The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Support for the research and writing of this report was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the ARCO Foundation, The Ford Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Labor.
Those wishing to print this document may wish to use the PDF version of the report (1.2MB). Please note that the large images have been removed to speed download times.
CONTENTS
KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE REPORT
Goals of Immigration
- Are the goals of immigration policy exclusively economic? (Chapter II)
Immigrant Characteristics
- Is the "quality" of immigrants declining? (Chapter III)
- Are the new immigrants less likely to learn English than previous immigrants? (Chapter III)
- Are the new immigrants less educated than previous immigrants? Than natives? (Chapter III)
- How do the incomes of immigrants change over time and how do they compare with natives? (Chapter III)
Illegal Immigration
- How many illegal immigrants are in the United States? How many enter and stay annually? (Chapter III)
Labor Market Impacts
- Do immigrants displace native workers? (Chapter IV)
- What impact does immigration have on the wages and employment of African Americans? (Chapter IV)
- What impacts do illegal immigrants have on natives' labor market opportunities? (Chapter IV)
- What will immigration mean for the makeup of the labor force? (Chapter III)
Population Impacts
- What impact is immigration having on the nation's racial and ethnic composition? (Chapter III)
- How will immigration change the racial and ethnic composition of the country in the future? (Chapter III)
Public Sector Impacts
- Do immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in services? (Chapter V)
- Are immigrants more likely to be on welfare than natives? (Chapter V)
- What will be the impacts of restricting immigrants' eligibility for welfare? (Chapter V)
INTRODUCTION
Immigration is emerging as a pivotal issue—like race, taxes, and crime—that defines political conflict over the basic values of our society. It is an issue that evokes cultural and economic anxieties; concerns about the preservation of natural and public resources; and even fears of personal safety. After years of comparative obscurity, pressures are mounting again for immigration policy reform. As public debate intensifies, it is characterized increasingly by disagreement over facts as well as policy. Agreement about facts does not imply policy agreement. But a generally accepted factual base and framework for thinking about immigration issues can provide a common starting point from which to assess different policy alternatives. This report provides such a starting point. It sets forth a number of overarching points to guide thinking about immigration and lays out the facts on four fundamental questions:
- What is the policy context?
- Who are the country's immigrants and where do they live?
- What is the impact of immigrants on the U.S. labor market?
- How do the public sector costs of immigrants compare with their tax payments?
Chapter I of the report provides an overview for readers exploring immigration issues. Chapter II summarizes the policy context by reviewing the principal substantive areas of immigration and immigrant policy. Chapter III profiles the immigrant population. Chapter IV reports what is known about the labor market effects of immigrants, summarizing the evidence on wage and displacement effects for the population as a whole and for important population groups (low-wage workers, African Americans, and recent immigrants). Chapter V explores the public sector impacts of immigrants. Chapter VI summarizes the themes laid out in the report and highlights several areas of concern for future immigrant integration and immigration policy.
A word about sources. The information presented here comes primarily from recent Urban Institute analyses based on the 1990 census, statistics from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and other relevant sources. To understand fully what is known about labor market effects, the report synthesizes the substantial literature on the topic, written by Institute analysts and other researchers, and pinpoints areas of agreement, disagreement, and continuing ignorance. To elucidate the facts about the public sector impacts of immigrants, the discussion is organized around particular studies that have become so controversial that they themselves are now part of the debate.
A word about format. The format of the report is designed to assist the reader in exploring the four key questions we address. Each chapter is self-contained, with summary points, data, and tabular displays to support the findings described in the text. Headings in the page margins guide the reader interested in particular topics.
IMMIGRATION: PRINCIPAL FACTS AND FINDINGS
Each of the chapters that follows presents information to provide a common knowledge base to guide public discussion. This chapter summarizes the key questions raised in the report as a guide to thinking about immigration.
What is the Policy Context?
Immigration policy involves three fundamentally different sets of laws, regulations, and institutions—those that govern legal immigration, those that govern humanitarian admissions (refugees and asylees), and those that control illegal entry. Important distinctions between these separate and distinct domains have frequently been lost in the current debate over immigration policy.
U.S. immigration policy is governed by five broad goals: (1) the social goal of family unification, (2) the economic goal of increasing U.S. productivity and standard of living, (3) the cultural goal of promoting diversity, (4) the moral goal of promoting human rights, and (5) the national and economic security goal of preventing illegal immigration. Critiques of immigration often overlook the non-economic goals.
The policy context encompasses not just the nation's immigration policies, which determine who comes and in what numbers, but also the nation's immigrant policies (the federal, state, and local policies that influence the integration of immigrants after they have arrived). U.S. immigration policy is set by the federal government and has been both inclusive and well-defined. U.S. immigrant policy, by contrast, is made up of scattered, unlinked provisions and programs that fall, largely by default, to state and local governments. While immigration has been steadily rising, federal support for programs targeted to immigrants, like the Refugee Resettlement Program, has been declining.
Who Are America's Immigrants and Where Do They Live?
How current immigration levels are interpreted, compared to the past, depends on the measure used. The absolute number of immigrants a year who enter and stay—currently about 1.1 million (legal and illegal)—matches the previous historical peak. The share of net annual population growth accounted for by immigrants—currently about one-third—is also at its previous historical peak. But the share of the population that is foreign born—currently 8.5 percent—is not much more than half its historical peak. In calculating the impact of immigration on the population, analyses often fail to subtract the number of immigrants who die each year (about 200,000) and the number who leave again (also about 200,000). Taken together, the number of immigrants who die or emigrate each year equals more than one-third of the annual flow of entrants.
The most informative measure of illegal immigration for policy is growth in the population that enters and stays. This number is 200,000 to 300,000 a year. The number entering illegally and the number apprehended at the border (each over one million a year) are both misleading measures because they count individuals who enter more than once each time they enter and fail to count those who leave, often within days of their arrival. Less than half of illegal immigrants cross the nation's borders clandestinely. The majority enter legally and overstay their visas.
The impact of immigration on the economy and the native-born population is driven not just by absolute numbers but by geographic concentration. The vast majority of immigrants are concentrated in only six states and almost all live in metropolitan areas. The local effects of immigration vary depending on the strength of the local economy, the outmigration of local residents, and the arrival of internal (versus international) migrants from other parts of the United States.
The impact of immigration is also driven by its pace and diversity. Almost half the immigrant population arrived within the past 10 years. At the same time, the number of sending countries with at least 100,000 foreign-born residents in the United States rose from 21 in 1970 to 27 in 1980 and 41 in 1990. The perceived failure of the newest group of immigrants to adapt as well as previous waves owes at least in part to their recent arrival. The rapid growth of immigrants who do not speak English well, for example, is a consequence primarily of the size of recent flows and not a change in their propensity to learn English. Immigrant integration increases steadily with length of stay in the United States.
The education and income level of recent legal immigrants remained high through the 1980s and did not decline, according to the U.S. census. Studies that report a decline in immigrant income and education levels—often referred to as immigrant "quality"—fail to take into account the fact that U.S. census data do not differentiate by immigration status. Legal immigrants, refugees and illegal immigrants are all included in U.S. censuses. But refugees and illegal immigrants have tended to be poorer and less educated on average than other immigrants. As a result, census data on the education, skills, and incomes of all immigrants understate immigrant quality when applied to the legal immigrant population. Changing policy with respect to legal immigrants cannot be expected to change the characteristics of illegal immigrants and refugees.
Projections of the future racial composition of the United States must take into account trends in ethnic intermarriage and ethnic self-identification. Different assumptions produce strikingly different racial and ethnic profiles.
What Impact Does Immigration Have on the U.S. Labor Market?
Understanding the effect of immigration on wages and jobs requires looking both at aggregate data and specific labor markets. Aggregate data show no overall effect. Studies of specific labor markets show small negative effects on low-skilled workers in stagnant local economies with high concentrations of immigrants, but not in other types of economies.
The impact of immigration on the wages and jobs of native-born Americans within a community is likely to vary over time depending on the the local economy. In growing economies, immigration increases the labor market opportunities of low-skilled workers; in declining ones or stagnant economies, immigration diminishes them.
Estimates of the labor market effects of immigrants usually fail to account for the job-creating effects of immigrant businesses and spending. Self-employment is higher among immigrants than among native-born Americans. Also, spending by immigrants on food, clothing, housing, and other goods creates jobs. Immigrant incomes in 1989 totaled about $285 billion, representing the same share of total incomes in the U.S. that immigrants represent of the total U.S. population.
What Impact Does Immigration Have on the Public Sector?
To understand public assistance use by immigrants one must subdivide by period of entry and legal status. Except for refugees, immigrants who arrived in the past decade receive public assistance at significantly lower rates than native-born Americans. Moreover, when refugees are excluded, immigrant use of public benefits actually decreased during the 1980s. Welfare use among working-age (15 to 64 years), non-refugee immigrants is very low. Most transfer payments going to immigrants consist of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for elderly immigrants.
The public sector costs and benefits of immigrants vary by level of government. To the federal government immigrants represent a net gain. Their state-level impact varies by state. At the local level the costs of immigrants—and of the native-born—exceed taxes paid. The major "cost" of immigrants is education of immigrant children.
Estimating tax revenues from immigrants requires a dynamic picture that includes all immigrants, not just recent arrivals. Incomes earned and taxes paid both rise with length of time in the United States. The average household incomes of both legal immigrants and refugees who entered before 1980 are higher than natives.
Overall, annual taxes paid by immigrants to all levels of governments more than offset the costs of services received, generating a net annual surplus of $25 billion to $30 billion.
THE POLICY CONTEXT
Immigration policy, which is set by the federal government, determines who enters the United States and in what numbers. This is in sharp contrast to immigrant policy, which is largely left to states and localities and governs how immigrants are integrated into the U.S. economy and society. This chapter outlines the principal goals of U.S. immigration policy and the differences between immigration and immigrant policy.
Immigration Policy: Historical Overview
Immigration policy in the United States has, from the start, been shaped by contending forces advocating that the nation should serve as a refuge for the world's dispossessed and those who believe that immigration policy should seek to sift the wheat from the chaff—to admit the immigrants who add to the U.S. economy and society and exclude those who may become a burden. The fundamental tension is evident throughout the evolution of immigration policy in the United States.
While many of the core elements of our immigration policies were adopted in the colonial era (such as the exclusion of poverty-stricken migrants likely to become public charges), comprehensive, congressionally enacted immigration policies did not emerge until the end of the 19th century.
The first broad modern assertion of the federal regulatory power in the immigration area was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. (See page 11 for a chronological list of major legislative milestones.) Chinese immigrants had been imported to work during the labor shortages of the 1840s, but became increasingly reviled during the recessionary times of the 1870s. In response to popular pressure, the Chinese Exclusion Act suspended immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years, removed the rights of Chinese entrants to be naturalized, and provided for the deportation of Chinese in the United States illegally. It was not until 1943 that the Chinese exclusion laws were repealed.
From 1882 until 1924 national immigration policy focused on excluding persons on qualitative grounds—prohibiting the entry of criminals, prostitutes, the physically and mentally ill, those likely to become paupers and, beginning in 1917, immigrants who were illiterate. National origin exclusions were expanded to Japanese in 1907 and all Asians in 1917.
The first general, permanent quantitative or numerical restriction on immigration was imposed in 1924, when the National Origins Act was passed. The law placed a ceiling of 150,000 per year on European immigration, completely barred Japanese immigration, and provided for the admission of immigrants based on the proportion of national origin groups that were present in the United States according to the census of 1890. Because this census preceded the large-scale immigrations from southern and eastern Europe, this provision represented an explicit effort to ensure that future immigration flows would be largely composed of immigrants from northern and western Europe. The national origins quota system would not be overturned until 1965.
The election of President John F. Kennedy marked the beginning of a new, more inclusionary era in U.S. immigration policy. Kennedy, of Irish descent, had written a book, A Nation of Immigrants, that denounced the national origins quota system. With his death, with the power of the civil rights movement growing, and with Lyndon Johnson's landslide election, the Congress enacted the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (Fuchs and Forbes 1985). The law replaced the national origins quota system with a uniform limit of 20,000 immigrants per country for all countries outside the Western Hemisphere. At the same time, though, the law placed a limit for the first time on immigration from the Western Hemisphere (most notably on Mexico). The law contained within it the seeds of the massive shift away from European immigration that would subsequently occur. It can also be seen as setting the stage for expanding illegal immigration from the Western Hemisphere into the United States.
The next major milestones in U.S. immigration policy occurred during the period from 1980 to 1990. During this decade three major pieces of immigration legislation were enacted, each representing, for the most part, a major liberalization of national immigration policy.
The decade began with passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. The law was intended to send a clear signal to the world that the nation had adopted an explicit set of policies that committed it to annually receiving a substantial number of refugees. (Previously admissions had been administered in an ad hoc and highly ideological manner.) The law expands the definition of "refugee" beyond those fleeing from communist countries and entitles refugees to certain federally reimbursable social and medical services. Along with the 1965 Act, the Refugee Act's implementation has had the effect of increasing the representation of non-European countries in the immigration flow.
|
Major Legislative Milestones in U.S. Immigration History
|
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
- Suspends immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
- Bars Chinese naturalization.
- Provides for deportation of Chinese illegally in United States.
Immigration Act of 1891
- First comprehensive law for national control of immigration.
- Establishes Bureau of Immigration under Treasury.
- Directs deportation of aliens unlawfully in country.
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1924
- Imposes first permanent numerical limit on immigration.
- Establishes the national origins quota system, which resulted in baised admissions favoring northern and western Europeans.
Immigration and Naturalization Act of June 27, 1952
- Continues national origins quota.
- Quota for skilled aliens whose services are urgently needed.
Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of October 3, 1965
- Repeals national origins quotas.
- Establishes 7-category preference system based on family unification and skills.
- Sets 20,000 per country limit for Eastern Hemisphere.
- Imposes ceiling on immigration from Western Hemisphere for the first time.
Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976
- Extends 20,000 per country limits to Western hemisphere.
Refugee Act of 1980
- Sets up first permanent and systematic procedure for admitting refugees.
- Removes refugees as a category from preference system.
- Defines refugee according to international, versus ideological standards.
- Establishes process of domestic resettlement.
- Codifies asylum status.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
- Institutes employer sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
- Creates legalization programs.
- Increases border enforcement.
Immigration Act of 1990
- Increases legal immigration ceilings by 40 percent.
- Triples employment-based immigration, emphasizing skills.
- Creates diversity admissions category.
- Establishes temporary protected status for those in the U.S. jeopardized by armed conflict or natural disasters in their native countries.
Sources: Immigration and nationality Act of 1992; Jones 1992; Immigration and Nationalization Serviec 1991, Statistical Yearbook. |
The Refugee Act was followed by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) which addresses the issue of illegal immigration. The law introduces penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. At the same time, though, it creates two large programs to grant legal status to illegal immigrants.
The decade culminated with the Immigration Act of 1990, which, among other things, revises legal immigration policy. While the law was purportedly a compromise between exclusionary and inclusionary forces, in fact, it represents a major liberalization of legal immigration policy, as total admissions were increased by 40 percent. Much of the increase, though, is allocated to highly skilled immigrants (Fix and Passel 1991).
While the contending forces in U.S. immigration policy do not seem to have changed their postures significantly over time, this brief discussion suggests that the pace of immigration policy reform has accelerated. Before 1980, major reform of immigration policy took place every quarter century. Now, less than four years after enactment of the 1990 Immigration Act, immigration policy and its reform are again a central focus of congressional attention.
Making Sense of Immigration Policy
Making policy sense of the widely varying types of action represented in this chronological sketch requires clear separation of three distinct parts of U.S. immigration policy: (1) legal immigration, (2) humanitarian admissions, and (3) illegal immigration. Failure to keep these domains separate may be the most important source of confusion in the current national debate.
The distinction is crucial because the three domains are governed by different legislation, administered by different bureaucracies, and involve different administrative functions—functions that range from paramilitary operations to apprehend illegals, to language training to facilitate immigrant integration. The various parts of immigration policy are also motivated by different goals.
The Goals of Immigration Policy
The principal goals of U.S. immigration policy are:
- Social—unifying U.S. citizens and legal residents with their families;
- Economic—increasing U.S. productivity and standard of living;
- Cultural—encouraging diversity;
- Moral—promoting human rights;
- National and economic security—controlling illegal immigration.
The current debate tends to focus on the economic outcomes and neglect the social, cultural, and moral goals. Thus, many critiques of immigration policies ignore the intent of their framers.
Legal Immigration
Legal immigration policy is based primarily on the principles of family unification and meeting the labor market's needs.1 The United States currently admits roughly 700,000 immigrants annually as legal permanent ("green card") residents who after 5 years' continuous residence will be eligible to apply for citizenship. (See Appendix A, Table A-1.) 2 The U.S. admits more such immigrants who are placed on this type of citizenship track than all other countries combined.3
U.S. admissions policies are, to an extent that is generally under-recognized, the product of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. That is, they are guided by nondiscriminatory principles which eliminate the racial, national, and ethnic biases that controlled before 1965, when annual quotas that tilted immigration toward Europe were eliminated.4 These principles, coupled with the law's emphasis on family unification, have driven a largely unexpected shift in the composition of new immigration from Europe to Central America and Asia.
Legal immigration policy alone pursues the social, economic, and cultural goals noted above.
The social goal of family unification is principally intended to unite nuclear families. Strong, sustained support for this goal derives in large part from the fact that its main beneficiaries are U.S. citizens—a politically endowed constituency.
The economic goal of meeting the nation's labor force needs requires maneuvering among three potentially conflicting objectives: (1) promoting the nation's competitiveness in the global economy, (2) minimizing the burden placed on employers, and (3) protecting the wages and employment conditions of U.S. workers. The rhetoric of making immigration policy more responsive to the nation's labor force needs was central to the politics of the 1990 Immigration Act, which almost tripled admissions for highly skilled workers and their families, raising the number admitted from 58,000 to 140,000 annually (Fix and Passel 1991).
The architects of the 1990 Immigration Act also sought to advance the cultural goal of diversifying immigration to the United States by diluting the degree to which immigration over the previous decade had been dominated by Latin American and Asian admissions. In the 1990 Act, a new "diversity" category was added to bring in immigrants from countries that had sent few immigrants to the U.S. in recent decades. The varied objectives behind this innovation included (1) increasing European immigration, (2) increasing the skills of new entrants, and (3) intensifying the role immigration plays in promoting pluralism within the United States.
Humanitarian Admissions
Between 1945 and 1990, one-quarter of all immigrants entering the United States were admitted on humanitarian grounds. Humanitarian admissions policy is guided by the moral goal of promoting human rights by extending protection to those fleeing persecution. The current legislative framework for humanitarian admissions policy is set out principally in the 1980 Refugee Act, which seeks to accomplish three goals:
- Base humanitarian admissions on internationally recognized criteria (developed by the United Nations) that depart from the largely ideological, anti-communist grounds that previously prevailed;5
- Create a predictable, manageable flow of refugees;
- Include a program for resettling refugees—involving cash, medical support, and social services. The resettlement program recognized that refugees and asylees arrive with little money and no family or business connections.
The 1980 Refugee Act covers two types of humanitarian admissions—refugees and asylees. Refugee admissions are set annually by the President in consultation with Congress. Refugee admissions for FY 1994 are expected to total 120,000. While refugees apply for admission to the United States and are processed overseas, asylees petition to remain in the U.S., usually after having entered illegally. Put differently, the U.S. selects refugees; asylum seekers select the United States. Asylum applications reached 147,000 in 1993, up from only 56,000 in 1991; only 4,465 petitions for asylum were approved in fiscal 1993 (National Asylum Study Project 1993).
Although asylum was not a central concern of those who framed the Refugee Act, it has become an extremely volatile issue—not just within this country but also across Europe. This concern is due in large part to the fact that asylum is often granted after illegal entry, which puts efforts to offer humanitarian admission in conflict with illegal immigration control. The controversy that has plagued asylum is fed both by the number of applications that have been filed—yielding a current backlog of almost 350,000 unadjucated cases—and by the perception that the system is out of control.6 One explanation advanced for the backlog has been the incentives built into the asylum process. Most asylum applicants have not only been granted work authorization while they await their hearings, they have also been extended broad procedural safeguards if their petitions are denied. Further, few denied applicants have ever been deported. Thus, despite the fact that most asylum applicants come from countries where human rights abuses have been documented, the process has been viewed skeptically by its critics (National Asylum Study Project 1993).
A significant new door to safe refuge was opened by the 1990 Immigration Act: temporary protected status (TPS). The law recognizes that in certain circumstances—war or natural disaster—selected nationality groups should be allowed temporary residence in the United States without having individual members' claims separately adjudicated. Three years into the program, 215,000 persons have been granted TPS, more than half the number who entered with refugee status over the same period.7
Controlling Illegal Immigration
Only with passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) did Congress lay out a more or less coherent legislative scheme to control illegal immigration, thereby turning immigration policy to the goals of promoting the nation's sovereignty and protecting the economic security of the U.S. labor force. Before 1986, policy to control illegal immigration consisted mostly of intercepting illegals at the border or apprehending them at their jobs. The 1986 Act changed this by making the hiring of illegal immigrants a civil and, in some cases, a criminal violation.
IRCA attempted to strike a balance among five at least partially conflicting objectives: (1) cutting off the work and welfare "magnets" thought to attract illegals; (2) minimizing the regulatory burden on employers; (3) meeting the labor force needs of industries dependent historically on immigrant labor (especially California agriculture); (4) averting discrimination against foreign-looking and -sounding people; and (5) minimizing government intrusion on privacy. In addition to IRCA's employer sanction provisions, the law mandates that states use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, an automated verification system to track the immigration status of applicants for welfare.
IRCA also extends legal status to immigrants who have been in this country continuously since 1982 or have worked in agriculture. This provision for one-time amnesty is intended to "wipe the slate clean." IRCA has led to the legalization of more than 1 percent of the U.S. population, almost three million residents—the largest such program in history.8
While the "carrot" of IRCA's amnesty provisions has been extremely successful, the "stick" of employer sanctions has largely failed to control illegal immigration in the 1990s. Employer sanctions have proved difficult to enforce because of the increased prevalence of fraudulent documents and the limited resources thus far dedicated to enforcement by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). At the same time, civil liberties principles have been invoked to defeat political initiatives for adopting a national identity card, which further complicated enforcement (Fix 1991).
Immigrant Policy
Immigrant policy encompasses the laws, regulations, and programs that influence the integration of immigrants once they are in this country. Its range is broad, including laws and regulations that determine non-citizens' eligibility for public benefits as well as spending on programs that are targeted to immigrants, such as the Refugee Resettlement Program and bilingual education.
In sharp contrast to the inclusive and well-defined federal immigration policy described in the previous section, the United States has no coherent immigrant policy, at least at the federal level. Indeed, the already limited federal expenditures devoted to immigrant-related programs have been sharply reduced in recent years—even as the numbers of immigrants have risen steadily. Under the Refugee Resettlement Program, for example, real federal spending per refugee has fallen from $7,300 in FY 1982 to $2,200 in FY 1993. As a consequence, public responsibility for incorporating newcomers has fallen, mostly by default, to state and local governments (Fix and Zimmermann 1993).
Thus, the United States has no comprehensive, principle-driven policy for immigrant integration. This lack of an immigrant policy is responsible at least in part for the rising concerns about the costs of immigrants to state and local governments and about the pace of immigrant integration.
AMERICA'S IMMIGRANTS:
WHO ARE THEY AND WHERE DO THEY LIVE?
The current debate over immigration facts and policy begins with questions about U.S. immigrants. Who are they? What are their origins and characteristics? What are their current socioeconomic impacts? What are their expected future impacts? This section looks at these questions objectively with data from a number of studies. What follows is a largely tabular display of statistics intended to shed light on the controversies surrounding U.S. immigrants, their composition, origins, and socioeconomic impacts.
Historical Immigration Patterns
The United States is now experiencing the largest wave of immigrants in the country's history. The first major in-migration began in the late 1840s and peaked in the 1880s, a decade during which somewhat more than 5 million immigrants arrived on U.S. shores (Figure 1). The majority came from northern and western Europe, mainly from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia, following revolutions, famine, and upheavals in Europe.
The next immigration wave peaked in the first decade of this century, when 9 million immigrants entered the country. Southern and central Europe were the main sources of new entrants in this period, as huge numbers of Italians, Poles, and eastern European Jews flocked to the United States. The restrictive legislation of the 1920s and the Great Depression virtually cut off immigration in the period leading up to World War II. Following the war, immigration began to build again and has since increased steadily.
Immigration in the 1980s reached almost 10 million, the highest numerical peak in U.S. history. More than 10 million immigrants (legal and illegal) are likely to enter the United States during the 1990s, in part as a result of the 1990 Immigration Act. Most of the immigrants who make up this latest wave come from Latin America and Asia.
To put current concerns about the labor market impact of immigrants into historical perspective, it should be noted that immigrants entering the country in the early part of the century had a much greater impact on the U.S. labor market than the numbers entering today. This difference in scale occurs because the U.S. population was only about one-third its current size. In 1907 alone, for example, immigrants added about 3 percent to the U.S. labor force. To have an equivalent labor market impact today, immigration would have to reach at least 9 million per year, 10 times current levels.
Immigrant Numbers and Legal Status
ABSOLUTE NUMBERS The 1990 census counted 19.7 million foreign-born persons in the United States, 34 percent more than in 1980. By late 1993, the foreign-born population (including naturalized citizens) had probably reached the 22 million mark. Yet, while the number of foreign-born persons in the United States is at an all-time high, the share of the population that is foreign-born—8 percent in 1990—is much lower than it was throughout the 1870-1920 period, when close to 15 percent of the total population (about 1 in 7 Americans) was born in a foreign country (Figure 2).
The majority of the foreign-born living in the United States—over 85 percent—are in the country legally (Figure 3). Fully one-third are naturalized citizens and nearly half are legal permanent residents.9 Almost one-third of the 8.8 million legal permanent residents, about 2.8 million persons, were formerly illegal but attained legal status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Six percent of all foreign-born (1.1 million persons) entered the country as humanitarian admissions. Most of these do not remain in refugee and asylee status, but rather "adjust their status" to legal permanent residents as soon as they are eligible, which is one year after arrival. About 184,000 are currently in refugee status; 3,000-4,000 are in asylee status.
In addition to the more than 16 million foreign-born who are citizens or legal permanent residents, between 500,000 and 800,000 immigrants are living in the United States in a variety of non-green-card statuses, including students, businessmen on temporary visas, and persons living under "temporary protected status."10
The other foreign-born group living in the United States consists of undocumented immigrants. This group totaled about 2.5 million in 1990, roughly 13 percent of the immigrant population.
ANNUAL FLOW Slightly more than 1.1 million immigrants arrive each year. About 700,000 are legal permanent residents, with family-based admissions accounting for almost three-quarters of this flow.11 Refugees and other humanitarian admissions add another 100,000-150,000 each year. Undocumented immigration contributes about 200,000-300,000 net additions annually, less than 30 percent of the immigrant flow.
Immigrant admissions remained relatively constant through 1990 and then rose about 25 percent as a result of the 1990 Act. INS data on immigration are unclear on this point, however, leading to serious misperceptions of immigration levels on the part of the media and the public. In calculating total immigration, the INS counts IRCA legalizations in the legal immigrant totals at the point when those with temporary status convert to legal permanent resident status. As a result, the official figures on "immigrants admitted" erroneously appear to have tripled between 1987 and 1991 followed by a 50 percent drop in 1992 (Table 1). The IRCA group masks the actual trend, which is a steady, incremental rise in admissions.
The net impact of immigrant arrivals is cushioned somewhat by two countervailing demographic forces. More than 200,000 foreign-born die each year in the United States; the majority are long-time U.S. residents. Roughly 200,000 former immigrants leave each year, reducing the net inflow and the size of the immigrant population; the emigrants are thought to come disproportionately from recent entrants. In sum, then, the foreign-born population grows by about 700,000 each year, due to the combination of entry (legal and illegal), exit, and death. Immigration accounts for about one-third of the country's net annual population growth.
| Table 1: Legal Immigration Reported by INS: 1985-1992 |
| Fiscal Year |
Total Immigrants |
IRCA Legalizations |
Other Legal Immigrants |
| 1985 |
570,009 |
N.A. |
570,009 |
| 1986 |
601,708 |
N.A. |
601,708 |
| 1987 |
601,516 |
8,060 |
593,456 |
| 1988 |
643,025 |
39,999 |
603,026 |
| 1989 |
1,090,924 |
489,384 |
601,540 |
| 1990 |
1,536,483 |
885,005 |
651,478 |
| 1991 |
1,827,167 |
1,125,444 |
701,723 |
| 1992 |
973,977 |
164,635 |
809,342 |
Source: INS, Statistical Yearbooks, 1985 through 1992.
N.A.= Not applicable. |
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TRENDS Several myths about undocumented immigrants continue to permeate the public debate, despite a decade of empirical research during which a great deal was learned about illegal immigration.12 These myths relate to the size of the immigrant population, their profile, and how they enter the country.
In 1980 between 2.5 million and 3.5 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States. About half were from Mexico; somewhat more than half were male; and about half lived in California. The best estimates suggest that the illegal population was growing by about 200,000 per year in the early 1980s (Bean, Edmonston, and Passel 1990; see especially chapters 1 and 9).
By 1986, 3 million to 5 million undocumented immigrants were living in the United States. Following IRCA's legalization program and the implementation of employer sanctions, estimates put the number of immigrants living in the United States illegally at between 1.8 million and 3 million people, a big drop from 1986 levels (Figure 4). However, the number of undocumented immigrants in the country has begun to grow again. Illegal entries fell off sharply for only a short time following IRCA, and the legalization program is now over. The best current estimate of the size of the undocumented population was 3.2 million in October 1992, with growth estimated at 200,000 to 300,000 each year.13
These numbers are lower than estimates appearing in the popular press and substantially below the most widely publicized estimates used in determining the "costs" of illegal aliens. The perception of larger illegal flows and populations is driven by several "data" items, in particular the press accounts that quote INS figures on annual apprehensions along the the Mexico-U.S. border of more than 1 million people. Virtually all the INS apprehensions are temporary labor migrants who are caught more than once by the INS and who do not intend to live in the United States in any case. Many of these, were they not caught, would only stay in the United States for a day or two. A large reverse flow into Mexico goes virtually unnoticed and unreported.
| Table 2: Countries of Origin of the Resident Undocumented Population: October 1992 |
| |
Number |
Percent |
| Total Undocumented Population |
3,200,000 |
100 |
Central America and Caribbean
Mexico
El Salvador
Guatemala
Other Countries
|
1,991,000
1,002,000
298,000
121,000
570,000 |
62
31
9
4
18 |
Europe and Canada
Canada
Poland
Other Countries |
421,000
104,000
102,000
215,000 |
13
3
3
7 |
Asia
South America
Africa
Oceania |
340,000
205,000
125,000
15,000 |
11
6
4
-- |
| Source: Warren 1993. |
| Table 3: Top 10 Countries of Birth for Legal Immigrants: 1960 and 1990 |
| 1960 |
1990 (Non-Legalization) |
| Country |
Immigrants |
Percent of Total |
Country |
Immigrants |
Percent of Total |
| Mexico |
32,684 |
12.3 |
Mexico |
56,549 |
8.6 |
| Germany |
31,768 |
12.0 |
Philippines |
54,907 |
8.4 |
| Canada |
30,990 |
11.7 |
Vietnam |
48,662 |
7.4 |
| United Kingdom |
24,643 |
9.3 |
Dominican Republic |
32,064 |
4.9 |
| Italy |
14,933 |
5.6 |
Korea |
29,548 |
4.5 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cuba |
8,283 |
3.1 |
China (Mainland) |
28,746 |
4.4 |
| Poland |
7,949 |
3.0 |
India |
28,679 |
4.4 |
| Ireland |
7,687 |
2.9 |
Soviet Union |
25,350 |
3.9 |
| Hungary |
7,257 |
2.7 |
Jamaica |
18,828 |
2.9 |
| Portugal |
6,968 |
2.6 |
Iran |
18,031 |
2.7 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| All Others |
92,236 |
34.8 |
All other |
314,747 |
48.0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Total |
265,398 |
100.0 |
Total |
656,111 |
100.0 |
| Source: INS Annual Report (1960) and Statistical Yearbook (1990) |
Only about one-third of the undocumented population is from Mexico (Table 2), with slightly fewer from Central America and the Caribbean. European and Asian countries also contribute significant numbers. Only 4 out of 10 undocumented aliens cross the border illegally or enter without inspection. Six out of ten undocumented immigrants enter legally—as visitors, students, or temporary employees—and become illegal by failing to leave when their visas expire. These people entered the country legally, have documents, and have been in contact with INS.
Countries of Origin of U.S. Immigrants
CHANGING COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN Perhaps the most striking immigration trend has been the shift in primary sending countries resulting from the 1965 legislative changes. Of the countries sending legal immigrants to the U.S. in 1960 and 1990, the only country among the top ten in both years is Mexico (Table 3). In 1960, 7 of the 10 countries were European, and Canada was also on the list. In 1990, 6 of the top 10 sending countries were Asian. Canada no longer appeared, and the only European country on the list was the Soviet Union, principally because of its refugee flow. Europe, which accounted for two-thirds of legal immigrants in the 1950s, added only 15 percent in the 1980s (Figure 5). The increase in Asian immigration has been the most dramatic, up from 6 percent in the 1950s to 45 percent in the 1980s. Latin America's share of legal immigrants increased from the 1950s to the 1960s, but not since then, although the absolute numbers have continued to increase.
The changing countries of origin are reflected in the changing composition of the foreign-born population (Figure 6). Although the largest number of immigrants living in the U.S. are still of European/Canadian origin, that number is declining—in sharp contrast to Mexicans, other Latin Americans, and Asians, whose numbers have all virtually doubled in the last 10 years.14 More foreign-born residents are now Asian than are Mexican.15 The Philippines alone accounts for almost 1 million foreign-born residents, more than any single country except Mexico. Large numbers also come from Vietnam, China, Korea, and India—each contributing about half a million to the foreign-born population.
INCREASING DIVERSITY Though the majority of new immigrants come from Latin America and Asia, steadily rising immigration, coupled with per-country limitations on legal flows, have increased the diversity of the immigrant population. The top 10 countries accounted for 65 percent of the legal immigrant flow in 1960, but only 52 percent in 1990 (Table 3). And the number of countries with at least 100,000 foreign-born residents in the U.S. increased from 20 in the 1970 census to 27 in 1980 to 41 in 1990.
MORE RECENT IMMIGRANTS Compared to the rising trend in immigration to the United States in the 1980s, an extremely large number of immigrants has only recently arrived. In 1990, 44 percent of the foreign-born had come in the previous 10 years. In 1970, the share of immigrants who had arrived in the previous decade was only 29 percent. The recent entry of so many immigrants tends to make foreigners more visible and distorts perceptions of how well immigrants generally are adapting to the United States. In fact, both English language ability and incomes tend to increase with time spent in the country.
Current Impacts of Immigration
RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION Shifts in immigrant origins are having a profound impact on the racial and ethnic composition of the country (Figure 7) (Passel and Edmonston 1992). In 1900, more than 85 percent of the U.S. population was white and non-Hispanic. By 1990, the white, non-Hispanic share of the population had dropped to 75 percent. The black share of the population, 12 percent, has not changed much over the century. Both the Hispanic and Asian populations increased dramatically. The Hispanic population increased numerically 34-fold to 22 million in 1990, or from 0.9 percent of the population to 9.0 percent. A 30-fold increase in Asians to more than 7 million raised the Asian share of the total U.S. population from 0.3 percent in 1900 to 2.9 percent in 1990, still a small proportion of the total.
Immigration affects the racial-ethnic composition of the U.S. population as a whole in two ways: directly through the addition of new people and indirectly through immigrants having children. Both the increased immigration and higher fertility rates among Hispanics and Asians have contributed to their increased shares of the population. Immigration's influence will continue to be felt on the U.S. population's composition through fertility, regardless of changes in admissions policies.
Finally, it is important to note that the geographic origins of immigrants cannot simply be extrapolated into race and ethnic groups, because there is substantial racial diversity within regions and sometimes countries. For example, 14 percent of the U.S. immigrants born in Asia are white, as are 40 percent of the immigrants from Africa. Of all immigrants from Latin America, 86 percent consider themselves Hispanic.16
WHERE DO IMMIGRANTS SETTLE? Throughout U.S. history, the majority of immigrants have settled in only a handful of locations in the United States, following friends and family who had gone there before. At the peak of the previous wave, about 57 percent of the foreign-born population lived in six states.17 Geographic concentration, a defining feature of contemporary immigration, is even greater today—a situation that complicates responses to immigration.
States. Seventy-six percent of all immigrants entering in the 1980s went to only six states: California (which itself received almost four out of every ten), New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois (Figure 8). An even larger share (85 percent) of undocumented immigrants lives in these six states. But although the share of immigrants going to other parts of the country remains small, the large and growing numbers of immigrants overall means that less-traditional gateway states and cities are also receiving increasing numbers of immigrants and acquiring sizable foreign-born populations. Massachusetts, for example, has over one-half million foreign-born residents, close to 40 percent of whom entered between 1980 and 1990. Even such traditionally "nonimmigrant" states as Georgia, North Carolina, and Minnesota have over 100,000 foreign-born residents, about half of whom entered in the last decade.
Metropolitan Areas and Cities. The majority of immigrants settle in metropolitan areas. In 1990, 93 percent of the foreign-born population lived in metropolitan areas versus only 73 percent of natives. The impact of immigration on individual metropolitan areas can be profound. The Miami metropolitan area is 46 percent foreign-born; Los Angeles is 33 percent foreign-born; and Jersey City, which ranks third in the country, is 29 percent foreign-born. About half of all immigrants entering the United States during the 1980s live in eight metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Anaheim, Chicago, Washington D.C., Houston, and San Francisco.
Immigration Impacts in the Context of Internal Migration. The potential demographic impact of immigrants varies considerably depending on whether an area is gaining or losing population independent of international migration. Out-migration to other states provides a "safety valve" against the pressures of foreign immigration. In-migration from other states may exacerbate tensions by adding to the population pressure and increasing the need for new capital expenditures. Thus, population growth and economic growth are critical elements in understanding the very different reactions of politicians and the populace in different parts of the country. Although New York gained over 600,000 immigrants between 1985 and 1990, it actually lost population overall because 800,000 natives left (Figure 9). California, the focal point of much of the recent movement to restrict immigration, not only received more than twice as many new immigrants as New York but also had net in-migration of more than 200,000 from other parts of the United States.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION Some researchers have put forward the hypothesis that immigrant "quality"—as measured by education, ability to speak English, and skills—is declining. They argue that the new immigrants will not integrate as easily or move up the economic ladder as quickly as earlier immigrants, and will therefore place more strain on U.S. public resources. A review of recent data on social and economic characteristics of immigrants that affect immigrant integration calls this hypothesis into question.
Limits of Source Data. One of the difficulties in understanding these issues is a data problem. Most data on the social and economic characteristics of immigrants come from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. While the census includes legal immigrants, refugees, and undocumented immigrants, it does not differentiate among these groups. This limitation must be kept in mind when examining immigrant characteristics, since they often differ by admission status. For example, incomes of illegal immigrants, formerly illegal immigrants, and refugees are much lower than those of other immigrants.18 Consequently, if census data are interpreted as including only legal immigrants, the data will portray them as being much worse off economically than they are. Aggregate data from the census would also then understate legal immigrants' human capital endowments and overstate their welfare use because they cannot be distinguished from illegal immigrants and refugees. This point is important, because policy options differ for each group, and proposals to "improve the quality of immigrants" are usually directed toward legal immigrants.
English Language Ability. The ability to speak English well is important for social integration and economic mobility. It is also related to the likelihood that immigrants use welfare, and to the amount of taxes they pay. Because immigration reform over the past decade has increased not only the number but also the proportion of immigrants who have arrived recently, there has been a rise in the number of people who speak a language other than English at home, do not speak English well, or both. These trends are the result of the higher proportions of recent arrivals, not a reduced ability to integrate. There is no evidence that English language ability of immigrants is declining, once time in the United States is taken into account.
The number of people who speak a language other than English at home grew by 37 percent—from 23.2 million to 31.8 million—between 1980 and 1990. The number who speak English "less than very well" (sometimes called the limited English proficiency, or LEP, population) grew at about the same pace, from 10.3 million in 1980 to 14.0 million in 1990. A dramatic rise in the LEP student population is another signal of the same trend. Between 1986 and 1991 the number of students counted who did not speak English very well grew by over 50 percent, compared to growth in the total student population of only 4 percent. What often goes unnoticed, however, is that over half of those who speak another language at home are native-born, and over one-third of the 14 million people who are LEP are native-born.
The proportions of different immigrant groups who are LEP have remained constant or declined slightly since 1980 (Figure 10).
The effects of immigration on language are felt nationwide but they are especially pronounced in urban regions. In the city of Los Angeles almost one-half of the population (1.8 million people) speaks a language other than English at home and over one-quarter does not speak English very well. Three-quarters of Miami's population and one-third of Houston's speak a language other than English at home. New York City has the largest LEP population of any city in the country, with 1.4 million LEP residents. Even in cities outside the major gateway states, rapidly growing newcomer populations can have a dramatic effect. In Milwaukee and Cleveland, 11 percent of the population now speak a language other than English at home.
At the same time, new immigrants are learning English. About half the recent immigrants report speaking English "very well" or "well." One out of five of the foreign-born speaks only English at home; only one-quarter report speaking English "not well" or "not at all." The longer immigrants live in the United States, not surprisingly, the better their English becomes; and those who enter as children are more proficient as adults than those who enter later in their lives. It is also noteworthy that recent immigrants from Spanish-language countries become proficient in English at a greater rate than those from other non-English-language countries (Stevens 1994). Most immigrants either speak English or are learning to do so.
Education. Immigrants are concentrated at the extremes of the educational spectrum in comparison with natives. They are much more likely than natives to have very low educational attainment. But they are also more likely than natives to have advanced degrees. In 1990, 26 percent of the foreign-born over age 25 had less than nine years of education compared to only 9 percent of the native population. But 20 percent of both natives and immigrants have a college degree and recent immigrants (24 percent) are more likely than natives to have a college degree.
Both immigrants and natives have made educational gains over the last decade, but natives have done so faster than immigrants. Since 1980 the share of immigrants with at least a high school diploma grew from 55 to 59 percent; for natives the increase was from 70 to 77 percent. Thus, the gap is growing despite increased levels of education among new immigrants.
Country of origin makes a difference in educational attainment. At the low end of the range, 40 percent of immigrants from Latin America have less than nine years of education compared with 20 percent of European and Canadian and 15 percent of Asian immigrants. At the high end, 15 percent of Asian immigrants have advanced degrees versus 9 percent for European immigrants, 4 percent for Latin American immigrants, and 7 percent for natives.
The wide educational differences among immigrants from different countries illustrate the problems with generalizing about immigrant quality from census data and drawing conclusions from them about reforming legal immigration policy. To gain some insight into these differences, Figure 11 divides recent immigrants (i.e., those entering during the 1980s) into three national-origin groups that are strongly related to immigrant status.
The first group is all immigrants from three countries that supply a disproportionate amount of illegal migration—Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Mexico also supplies the largest number of legal immigrants to the United States. These countries account for more than half the current illegal migration (Warren 1993) and more than 80 percent of persons legalized under IRCA. Furthermore, of the 2.6 million persons from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala who came to this country during the 1980s (according to the 1990 census), less than 30 percent entered as legal immigrants. The second group in Figure 11 is all persons from 11 nations that accounted for almost 90 percent of refugee arrivals during the 1980s.19 About 80 percent of recent legal immigrants from these countries arrived as refugees. The third group includes immigrants from all other countries; this group accounts for about three-quarters of current legal (nonrefugee) immigration. The characteristics of these three groups approximate those of refugees, illegal entrants, and legal immigrants, respectively.20
The educational disparities are striking. Over 75 percent of recent immigrants from the major source countries for illegal immigrants have less than a high school diploma. This contrasts with the 46 percent of immigrants from refugee sending countries and only 26 percent from the third group of countries. At the same time, recent legal immigrants are much more likely to hold college degrees (33 percent) than natives (20 percent) or the other immigrant groups. Thus, the perceived low educational attainment or poor "quality" of recent immigrants, as well as the "hour-glass shaped" educational distribution, is directly attributable to illegal immigrants and refugees, not to legal immigrants.
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE An important component of immigrant integration into American society is their economic performance, that is, their employment, income, and occupation. When immigrants enter the labor force, they alter economic conditions for themselves and for natives. Thus, the descriptive statistics of immigrants' economic performance presented here provide background for the discussion of immigration's impacts on native workers in the next chapter.
Labor Force Participation. As the immigrant population has grown larger, its impact on the labor force has increased. The share of the labor force that is foreign-born rose from 6.8 percent to 9.5 percent over the past decade. New immigrants (those entering during the 1980s) added almost 5 million people to the civilian labor force, representing 13 percent of new entrants but only 4 percent of the total labor force.
Throughout the nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century the number of immigrants coming to the United States rose and fell with the state of the U.S. economy. Changes in economic conditions do not appear to affect contemporary immigration levels as dramatically, despite economic declines that have hit immigrant workers in this country harder than natives. In 1980, for example, unemployment rates for native and foreign-born males aged 18 to 64 were almost equal, with immigrants doing somewhat better (5.8 percent unemployed versus 6.1 percent for natives). By 1990, after the economic downturn in the late 1980s, the unemployment rate had risen for immigrant men (to 6.4 percent), but had gone down slightly for native men (to 5.8 percent). Unemployment rates for women rose over the same period, but they rose more sharply for immigrant women (from 5.7 percent to 8.4 percent) than for native women (6.1 percent to 7.5 percent).
At the lowest educational levels native men and women are more likely than immigrants to be without a job (i.e., not in the labor force or unemployed), but at the highest education levels the reverse is true (Figure 12).
Occupations. The occupations of immigrants reflect their education, providing a mixed picture of how well they are doing in the U.S. economy. The two largest occupational groups for immigrants now are operators/laborers/fabricators and service workers—40 percent of all foreign-born work in those two occupation groups, compared with 30 percent for natives.21 Much of the difference can be explained by the greater representation of immigrant women in those occupations. Recent immigrants are even more heavily represented in these two occupation groups than immigrants who arrived before 1980, suggesting that immigrants gain skills and learn more about alternative job opportunities as they become accustomed to living in their new country.
Immigrants are less likely than natives to have clerical, professional, and managerial jobs—25 percent of the foreign-born hold such jobs compared with 30 percent for natives. Again, the differential is greater for women than for men. Some of this difference may be due to language barriers as some employers may be unwilling to put non-native English speakers in positions that require contact with the public (Cross et al. 1990). But, while immigrants may be less likely to work as professionals than natives, the large proportion of highly educated immigrants entering between 1980 and 1990 has increased the number of foreign-born workers in professional, technical, and managerial occupations by 72 percent, compared with a 37 percent increase for natives.
Earnings. Not surprisingly, given the larger number of recent arrivals—and their lower average education and occupation levels at time of entry—immigrants earn less than natives on average. But the average conceals a wide range of immigrant incomes. About 66 percent of immigrants in the labor force had wage and salary incomes of less than $20,000 in 1989, compared with 57 percent of natives. Natives are more likely to fall in the middle-income categories, earning from $20,000 to $70,000. About the same proportions of immigrants and natives earn $70,000 or more. Notwithstanding these individual earning differences, households headed by immigrants have virtually the same average income ($37,200) as native-headed households ($37,300), because immigrant-headed households are larger and have more earners.22
Length of time in the United States and immigrant status have dramatic effects on the incomes of immigrant households. For households headed by immigrants entering the U.S. before 1980, household income averages about $40,900 a year—almost 10 percent greater than native households. But income for households headed by immigrants who entered in the 1980s averages only $31,100. Much of this income difference between immigrants and natives appears to be attributable to the legal status of recent immigrant cohorts. Households headed by immigrants who entered during the 1980s from the major source countries for illegal immigration have average incomes of $23,900, 36 percent less than natives (Figure 13); even those who entered before 1980 fall 23 percent below natives. But recent immigrants from the major source countries for legal immigration have incomes falling only slightly below those of natives ($34,800). Those entering before 1980 have incomes 16 percent above those of natives ($43,200). The entrants from refugee countries tend to fall between the other two groups. (Here again, average household incomes of those from refugee countries who entered before 1980 exceed those of natives).
Poverty Status: Rise in Poverty for Recent Immigrants. Notwithstanding the high average incomes of legal immigrants, one of the most striking trends over the past decade has been the increase in immigrant poverty. Household poverty increased for all groups between 1980 and 1990, but the increase was much greater for immigrant households than for native households. The number of native households in poverty grew by 11 percent while the number of poor immigrant households grew by 42 percent. And, a larger share of immigrant households than native households is in poverty—16.7 percent versus 12.3 percent (Figure 14). Again, this difference is attributable largely to recent immigrants. The poverty rate of immigrant households that entered before 1980 is less than one percentage point higher than those of natives.
Concentrated poverty (i.e., residence within census tracts where 40 percent or more of the population is below poverty) is often used as a measure of severe need. The number of immigrants in concentrated poverty has grown roughly twice as fast as the number of natives during the 1980s. The percentage of the population in concentrated poverty areas that is foreign-born rose from 7.2 percent in 1980 to 10.1 percent in 1990.
Overall Socioeconomic Attainment. In the aggregate, immigrants are less well off than natives on virtually all measures of socioeconomic status. However, data for immigrants who have been in the country for at least 10 years suggest that over time immigrants increasingly resemble natives. Furthermore, the recent immigrant group contains a substantial fraction of illegal immigrants, formerly illegal immigrants, and refugees—all groups with low average socioeconomic attainment. Immigrants admitted legally through employment and family preferences resemble natives much more than the "average" recent immigrant (a composite of legal and illegal recent immigrants) recorded in census data. And those legal immigrants who have been here since before 1980 are better off than natives on a variety of measures.
Projections of Future Immigrant Impacts
The future is always uncertain. It is particularly so for immigration and immigrant flows, since legislation and global events can change the scale and characteristics of the immigrant flow at any time. But Urban Institute projections using demographic assumptions that are consistent with the 1990 Immigration Act provide some insight into likely future trends. These insights in turn are helpful for assessing a number of different aspects of the demographic future of the United States (Edmonston and Passel 1992).
Particularly important to the utility of such projections is the distinction between the foreign-born population and their offspring. The immigrant generation usually speaks a language other than English as a first language and tends to retain fairly close ties with the ancestral country. History teaches us that the children of immigrants are the crucial generation for adaptation to American society.
POPULATION SIZE AND GENERATIONAL COMPOSITION The overall U.S. population is projected to grow from 249 million in 1990 to more than 300 million by 2010 and to 355 million by 2040 (Figure 15). If immigration were completely halted after 1990, the projected population for 2040 would be 286 million. Thus, under current law, about 70 million post-1990 immigrants and their offspring will be added to the U.S. population over the next 50 years, accounting for almost two-thirds of the net population growth.
Immigrants will also become a larger share of the total population over the next 50 years (Figure 16). The percent foreign-born (or first generation) in the population will increase steadily until about 2030, when it will level off at about 14 percent (about 1 in 7 Americans)—roughly the same level as in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century. The size of the second generation (i.e., the U.S.-born children of immigrants) has been decreasing relative to the U.S. population as a whole as the children of turn-of-the-century immigrants age. This trend will reverse very soon as the second generation begins to grow (the children of current immigrants). It will reach 45 million by 2040, at which time immigrants and their offspring combined will account for slightly more than 1 in 4 Americans (27 percent), versus about 18 percent today.
RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION—STATIC APPROACH Standard population projections assume that members of each racial or ethnic group belong to only one group and have children of that group. This static approach is employed in virtually all population projections. According to this scenario, minority populations in the United States will continue to grow over the next 50 years, with the Hispanic and Asian populations continuing their particularly rapid growth of the last several decades. At current levels of immigration, the Hispanic population will exceed the African American population in about 15 years, becoming the largest minority population in the United States in that 15-year period (Figure 17). By 2040, the Hispanic population will reach 64 million, or 18 percent of the population; the Asian population will reach 35 million, or 10 percent.
As a result of these trends, the composition of the population will continue to change (Figure 18). About 12 percent of the total population, and just under half the minority population, is currently African American. While African Americans will remain roughly 12 percent of the U.S. population for the next half century, the Asian and Hispanic shares will continue to increase. By 2040, about 40 percent of the population will consist of racial and ethnic minorities, but blacks will constitute less than one-third of the minority population.
RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION—IMPACT OF INTERMARRIAGE In projecting the future, this static approach does not take into account intermarriage and the concomitant increase in persons with ancestors of more than one racial or ethnic group. New methods developed by the Urban Institute show how intermarriage and changes in self-definition can affect the future size of racial-ethnic groups (Edmonston and Passel 1993).
The group likely to be most affected by these trends is the Hispanic population, which has the highest rate of marrying outside their own group. If the offspring of Hispanic/non-Hispanic unions identify themselves to the census as non-Hispanic, the Hispanic population could be as small as 51 million in 2040 (14 percent of the population); if all identify themselves as Hispanic, this population could grow to 78 million (or 22 percent). For Asians, alternative assumptions regarding self-identification yield projections varying from 30 million (8 percent of the population) to 39 million for 2040 (or 11 percent). These projections show how fluid racial and ethnic identity can be in the United States.
CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS Currently, about half of the nation's population growth can be attributed to immigration and to the children of immigrants. This figure will rise gradually to about 60 percent over the next several decades as immigration continues, but the U.S. population's overall growth rate declines.23
The impact of these changes will be felt throughout the age distribution, but for children and institutions serving them the projected changes will be especially noticeable. The total school-age population24 is projected to grow by over 20 percent, from 34 million in 1990 to 42 million in 2010. Well over half this growth will be children of immigrants (i.e., foreign-born children and native-born children with at least one foreign-born parent). The number of children of immigrants will increase from 5 million to 9 million and represent about 22 percent of the school-age population (Figure 19).
LABOR FORCE PROJECTIONS Immigrants will continue to add to the diversity of the U.S. labor force. The foreign-born share of the labor force will rise from almost 10 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 2000 and 14 percent in 2010. An additional 6 million new immigrants will join the labor force in each of the next two decades, accounting for about one-third of the labor force change in each decade, up from one-quarter in the 1980s.25
The composition of the labor force will also continue to change, with white, non-Hispanic male workers shrinking from 42 percent to 36 percent in 2010 (Figure 20). White males and females will still constitute a large majority (about two-thirds) of labor force entrants, but because they are relatively older than other groups, they will account for over 80 percent of those who leave the labor force through retirement and death. Thus, racial-ethnic minorities will increase from 22 percent of the labor force in 1990 to 26 percent in 2000, to 30 percent in 2010. The largest relative increases will be a doubling of Asian representation from 3 percent to 6 percent and an increase in Hispanics from 8 percent to 12 percent.
SUMMARY Thus, we see steady, incremental growth in the size of the immigrant and racial-ethnic minority populations through the first half of the next century, along with a commensurate decrease in the relative size of the white majority population. However, the dimensions of these changes could be substantially altered depending on patterns of both intermarriage and ethnic self-identification.
IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON THE U.S. LABOR MARKET
A concern that has appeared and reappeared at intervals throughout the history of U.S. immigration policy is the potentially negative impact of immigration on the employment and wage prospects of U.S. workers. The recession of the late 1980s and the jobless recovery of the early 1990s have brought this concern into new prominence.
An enormous amount of research has, in fact, been done on the impact of immigration on the U.S. labor market, which adds up to a rather consistent picture. What follows is a survey of the major contributions to this literature—both aggregate statistical studies of the labor market and case studies of local labor markets and specific industries.
Overall Picture: Limited Impact
There is no strong evidence that immigration reduces overall availability of jobs or wages. Immigrants may reduce the employment opportunities of low-skill workers, however, especially in areas where the local economy is weak and immigrants are concentrated. Immigration does not hurt the job prospects of African Americans as a whole, but it reduces their economic opportunities in areas of high immigration
