It is imperative to mention that the impact of immigration on the economy is a topic that has been actively discussed by scholars over the last few years, and has led to numerous disagreements. Economists still have not reached consensus and have various perspectives on this subject. Therefore, peer-reviewed articles will be reviewed and analyzed to support the statements. The primary argument is that immigration is beneficial to the economy in the long-term, because of such aspects as an influence on the labor market, housing, and job creation.
The topic has always been extremely controversial within the United States, because of contrasting beliefs. It can be seen from history that many individuals were worried that excessive immigration would damage the economy and culture. Therefore, they have tried to limit the number of migrants who may enter the territory of the United States. The current immigration system in the US can be viewed as quite strict, and one may argue that this policy limits the scope of economic growth in the country.
Many individuals believe that an increase in the number of immigrants is not justified from an economic perspective, but many of their arguments are based on assumptions and false claims. One of the most important factors that should not be disregarded is that the results of studies on this subject matter have varied, which can be explained by the fact that scientists could be biased. Illegal immigration is an issue that has an impact on the views of individuals. The scope of this problem is enormous, and it affects nearly all areas of economics and politics. An understanding of both perspectives is crucial because it will help to gain insights that can be used to influence others.
Many supporters of immigration suggest that it has a lasting impact on the economy. It is suggested that the contribution of immigrants to the economy in the United States is enormous, a figure that approaches thirty-seven billion each year (Carey 7). In other words, the impact that migrants have on GDP is rather significant and is one of the reasons the country has managed to become one of the leaders in the world.
It is nearly impossible to take all the internal and external factors into account when making such calculations, but the figure is still impressive and should be acknowledged. First of all, it is necessary to mention that many individuals move to the US looking for opportunities to utilize their entrepreneurship talents. They can establish new firms, and the associated introduction of new jobs is beneficial to both native-born people and migrants.
Alternatively, while it is clear that many migrants are not well-educated and have limited skills, they are still valued in the job market. Another aspect that needs to be mentioned is that most migrants are of working age, one of the critical indicators of economic growth. Birth rates are declining in the United States, and immigrants can fill the gaps in human resources. The number of immigrants is one of the primary reasons the US has managed to get a competitive edge over other countries. Innovative ideas are highly valued in modern society, and multiculturalism leads to the development of new technologies and techniques.
Technological progress is one of the primary objectives of the United States, and suggestions made by migrants may revolutionize some industries. One of the aspects that should not be overlooked is that more immigrants than native-born individuals have attained a doctor of philosophy degree. Therefore, it is possible to state that the education system in the United States helps them to develop their talents and become contributing members of society.
Moreover, it is paramount to note that many individuals are well-educated, but do not have enough opportunities to realize their potential in their home countries. It is not surprising that many immigrants view the US as the best option, because of the creative freedom found there, and the ability to voice their opinions. Diversity of background is incredibly important for the labor market, and it is suggested that the influx of migrants has led to the tremendous growth of the workforce in the United States over the years. A high level of flexibility in the market is important because it helps to prevent crises. Overall, the labor benefits of immigration are obvious and must be acknowledged.
One of the factors frequently overlooked by opponents of immigration is the impact it has on housing markets. Saiz has studied the way the impact of immigration affects this industry and argues that an inflow of migrants that is close to one percent of the population in a particular city leads to proportional rent growth (345). In other words, the new arrivals support the development of the industry and may help regions that are struggling.
The research is valid because the author has utilized verified instruments. On the other hand, he acknowledges the possible weaknesses of the study, such as the selection of regions that are growing rather slowly (Saiz 347). Nevertheless, it is necessary to understand that they support the stabilization of prices in areas that were in decline. The shift from overpopulated areas towards others is incredibly important and supports the efficient use of resources. This may be one of the central reasons the impact of the recession has been limited in some cities. Moreover, high levels of unemployment caused by immigration are not likely, because these individuals are looking for affordable houses. Migrants have an enormous influence on both supply and demand, and they do not force native-born people out of their homes.
Building companies can focus on the development of new projects, which creates more jobs. Some migrants are impoverished, but the buying power of the group as a whole should not be disregarded. The value of homes is also increased because individuals are interested in goods that are produced locally. Immigrants are not reluctant to make purchases in areas that are viewed as less favorable, and it draws the attention of native-born individuals. Therefore, such neighborhoods may be regarded as an outstanding alternative for working-class citizens. Many migrants are disadvantaged, because they do not have access to crucial documentation, but they still have a tremendous influence on the industry. Overall, the positive impact on the housing market is quite evident, and it is directly connected to the economy of the country.
The biggest problem is that many citizens oppose immigration, and it will not be an easy task to change their opinion on this subject matter. A possible objection that one may make is that immigrants are willing to work for lower salaries and take away jobs from the residents. However, it is possible to state that this counter-argument is based mostly on assumptions. In reality, immigrants are filling niche positions in industries that are rapidly growing and require labor.
Also, native-born individuals are presented with many more opportunities for employment. The performance of authorized employees in the workplace increases when illegal workers are present, leading to higher salaries (Hotchkiss 873). Furthermore, this statement suggests that some of the benefits of immigration may be indirect, but a correlation between some of the economic indicators is present. It is evident that most Americans are not interested in such jobs, and would prefer to work in other areas.
Such industries as agriculture are dependent on immigrants. The problem is that many firms have to deal with shortages, and it leads to tremendous losses. Laborers are incredibly valuable, and these positions are primarily occupied by migrants. An increase in the number of such employees would facilitate economic growth in the long-term. Many immigrants are forced to live in poverty and do not have a chance to enroll in college. Therefore, the counter-argument can be viewed as invalid, because immigrants are at a disadvantage when looking for jobs because the level of education is a critical factor in this case.
Another aspect to be considered is that many believe that the current approach to immigration is inefficient, and many individuals can cross the borders illegally. Moreover, they suggest that this fact leads to an increase in criminal activities, and affects the decision-making process of investors. A telephone interview was utilized as an instrument of data collection, and 802 individuals participated in the study.
Findings are intriguing, suggesting that 62% think that the problem affects the investment climate in the country. Also, 68% have voiced their concerns about the damage done to taxpayers, and 35% are worried about the influence of immigration on local economies (Jacobe par. 6). Differently put, native-born and foreign investors consider other options before the United States, because they think that unauthorized workers are a threat. Such results are statistically significant and must be analyzed. The problem is that their beliefs are affected by the information they receive through media, and some of the claims are not justified.
It is noted that remittance is a significant issue because many individuals are sending money they earn to foreign countries, which hurts the economy. It is hard to argue with the fact that illegal immigration is significant and problematic, but the problem can be resolved in the future. A system that is more welcoming and flexible would encourage individuals to go through official channels, to be provided with a range of benefits. It is appropriate to provide other family members with an opportunity to move to the United States if an immigrant’s criminal record is clear and he or she contributes to the economy.
Hotchkiss even suggests that the economic impact of illegal immigration is exaggerated, most of the time (871). However, the current situation is not acceptable, and the government should try to turn undocumented workers into legal citizens. Many investors are reluctant to focus on the United States because they think that this approach is not safe. Taxation is one problematic area, but this is not a fault of migrants and should be regarded as a flaw in the system. Nevertheless, the pros outweigh the cons in this situation, because many migrants are contributing to the economy and are devoted to their jobs.
In summary, it is possible to state that immigration benefits the US economy, and this aspect should be taken into account by the population and the government. Some of the advantages cannot be measured by numbers, but it is possible to identify particular connections and relationships between the variables. The analysis of available data has shown that immigrants have a positive impact on the labor market and performance in the workplace.
Moreover, many industries rely on relatively cheap and low-skilled workers who make up an enormous percentage of all immigrants. Problematic areas, such as illegal immigration, should be addressed because it is one of the issues that draw away investors and complicate relationships with other countries. The presence of unauthorized workers is one of the factors that have led to the unreasonable perception of all the migrants, and the issue needs to be resolved.
Many industries in the United States are extremely dependent on such employees at the moment, and history has shown that they can adapt and establish long-lasting relationships with citizens. An increase in the number of migrants who are accepted would be justified from the perspective of the positive impact on the economy, and it should help to revitalize some of the industries. Overall, the education of the population on this topic would facilitate the development of the country as a whole and would have other benefits, such as cultural diversity.
Carey, Galen. “Immigration and the Economy: Beyond the Zero-Sum Game.” Review of Faith & International Affairs 9.1 (2011): 5-9. Print.
Hotchkiss, Julie L. “Economic Impact of Unauthorized Workers.” Southern Economic Journal 81.4 (2015): 871-873. Print.
Jacobe, Dennis. 2006. Investors Believe Illegal Immigration Is Hurting the U.S. Economic Climate. 2006. Web.
Saiz, Albert. “Immigration and Housing Rents in American Cities.” Journal of Urban Economics 61.1 (2007): 345-371. Print.