports and exports with their home country.

A variety of case studies document the importance of migrant networks in helping overcome problems of information asymmetries. In his study of Indian expatriates residing in the United States, Kapur ( 2014 ) documents how that community provides U.S. investors with a signal of the work ethic, labor quality, and business culture that exists in India. Likewise, Weidenbaum and Hughes ( 1996 ) chronicle the Bamboo Network—the linkages between ethnic Chinese living outside mainland China and their homeland—and how these linkages provide superior access to information and opportunities for investment.

Connections between migrant communities across countries affect cross-national investment even when these connections do not provide information about investment opportunities. In his work on the Maghrebi traders of the 11th century , Greif argues that this trading network was effective because it was able to credibly threaten collective punishment by all merchants if even one of them defected (Greif, 1989 , 1993 ). Grief shows that this co-ethnic network was able to share information regarding the past actions of actors (they could communicate a reputation)—something that was essential for the efficient functioning of markets in the absence of formal legal rules. Weidenbaum and Hughes reach a similar conclusion about the effectiveness of the Bamboo Network, remarking that “if a business owner violates an agreement, he is blacklisted. This is far worse than being sued, because the entire Chinese networks will refrain from doing business with the guilty party” (Hughes, 1996 , p. 51).

Migrants not only alter the flow of income by remitting to their countries of origin, but also influence patterns of international portfolio investment and FDI. Most existing literature on international capital allocation emphasizes monadic factors such as the importance of credible commitments and state institutional quality, failing to address explicitly dyadic phenomena that may also drive investment. Diaspora networks, in particular, facilitate cross-border investment in a number of ways. They foster a higher degree of familiarity between home and host countries, leading to a greater preference for investment in specific countries. Diaspora networks can also decrease information asymmetries in highly uncertain international capital markets in two ways. Firstly, they can provide investors with salient information about their homeland, such as consumer tastes, that can influence investment decision-making. Secondly, they can share knowledge about investment opportunities, regulation and procedures, and customs that decrease transaction costs associated with cross-border investment (Leblang, 2010 ). This place of importance for migrants suggests to the broader international political economy literature the importance of non-institutional mechanisms for channeling economic activity.

Although the hypothesized link between migrants and international investment has only recently been identified, the quantitative evidence available supports that hypothesis. Leblang ( 2010 ), using dyadic cross-sectional data, finds that diaspora networks “have both a substantively significant effect and a statistically significant effect on cross-border investment,” including international portfolio investment and FDI (p. 584). The effect of bilateral migratory flows correlates positively with the degree of information asymmetry: when informational imperfections are more pervasive in a dyad, migrants (especially the highly skilled) play a disproportionately large role in international capital allocation (Kugler, Levinthal, & Rapoport, 2017 ). Other quantitative studies find substantively similar results for FDI alone (e.g., Javorcik, Özden, Spatareanu, & Neagu, 2011 ; Aubry, Rapoport, & Reshef, 2016 ).

Many questions still remain unanswered. Firstly, does the effect of migrants on investment follow the waves of the global economy, or is it countercyclical as remittances have been shown to be? Secondly, how does this additional investment, facilitated by migrants, affect socioeconomic outcomes such as inequality, poverty, and economic development (Leblang, 2010 )? Does the participation of migrants lead to more successful FDI projects in developing countries because of their ability to break down information barriers? Within portfolio investment, do migrants lead to a preference for certain asset classes over others, and if so, what are the effects on bilateral and international capital markets? These are just a few directions in an area ripe for additional research.

Return Migration and Dual Citizenship

Besides financial flows, migrants themselves directly contribute to global flows of capital by returning to their countries of origin in large numbers. This phenomenon of return migration—or circular migration—can come in a few temporal forms, including long-term migration followed by a permanent return to a country of origin, or repeat migration in which a migrant regularly moves between destination and origin countries (Dumont & Spielvogel, 2008 ). While comparable data on return migration is scarce, some reports suggest that 20% to 50% of all immigrants leave their destination country within five years after their arrival (e.g., Borjas & Bratsberg, 1996 ; Aydemir & Robinson, 2008 ; Bratsberg, Raaum, & Sørlie, 2007 ; Dustmann & Weiss, 2007 ). An independent theoretical and empirical account of return migration does not yet exist in the literature and is beyond the scope of this paper. But in the rational actor framework, motivations to return home include a failure to realize the expected benefits of migration, changing preferences toward a migrant’s home country, achievement of a savings or other economic goal, or the opening of additional employment opportunities back home due to newly acquired experience or greater levels of economic development (Dumont & Spielvogel, 2008 ).

While most migration literature treats the country of origin as a passive actor that only provides the conditions for migration, new literature on return migration gives home country policies pride of place. Origin countries can craft policies that encourage diaspora re-engagement, incentivizing individuals to return home. Dual citizenship, for example, is an extension of extraterritorial rights, allowing migrants to retain full legal status in their home country. Dual citizenship “decreases the transaction costs associated with entering a host country’s labor market and makes it easier for migrants to return home” (Leblang, 2017 , p. 77). This leads migrants to invest their financial resources in the form of remittances back home as well as their valuable human capital. When states provide such extraterritorial rights, expatriates are 10% more likely to remit and 3% more likely to return home. Dual citizenship is also associated with a doubling of the dollar amount of remittances received by a home country (Leblang, 2017 ). These striking results suggest that in addition to the power of migrants to affect cross-border flows of money and people, countries of origin can also play a significant role.

Conclusion and Future Directions

This brief article has attempted to synthesize a broad range of literature from political science, economics, sociology, migration studies, and more to construct an account of international labor migration. To do so, the migratory process was broken down into distinct stages and decision points, focusing particularly on the decision to migrate, destination choice, and the re-engagement of migrants with their homeland. In doing so, the article also discussed the interlinkages of international migration with other fields of study in international political economy, including cross-border financial flows, trade, and investment. Through a multiplicity of approaches, we have gained a greater understanding of why people decide to move, why they decide to move to one country over another, and how and why they engage with the global economy and their homeland. Despite this intellectual progress, there remain many paths for future research at each stage of the migratory process; we highlight just a few of them here.

We know that income differentials, social ties, and local political conditions are important variables influencing the migration process. Yet the question remains: why do a small but growing number of people choose to leave while the overwhelming majority of people remain in their country of birth? Here, individual- or family-level subjective characteristics may be significant. There are a handful of observational studies that explore the relationship between subjective well-being or life satisfaction and the intention to migrate, with the nascent consensus being that life dissatisfaction increases the intention to migrate (Cai, Esipova, Oppenheimer, & Feng, 2014 ; Otrachshenko & Popova, 2014 ; Nikolova & Graham, 2015 ). But more research on intrinsic or subjective measures is needed to understand (a) their independent importance more fully and (b) how they interact with objective economic, political, and social factors. For instance, do those who are more optimistic migrate in larger numbers? Do minority individuals who feel they live in an environment in which diversity is not accepted feel a greater urge to leave home? Synthesizing these types of subjective variables and perceptions with the more prominent gravity-style models could result in a more complete picture of the international migration process.

For the “typical” migrant, one who is relatively less educated than the population in the chosen destination and does not have specialized skills, social networks are key to minimizing the risk of migrating and quickly tapping into economic opportunities in destination countries. Does this remain true for those who are highly educated? Although little empirical research exists on the topic, greater human capital and often-accompanying financial resources may operate as a substitute for the advantages offered by social networks, such as housing, overcoming linguistic barriers, and finding gainful employment. This would indicate that the “friends and family effect” is not as influential for this subset of migrants. Economic considerations, such as which destination offers the largest relative wage differential, or political considerations, such as the ease of quickly acquiring full citizenship rights, may matter more for the highly skilled. Neoclassical economic models of migration may best capture the behavior of migrants who hold human capital and who have the financial resources to independently migrate in a way that maximizes income or utility more broadly.

Since we have focused on international migration as a series of discrete decision points in this article, we have perhaps underemphasized the complexity of the physical migration process. In reality, migrants often do not pick a country and travel directly there, but travel through (perhaps several) countries of transit such as Mexico, Morocco, or Turkey along the way (Angel Castillo, 2006 ; Natter, 2013 ; Icduygu, 2005 ). There is little existing theoretical work to understand the role of transit countries in the migratory process, with much of it focusing on the potential for cooperation between destination and transit countries in managing primarily illegal immigration (Kahana & Lecker, 2005 ; Djajic & Michael, 2014 ; Djajic & Michael, 2016 ). Another related strand of the literature focuses on how wealthy destination countries are “externalizing” their immigration policy, encompassing a broader part of the migratory process than simply crossing a physically demarcated border (Duvell, 2012 ; Menjivar, 2014 ). But many questions remain, such as the following: how do we understand those who desire to enter, say, the United States, but instead relocate permanently to Mexico along the way? How do countries of transit handle the pressure of transit migrants, and how does this affect economic and political outcomes in these countries?

Finally, the focus of nearly all literature on international migration (and this article as a byproduct) implicitly views advanced economies as the only prominent destinations. However, this belies the fact that 38% of all migration stays within the “Global South” (World Bank, 2016 ). While there is certainly some literature on this phenomenon (see Ratha & Shaw, 2007 ; Gindling, 2009 ; Hujo & Piper, 2007 ), international political economy scholars have yet to sufficiently tackle this topic. The overarching research question here is: do the same push and pull factors that influence the decision to migrate and destination choice apply to those who migrate within the Global South? Do we need to construct new theories of international migration with less emphasis on factors such as wage differentials and political tolerance, or are these sufficient to understand this facet of the phenomenon? If we fail to answer these questions, we may miss explaining a significant proportion of international migration with its own consequences and policy implications.

• Abreu, A. (2012). The New Economics of Labor Migration: Beware of Neoclassicals Bearing Gifts. Forum for Social Economics , 41 (1), 46–67.
• Acosta, P. , Calderon, C. , Fajnzybler, P. , & Lopez, H. (2008). What Is the Impact of International Remittances on Poverty and Inequality in Latin America? World Development , 36 (1), 89–114.
• Adams, R., Jr. (2011). Evaluating the Economic Impact of International Remittances on Developing Countries Using Household Surveys: A Literature Review. Journal of Development Studies , 47 (6), 809–828.
• Adams, R., Jr. , & Cuecuecha, A. (2010). Remittances, Household Expenditure and Investment in Guatemala. World Development , 38 (11), 1626–1641.
• Adams, R., Jr. , & Page, J. (2005). Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries? World Development , 33 (10), 1645–1669.
• Ahmed, F. Z. (2012). The Perils of Unearned Foreign Income: Aid, Remittances, and Government Survival. American Political Science Review , 106 (1), 146–165.
• Akerman, S. (1976). Theories and Methods of Migration Research. In H. Runblom & H. Norman (Eds.), From Sweden to America: A History of the Migration . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Angel Castillo, M. (2006). Mexico: Caught Between the United States and Central America . Migration Policy Institute.
• Aubry, A. , Rapoport, H. , & Reshef, A. (2016). Migration, FDI, and the Margins of Trade. Mimeo . Paris School of Economics.
• Aydemir, A. , & Robinson, C. (2008). Global Labour Markets, Return, and Onward Migration. Canadian Journal of Economics , 41 (4), 1285–1311.
• Böcker, A. (1994). Chain Migration over Legally Closed Borders: Settled Immigrants as Bridgeheads and Gatekeepers. Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences , 30 (2), 87–106.
• Borjas, G. J. (1989). Economic Theory and International Migration. International Migration Review , 23 (3), 457–485.
• Borjas, G. J. , & Bratsberg, B. (1996). Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born. Review of Economics and Statistics , 41 (4), 610–621.
• Bratsberg, B. , Raaum, O. , & Sørlie, K. (2007). Foreign-Born Migration to and from Norway. In Ç. Özden & M. Schiff (Eds.), International Migration, Economic Development and Policy . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Brücker, H. , & Schröder, P. J. H. (2011). Migration regulation contagion. European Union Politics , 12 (3), 315–335.
• Cai, R. , Esipova, N. , Oppenheimer, M. , & Feng, S. (2014). International Migration Desires Related to Subjective Well-Being. IZA Journal of Migration , 3 (8), 1–20.
• Castles, S. (2004). Why Migration Policies Fail. Ethnic and Racial Studies , 27 (2), 205–227.
• Cazzuffi, C. , & Modrego, F. (2018). Place of Origin and Internal Migration Decisions in Mexico. Spatial Economic Analysis , 13 (1), 1–19.
• Chami, R. , Fullenkamp, C. , & Jahjah, S. (2003). Are Immigrant Remittance Flows a Source of Capital for Development ? IMF Working Paper 03/189.
• Clark, X. , Hatton, T. J. , & Williamson, J. G. (2007). Explaining US Immigration, 1971–1998. Review of Economics and Statistics , 89 (2), 359–373.
• Clemens, M. A. (2014). Does Development Reduce Migration ? IZA Discussion Paper No. 8592.
• Collier, P. , & Hoeffler, A. (2014). Migration, Diasporas and Culture: An Empirical Investigation . Unpublished manuscript.
• Collyer, M. (2006). When Do Social Networks Fail to Explain Migration? Accounting for the Movement of Algerian Asylum-Seekers to the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 31 (4), 699–718.
• Constant, A. , & Massey, D. S. (2002). Return Migration by German Guestworkers: Neoclassical versus New Economic Theories. International Migration , 4 0(4), 5–38.
• Cooray, A. , & Schneider, F. (2016). Does Corruption Promote Emigration? An Empirical Examination. Journal of Population Economics , 29 , 293–310.
• Cornelius, W. A. , & Tsuda, T. (2004). Controlling Immigration: The Limits of Government Intervention . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Cowen, R. (1997). Global Diasporas: An Introduction . London: Routledge.
• Czaika, M. , & de Haas, H. (2016). The Effect of Visas on Migration Processes. International Migration Review , 51 (4), 893–926.
• Dao, T. H. , Docquier, F. , Parsons, C. , & Peri, G. (2018). Migration and Development: Dissecting the Anatomy of the Mobility Transition. Journal of Development Economics , 132 , 88–101.
• Dao, T. H. , Docquier, F. , Parsons, C. , & Peri, G. (2016). Migration and Development: Dissecting the Anatomy of the Mobility Transition . IZA Discussion Paper No. 10272.
• De Haas, H. (2007). Turning the Tide? Why Development Will Not Stop Migration. Development and Change , 38 , 819–841.
• Dimant, E. , Krieger, T. , & Meierrieks, D. (2013). The Effect of Corruption on Migration, 1985–2000. Applied Economics Letters , 20 (13), 1270–1274.
• Djajic, S. , & Michael, M. S. (2014). Controlling Illegal Immigration: On the Scope for Cooperation with a Transit Country. Review of International Economics , 22 (4), 808–824.
• Djajic, S. , & Michael, M. S. (2016). Illegal Immigration, Foreign Aid, and the Transit Countries. CESifo Economic Studies , 572–593.
• Dumont, J.-C. , & Spielvogel, G. (2008). Return Migration: A New Perspective. International Migration Outlook 2008 . OECD, 166–212.
• Dustmann, C. , & Okatenko, A. (2014). Out-Migration, Wealth Constraints, and the Quality of Local Amenities. Journal of Development Economics , 110 , 52–63.
• Dustmann, C. , & Weiss, Y. (2007). Return Migration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations , 45 (2), 236–256.
• Duvell, F. (2012). Transit Migration: A Blurred and Politicized Concept. Population, Space and Place , 18 , 415–427.
• Easterlin, R. A. (1961). Influences in European Overseas Emigration Before World War I. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 9 (3), 331–351.
• Epstein, G. (2008). Herd and Network Effects in Migration Decision-Making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 34 (4), 567–583.
• Epstein, G. , & Gang, I. (2006). The Influence of Others on Migration Plans. Review of Development Economics , 10 (4), 652–665.
• Escriba-Folch, A. , Meseguer, C. , & Wright, J. (2015). Remittances and Democratization. International Studies Quarterly , 59 (3), 571–586.
• European Asylum Support Office . (2016). The Push and Pull Factors of Asylum-Related Migration: A Literature Review .
• Faist, T. (2000). The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Space . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fitzgerald, J. , Leblang, D. , & Teets, J. C. (2014). Defying the Law of Gravity: The Political Economy of International Migration. World Politics , 66 (3), 406–445.
• Fussel, E. (2010). The Cumulative Causation of International Migration in Latin America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 630 , 162–177.
• Fussel, E. , & Massey, D. (2004). The Limits to Cumulative Causation: International Migration from Mexican Urban Areas. Demography , 41 (1), 151–171.
• Gindling, T. H. (2009). South­–South Migration: The Impact of Nicaraguan Immigrants on Earnings, Inequality, and Poverty in Costa Rica. World Development , 37 (1), 116–126.
• Gould, J. D. (1979). European Inter-Continental Emigration 1815–1914: Patterns and Causes. Journal of European Economic History , 8 (3), 593–679.
• Greif, A. (1989). Reputation and Coalitions in Medieval Trade: Evidence on the Maghribi Traders. Journal of Economic History , 49 (4), 857–882.
• Greif, A. (1993). Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: The Maghribi Traders’ Coalition. American Economic Review , 83 (3), 525–548.
• Grogger, J. , & Hanson, G. H. (2011). Income Maximization and the Selection and Sorting of International Migrants. Journal of Development Economics , 95 , 42–57.
• Gupta, S. , Davoodi, H. , & Tiongson, E. (2001). Corruption and the Provision of Healthcare and Education Services. In A. Jain (Ed.), The Political Economy of Corruption . New York: Routledge.
• Hainmueller, J. , & Hiscox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. American Political Science Review , 104 (1), 61–84.
• Hainmueller, J. , & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The Hidden Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science , 59 (3), 529–548.
• Harris, J. R. , & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector Analysis. American Economic Review , 60 (1), 126–142.
• Hatton, T. J. , & Williamson, J. G. (1994). What Drove the Mass Migrations from Europe in the Late Nineteenth Century? Population and Development Review , 20 (3), 533–559.
• Hatton, T. J. , & Williamson, J. G. (2011). Are Third World Emigration Forces Abating? World Development , 39 (1), 20–32.
• Haug, S. (2008). Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 34 (4), 585–605.
• Helbling, M. , Bjerre, L. , Römer, F. , & Zobel, M. (2017). Measuring Immigration Policies: The IMPIC-Database. European Political Science, 16 (1), 79–98.
• Helbling, M. , & Leblang, D. (forthcoming). Controlling Immigration? European Journal of Political Research .
• Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and Sates . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Hirsh, A. O. (1978). “Exit, Voice, and the State.” World Politics , 31 (1), 90–107.
• Hujo, K. , & Piper, N. (2007). South–South Migration: Challenges for Development and Social Policy. Development , 50 (4), 1–7.
• Icduygu, A. (2005). Transit Migration in Turkey: Trends, Patterns, and Issues . Euro-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration Research Report 2005/04.
• Javorcik, B. , Özden, C. , Spatareanu, M. , & Neagu, C. (2011). Migrant Networks and Foreign Direct Investment. Journal of Development Economics , 94 , 231–241.
• Kahana, N. , & Lecker, T. (2005). Competition as a Track for Preventing Illegal Immigration. Economics of Governance , 6 , 33–39.
• Kapur, D. (2014). Political Effects of International Migration. Annual Review of Political Science , 17 , 479–502.
• Kugler, M. , Levinthal, O. , & Rapoport, H. (2017). Migration and Cross-Border Financial Flows . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8034.
• Leblang, D. (2010). Familiarity Breeds Investment: Diaspora Networks and International Investment. American Political Science Review , 104 (3), 584–600.
• Leblang, D. (2017). Harnessing the Diaspora: Dual Citizenship, Migrant Return, and Remittances. Comparative Political Studies , 50 (1), 75–101.
• Lewis, A. W. (1954). Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor. The Manchester School , 22 (2), 139–191.
• Lichter, D. T. (1983). Socioeconomic Returns to Migration among Married Women. Social Forces , 62 (2), 487–503.
• Light, I. , Bernard, R. B. , & Kim, R. (1999). Immigrant Incorporation in the Garment Industry of Los Angeles. International Migration Review , 33 (1), 5–25.
• Lokshin, M. , Bontch-Osmolovski, M. , & Glinskaya, E. (2010). Work-Related Migration and Poverty Reduction in Nepal. Review of Development Economics , 14 (2), 323–332.
• Massey, D. S. (1988). Economic Development and International Migration in Comparative Perspective. Population and Development Review , 14 (3), 383–413.
• Massey, D. S. (1990). Social Structure, Household Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of Migration. Population Index , 56 (1), 3–26.
• Massey, D. S. , Arango, J. , Hugo, G. , Kouaouci, A. , Pellegrino, A. , & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review , 19 (3), 431–466.
• Massey, D. S. , & Garcia España, F. (1987). The Social Process of International Migration. Science , 237 (4816), 733–738.
• Mauro, P. (1998). Corruption and the Composition of Government Expenditure. Journal of Public Economics , 69 , 263–279.
• Menjivar, C. (2014). Immigration Law Beyond Borders: Externalizing and Internalizing Border Controls in an Era of Securitization. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , 10 , 353–369.
• Messina, A. M. (2007). The Logics and Politics of Post-WWII Migration to Western Europe . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mincer, J. (1978). Family Migration Decisions. Journal of Political Economy , 86 (51), 749–773.
• Miller, M. K. , & Peters, M. E. (2018). Restraining the Huddled Masses: Migration Policy and Autocratic Survival . British Journal of Political Science .
• Mo, P. H. (2001). Corruption and Economic Growth. Journal of Comparative Economics , 29 , 66–79.
• Money, J. (1999). Fences and Neighbors: The Political Geography of Immigration Control . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Morrison, D. R. , & Lichter, D. T. (1988). Migration and Female Employment. Journal of Marriage and Family , 50 (1), 161–172.
• Natter, K. (2013). The Formation of Morocco’s Policy Towards Irregular Migration (2000–2007): Political Rationale and Policy Processes. International Migration , 52 (5), 15–28.
• Nikolova, M. , & Graham, C. (2015). Well-Being and Emigration Intentions: New Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Unpublished manuscript.
• Nyblade, B. , & O’Mahony, A. (2014). Migrants Remittances and Home Country Elections: Cross-National and Subnational Evidence. Studies in Comparative International Development , 49 (1), 44–66.
• O’Mahony, A. (2012). Political Investment: Remittances and Elections. British Journal of Political Science , 43 (4), 799–820.
• Ortega, F. , & Peri, G. (2013). The Effect of Income and immigration Policies on International Migration. Migration Studies , 1 (1), 47–74.
• Otrachshenko, V. , & Popova, O. (2014). Life (Dis)satisfaction and the Intention to Migrate: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Socio-Economics , 48 , 40–49.
• Papademetriou, D. , & Sumption, M. (2011). Rethinking Points Systems and Employer-Based Selected Immigration . Migration Policy Institute.
• Peters, M. (2017). Trading Barriers: Immigration and the Remaking of Globalization . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Poprawe, M. (2015). On the Relationship between Corruption and Migration: Evidence from a Gravity Model of Migration. Public Choice , 163 , 337–354.
• Portes, A. (Ed.). (1995). The Economic Sociology of Immigration . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Portes, A. , & Böröcz, J. (1989). Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on its Determinant and Modes of Incorporation. International Migration Review , 23 (3), 606–630.
• Rapoport, H. , & Docquier, F. (2006). The Economics of Migrants’ Remittances. In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity . New York: Elsevier-North Holland.
• Ratha, D. , & Shaw, W. (2007). South-South Migration and Remittances . World Bank WP 102.
• Rauch, J. E. , & Trindade, V. (2002). Ethnic Chinese Networks in International Trade. Review of Economics and Statistics , 84 (1), 116–130.
• Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London , 48 (2), 167–235.
• Sassen, S. (1995). Immigration and Local Labour Markets. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Sassen, S. (1996). Losing Control? Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. American Economic Review , 51 (1), 1–17.
• Severin, T. , & Martin, M. (2018). German Parties Edge Closer to Coalition with Migration Deal . Reuters, February 2.
• Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). The Costs and Returns of Human Migration. Journal of Political Economy , 70 (5), 80–93.
• Stark, O. (1984). Rural-To-Urban Migration in LDCs: A Relative Deprivation Approach. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 32 (3), 475–486.
• Stark, O. , & Bloom, D. E. (1985). The New Economics of Labor Migration. American Economic Review , 75 (2), 173–178.
• Stark, O. , & Levhari, D. (1982). On Migration and Risk in LDCs. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 31 (1), 191–196.
• Stark, O. , & Taylor, J. E. (1991). Migration Incentives, Migration Types: The Role of Relative Deprivation. The Economic Journal , 101 (408), 1163–1178.
• Stark, O. , & Yitzhaki, S. (1988). Migration as a Response to Relative Deprivation. Journal of Population Economics , 1 (1), 57–70.
• Taylor, J. E. (1999). The New Economics of Labour Migration and the Role of Remittances in the Migration Process. International Migration , 37 (1), 63–88.
• Todaro, M. P. (1969). A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Employment in Less Developed Countries. American Economic Review , 59 (1), 138–148.
• Tomaske, J. A. (1971). The Determinants of Intercountry Differences in European Emigration: 1881–1900. Journal of Economic History , 31 (4), 840–853.
• Transparency International . (2018). What is corruption
• United Kingdom Independence Party . (2015). UKIP Launches Immigration Policy .
• United Nations Population Division . (2012). Trends in Total Migrant Stock .
• United Nations Population Division . (2013). International Migration: Age and Sex Distribution. Population Facts, September.
• United States Citizenship and Immigration Services . (2018). H-1B Fiscal Year 2018 Cap Season .
• USA Today . (2014) (20 November). Full Text: Obama’s Immigration Speech .
• Vanderkamp, J. (1971). Migration Flows, Their Determinants and the Effects of Return Migration. Journal of Political Economy , 79 (5), 1012–1031.
• Vertovec, S. (2004). Migrant Transnationalism and Modes of Transformation. International Migration Review , 38 (3), 970–1001.
• Waldinger, R. (2008). Between “Here” and “There”: Immigrant Cross-Border Activities and Loyalties. International Migration Review , 42 (Spring), 3–29.
• Weidenbaum, M. , & Hughes, S. (1996). The Bamboo Network: How Expatriate Chinese Entrepreneurs are Creating a New Economic Superpower in Asia . New York: Martin Kessler Books.
• World Bank . (2016). Migration and Remittances Factbook 2016 . 3rd ed. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
• Yang, D. (2008). International Migration, Remittances, and Household Investment: Evidence from Philippine Migrants’ Exchange Rate Shocks. The Economic Journal , 118 (528), 591–630.
• Yang, D. , & Martinez, C. (2006). Remittances and Poverty in Migrants Home Areas: Evidence from the Philippines. In C. Ozden & M. Schiff (Eds.), International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain . Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Zaiceva, A. , & Zimmerman, K. (2014). Migration and the Demographic Shift. IZA Discussion Paper #8743 .
• Zelinsky, W. (1971). The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition. Geographical Review , 61 (2), 219–249.

1. Our use of the term international labor migration follows academic and legal conventions; we use the term migration to refer to the voluntary movement of people across national borders, either in a temporary or permanent fashion. This excludes any discussion of refugees, asylum seekers, or any other groups that are forced to migrate.

2. We do not have space in this article to delve into the theoretical and empirical work unpacking the effect of demographic characteristics—age, gender, marital status, household size, and so forth on the migration decision and on subsequent flows of migrants. For comprehensive reviews, see Lichter ( 1983 ), Morrison and Lichter ( 1988 ); United Nations Population Division ( 2013 ); and Zaiceva and Zimmerman ( 2014 ).

3. Zelinsky ( 1971 ) originally identified this relationship and termed it mobility transition curve . A wealth of empirical work supports Zelinsky’s descriptive theory in a number of contexts (see Akerman, 1976 ; Gould, 1979 ; Hatton & Williamson, 1994 ; and Dao et al., 2016 ).

4. For a review of the arguments as well as some empirical tests, see Miller and Peters ( 2018 ) and Docquier, Lodigiani, Rapoport, and Schiff ( 2018 ).

5. Transparency International. “What is corruption?”

6. For example, former United Kingdom Independence Party leader Nigel Farage has called for the United Kingdom to adopt an immigration system that only allows in highly skilled migrants (“UKIP launches immigration policy”). In 2014, US President Barack Obama emphasized that he wanted to attract international students to American universities and that they “create jobs, businesses, and industries right here in America” (USA Today: “Full text: Obama’s immigration speech”). A key issue in Germany’s 2018 government formation was the creation of skill-based migration laws (Severin & Martin, 2018 ).

7. For a more comprehensive review, see Rapoport and Docquier ( 2006 ); and Adams ( 2011 ).

Related Articles

• Space, Mobility, and Legitimacy
• Immigration and Foreign Policy

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 27 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.133]
• 185.66.14.133

Character limit 500 /500

Free IELTS lessons signup

• Academic practice
• General practice
• Task 1 Academic
• Task 1 General
• Task 2 (essay)

IELTS band 9 essay: immigration

Here you can find advice how to structure IELTS essay and IELTS model answer for immigration topic. Question type: reasons and consequences .

Here is the question card:

Immigration has a major impact on the society.

What are the main reasons of immigration?

To what consequences can it lead?

To write a band 9 essay you should first of all choose your arguments to answer the questions from the topic. You don't have to find some complicated ideas. Remember: you won't be judged upon the quality of your thoughts, you will be judged upon the quality of your writing. So even simple, but well-written arguments can often give you a band 9 writing .

• Reasons why people immigrate
• Results of immigration

Some of the possible arguments :

• Reasons of immigration :
• People want to live in a safe country
• People search better jobs with higher salaries
• People escape from wars/disasters
• Results of immigration :
• People’s expectations come true / don’t come true
• Immigrants face other difficulties
• Countries of destination have to give money to support refugees
• Overpopulation

How to structure my answer?

Of course, there are a lot of ways to organise this essay. But here is one possible way of structuring the answer to produce a band 9 essay :

Introduction : simply rephrase the topic and say what this essay is about. When your essay question asks you about reasons/consequences or causes/solutions, you shouldn’t try to describe all that in your introduction. Instead, state that you’ll describe them later in your essay.

Body paragraphs :

• paragraph 1: main reasons of immigration
• paragraph 2: main consequences of immigration

Conclusion : sum up the ideas from body paragraphs and briefly give your opinion.

Band 9 essay sample (immigration)

Immigration has a significant impact on the contemporary society. Each year, more and more people from all over the world decide to leave their home countries and move to another place. This essay will examine the reasons and the consequences of immigration.

In my view, the main reason of immigration is a strong desire of better life quality and safe future. A lot of people from so-called Third World move to developed countries in search of better employment opportunities, and therefore, higher incomes. Moreover, living in a wealthy country implies living in a country with stable economy, so risks of losing their savings also lessen. For example, labour migration from Mexico to the USA is caused by these facts. Other reasons that force whole families to cross borders are wars and various cultural conflicts in their homeland. Many people migrate, seeking security and safe future for their children. For instance, most of the refugees who arrived in the European Union were escaping from wars.

However, sometimes immigration causes more problems than it solves, resulting in negative consequences for both immigrants and their countries of destination. First of all, most of the refugees can’t find jobs because of the lack of language skills and difficulties in adaptation. That’s why the countries have to run various refugee assistance programs to help those people. But disproportionate burden of maintaining the immigrants leads to tension in the society. Secondly, not all of the refugees receive proper asylum, food and medical care. So they are at risk even after crossing the border. Finally, even highly qualified specialists, who seek better employment, often don’t get what they are looking for.

In conclusion, I think that people immigrate to have better life prospects. However, life after immigration may not always meet people’s expectations. So it’s very important to consider all the possible outcomes and decide whether leaving your homeland is worth it.

(315 words)

Useful vocabulary

better employment opportunities – opportunity to find a better job

burden of maintaining immigrants – difficulties in helping immigrants faced by the governments

country with stable economy – rich and safe country

to cross the border – immigrate

labour migration – when people migrate to find better jobs

refugee – person who is forced to leave his birth place because of war

refugee assistance programs – when the government gives to the refugees asylum and food

to seek better employment – look for better job

Third World – developing countries

to meet expectations – if something doesn’t meet your expectations, it’s not as good as you have thought

• Spring 2016

The North American Century

Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs

Contributions immigrants make are an economic boost we cannot overlook.

Immigration has emerged as a top issue in the presidential campaign. The timing is odd since immigration into the United States has slowed sharply.

Issuance of green cards, or permanent resident visas, to new arrivals has been largely flat since 2008, but dipped in 2013 to a six-year low. Illegal immigration is near record lows, with migrant apprehensions along the Southwest border at levels last seen in the 1970s. Temporary work-based visas have risen slightly in recent years but remain below their 2007 peak. Plotting visas and migrant apprehensions as a share of the nation’s working-age population, reinforces the point that immigration is slowing in both absolute and relative terms.   

More on Immigration from the Bush Institute

A NATION BUILT BY IMMIGRANTS America is strengthened by the contributions from immigrants. Read stories from American immigrants, debunk immigration myths, and read the Bush Institute policy recommendations.

ECONOMIC GROWTH INITIATIVE: IMMIGRATION Pro-growth immigration reform can raise the pace of economic growth. Learn more about the Bush Institute’s work in immigration.

A lack of legislative action on immigration reform, rising border and interior enforcement of immigration laws, and the slow-growing U.S. economy have combined to stem the inflow of immigrant workers. The Mexican case is particularly striking, with demographers suggesting net inflows from Mexico were negative  over the five-year period following the Great Recession. Economic stability in Mexico, and slower population growth, has dulled the “push factors” that generated mass emigration for four decades.

Against this backdrop of slowing immigration, it’s surprising that presidential politics are heating up around this issue.

Why we need immigration

Immigration fuels the economy. When immigrants enter the labor force, they increase the productive capacity of the economy and raise GDP. Their incomes rise, but so do those of natives. It’s a phenomenon dubbed the “immigration surplus,” and while a small share of additional GDP accrues to natives — typically 0.2 to 0.4 percent — it still amounts to $36 to $72 billion per year.

In addition to the immigration surplus, immigrants grease the wheels of the labor market by flowing into industries and areas where there is a relative need for workers — where bottlenecks or shortages might otherwise damp growth.

When immigrants enter the labor force, they increase the productive capacity of the economy and raise GDP. Their incomes rise, but so do those of natives. It’s a phenomenon dubbed the “immigration surplus.”

Immigrants are more likely to move than natives, and by relieving these bottlenecks to expansion, immigrants increase the speed limit of the economy. Growth accelerates as slack falls, a desirable scenario that follows from the improved allocation of resources in the economy.

There are many examples — nationally and regionally — of immigrants moving to where the jobs are. During and after World War II, Mexican immigrants were instrumental in alleviating shortages arising from the war effort. During the oil boom of the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was record migration to Texas. In the 1990s, it was the fast-growing South and Mountain West states that received immigrants, many for the first time.

In terms of occupations, immigrants flowed into high-tech jobs during the Internet boom and construction jobs during the 2000s housing boom.

Immigrants grease the wheels of the labor market by flowing into industries and areas where there is a relative need for workers — where bottlenecks or shortages might otherwise damp growth.

In 2013, the George W. Bush Institute honored America’s immigrant heritage with an official immigration naturalization ceremony and a half-day event.

In addition, the rise in high-skilled immigration, a pronounced trend since the 1990s, has been linked to innovation, specifically to higher patenting rates among immigrants. Interestingly, greater innovation among immigrants appears to boost it among natives, too. Immigrants innovate more than natives because they are concentrated in STEM occupations where there is lots of R&D and entrepreneurial activity

Forty-four percent of medical scientists are foreign born, for example, as are 42 percent of computer software developers. Immigrant workers are also overrepresented among college professors, engineers, mathematicians, nurses, doctors and dentists, to name a few.

If immigration makes the economy larger, more efficient and productive, what’s the problem? Why do we, as a nation, strictly limit immigration?

Yes, there are downsides

Immigration changes factor prices — it lowers the wages of competing workers, while raising the return to capital and the wages of complementary workers. In other words, the immigration surplus does not accrue equally to everyone. It goes primarily to the owners of capital, which includes business and land-owners and investors.

Complementary workers also benefit. The demand for these workers rises with more immigration. They may be construction supervisors, translators, pharmaceutical reps, or immigration lawyers. And consumers benefit from the lower prices of the goods and services that immigrants produce. But competing workers’ wages fall, at least in the initial transition period as the economy adjusts to the new labor inflow.

Research suggests that previous immigrants suffer more of the adverse wage effects than do natives. Prior immigrants are more like current immigrants.

Research also suggests any negative wage effects are concentrated among low-skilled and not high-skilled workers. Perhaps that is because high-skilled U.S.-born workers are complementary to immigrants to a greater extent than native low-skilled workers, who hold jobs that require less education and fewer language skills.

Overall, we are talking about a plus

Last year, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the George W. Bush Institute partnered to release this book containing an in-depth analysis of the correlation between immigration and economic growth.

Immigration is thus a positive but also disruptive change. There are lots of historical examples of positive yet disruptive economic change. The Industrial Revolution displaced millions of farm workers and resulted in the great urban migrations and the birth of mega-cities to which we now ascribe all kinds of positive attributes, including creativity and innovation and higher wages. 

No great change is without some short-term cost. What is costly in the long-term is preventing market forces from funneling resources to their best use. The adjustment of wages and prices to the changing demand and supply in the economy are the levers of capitalism that direct resources to their best allocation.

Immigration has net benefits. The fact that it has some costs is not a reason to bar it, but rather to manage it. Mechanisms can be found to benefit from immigration’s gains while making up for the losses of some workers. International trade has similar effects, and workers adversely affected by trade are eligible for federal programs such as Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Immigration has net benefits. The fact that it has some costs is not a reason to bar it, but rather to manage it.

International migration is not much different than domestic migration, at least not in terms of economics. We Texans often celebrate Californians and others who move to Texas for the abundant jobs, lower house prices and lesser tax burden. In Texas, we have depended on this inflow of labor from other states to grow as fast as we have — about twice as fast as the nation since 1990. The state has benefited from the migration as have those who moved here.

Would wages have been higher without the inflow of labor? Perhaps temporarily. But wage inflation and skill shortages would have choked off investment and firms would have expanded elsewhere, in places where they could readily find more competitively priced resources.

Immigration is a net positive, even for those who don’t move, but the gains are not distributed equally. The next step for policymakers is to structure immigration reform to take advantage of immigration’s many benefits while mitigating the costs.