William A. Galston, Wall Street Journal
Beyond economics, it makes people feel the system is working in the national interest.
As this column goes to press, it appears unlikely that congressional negotiators will reach an agreement on immigration before Thursday, the deadline for a bill to fund the government. If immigration isn’t part of that deal, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to take up the issue for open debate, in which the plan President Trump offered in his State of the Union address is sure to figure heavily.
The president’s proposal would reduce legal immigration by 44%, or about 500,000 people a year over the next five decades, according to a study by the Cato Institute. This reflects anxiety, widespread among Mr. Trump’s supporters, that immigrants are overwhelming the native-born population.
Few issues arouse greater passion. But the facts tell a different story.
The U.S. prides itself on being a nation of immigrants. But contrary to common belief, the pace of immigration to America is modest by international standards—just 0.3% a year as a share of the U.S. population. The comparable figure was higher in two-thirds of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and between double and quadruple as high in countries ranging from Canada to Norway.
This explains why, more than a half-century after the U.S. passed its landmark 1965 immigration reform, about half of OECD countries have relatively more immigrants. In the U.S., immigrants are between 13% and 14% of the population. In the 2013 data, that was roughly on par with Norway, Germany, the U.K. and France. But the figures for Australia and New Zealand were about twice as high, and for Canada about 1.5 times as high.
There is little evidence that immigrants are arriving too fast for the U.S. labor market to absorb. As a share of the American workforce, the annual inflow of workers with green cards was 0.04%, far below the OECD median. The equivalent figure was 12 times as high in Australia, 10 times in New Zealand, and seven times in Canada.
This huge gap is easily explained: Two-thirds of immigrants to the U.S. were not workers but family members, only half of whom work. Family members were less than 50% of immigrants in every other OECD country, with the median in the low 30s. If there is a problem with legal immigration to the U.S., it has much less to do with competition in the workforce than with the distortions created by a system that gives pride of place to the unification of extended families.
In a recent visit to Canada, I encountered much more positive sentiments about immigration, which a 2017 survey by the Environics Institute confirmed. Only 35% of Canadians think immigration is too high, half the level of the mid-1990s. Seventy-eight percent believe that the economic impact of immigration is positive. Only 40% say they regard the claims of most refugees as illegitimate, compared with 79% three decades ago. By every measure, Canada’s immigration system is more popular now than it was a generation back.
This is remarkable. Canada plans to accept 300,000 immigrants this year. A comparable figure for the U.S. would be nearly three million—about three times the current level. Moreover, Canada has accepted 35,000 Syrian refugees in recent years with a minimum of public controversy.
The chasm between American and Canadian sentiment, I believe, is due to the deep structural differences between the two countries’ immigration systems. Canada awards about two-thirds of its slots based on potential economic contribution rather than family relationships. It uses a merit system that awards points for economic attainment, proficiency in English and French, age within the prime working years, prior work experience, and offers of employment in hand. Those admitted based on merit are automatically set on a path to citizenship.
The advantages of a merit-based immigration system aren’t only economic. A 2011 British study of points-based immigration by Centre Forum finds that its most attractive feature is its “power as a political tool.” Such a system allows the government to tell the public that it is in control of the country’s borders and is systematically limiting immigration in the national interest. Clear and measurable standards communicate objectivity and provide a defense against charges of racism and national bias.
President Trump has proposed moving toward a system like Canada’s. This idea is worth discussing, as long as it is not a stalking horse for a dramatic reduction in overall immigration, as a number of senators have proposed. The U.S. is now in transition from an era in which the workforce grew rapidly to one in which it will grow much more slowly. If immigration is slashed, providing for the aging native-born Americans will weigh heavily on the shrinking share of the working-age population.
If we want robust economic growth, we need not only increased investment but a growing pool of skilled workers. If we emulate our neighbor to the north, we can have both. If we heed the restrictionists in our midst, we can’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment