Tag Archives: illegal immigration

Immigration Blog

Addressing the Arguments Against Comprehensive Immigration Reform

4 Comments

Indian-Americans know that for the past several years failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation has blocked other changes to U.S. immigration law. Smaller, more targeted measures to fix problems associated with employment and family immigration, including reducing the large backlogs, have not see light of day to due to the inability to pass large-scale immigration legislation. Important measures on employer-sponsored green cards were part of a 2006 immigration reform bill that passed the Senate but failed to become law after opposition from House Republicans.

What are the main arguments against comprehensive immigration reform? And are there good responses to those arguments? I recently addressed the five main arguments offered against comprehensive immigration reform in a paper for the Cato Institute. (The study can be found here.)

1) Immigration Reform Will Not Harm Taxpayers. The paper notes that legalizing both the flow of workers and those already in the country without legal status will help taxpayers by raising the newly legalized workers’ earnings, productivity, and the likelihood they will pay taxes. Columbia University economist Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz found that illegal immigrants who received legal status under 1986 legislation received “significantly” higher wages once they became legal. (Higher wages equals higher taxes.) Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, both with Monash University in Australia, found compared to more increases in border enforcement, using legal temporary workers to replace the flow of illegal immigrants would benefit U.S. households by $260 billion a year.

2) Newly Legalized workers will not burden the welfare rolls. In general, newly arriving immigrants are not heavy users of welfare and, in fact, are usually not eligible for federal means-tested programs. In 2006, according to the House Ways and Means Committee, only 0.7 percent of noncitizen used TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Much use of benefits declined for immigrants after eligibility rules changed in the 1996 welfare reform law, though even before the changes immigrant welfare use tended to be overstated. It’s true U.S.-born children of immigrants may receive more benefits than their immigrant parents. However, the comparisons of who is a net taxpayer can be misleading if one counts native-born children of immigrants as (immigration) costs when they are young but then fails to count them as tax contributors once they reach adulthood.

3) Another amnesty need not beget more amnesties. If Congress legalizes the status of individuals here unlawfully it does not need to be an amnesty, which usually requires little or no action on the part of the recipient. Instead, Congress can impose a series of conditions for that forgiveness, including fines and future obligations.

4) Legalizing or admitting less-skilled workers will not undermine U.S. culture or the English language. Immigrants and their children are learning English. A total of 91 percent of second-generation Hispanic immigrants (the children of immigrants) said they speak English “well” or “pretty well,” which rises to 97 percent by the third generation.

5) Allowing in more temporary visa holders or legalizing existing workers without legal status will not increase the unemployment rate. Immigrants help make Americans more productive, while having no impact on the unemployment rate. As economists like Mark J. Perry, a professor at the University of Michigan, Flint campus, point out, there is no fixed number of jobs, so there is no way for immigrants to “take away jobs from Americans.” There is no evidence unemployment rates rise over time at either the state or national level simply because additional people enter the labor force, whether immigrants or recent graduates from U.S. schools or colleges.

Conclusion

These are not popular arguments to make in a climate when economic recovery remains incomplete in America. And the strongest opponents of immigration reform will not likely be persuaded. However, those who support a better solution than the status quo will need to continue the debate and responding to critics. Otherwise, other problems, such as the need to add more green cards for skilled immigrants, may never be addressed in a Washington, D.C. that remains divided on immigration issues.

Immigration Blog

Where Does India Rank on Immigration?

3 Comments

Americans like rankings. The rankings of college football teams help determine the sport’s national champion. Every week, Americans can read the rankings of movies at the box office or which songs or albums have sold the most. Having become Americanized, it is likely immigrants and the children of immigrants are curious about where their family’s country of origin ranks in immigration to the United States.

The 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, compiled by the Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, contains a wealth of information, most of which receives little attention in the press. Below I’ve put together some of the highlights of the yearbook and where immigrants from India rank among immigrants from other countries.

Overall Immigration to the United States

In the United States in 2010, 1,042,625 persons obtained legal permanent resident status, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The statistics include people who came from abroad to receive legal permanent resident status in 2010 and also persons here already in another status (i.e., student, temporary worker) who changed their status to receive a green card. As shown in Table 1, the leading countries were Mexico, China (People’s Republic), India, Philippines and the Dominican Republic. Individuals are designated in this tabulation by their country of birth.

Table 1
Immigration to the U.S. (2010) – All Categories, by Country of Birth


Rank

Country

Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – All Immigration Categories
1 Mexico 139,120
2 China  70,863
3 India 69,162
4 Philippines 58,173
5 Dominican Republic 53,870

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth.

Family Immigration

There are two types of family immigration. Immediate relatives are the spouses, minor children and parents of U.S. citizens. India ranked 5th in 2010 for most individuals immigrating as immediate relatives, behind Mexico, the Philippines, China and the Dominican Republic. (See Table 2)

Table 2
Immediate Relatives – Immigration to the U.S. (2010) by Country of Birth


Rank Country Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens
1 Mexico 88,572
2 Philippines  33,746
3 China 24,198
4 Dominican Republic 22,218
5 India 21,831

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth.

The second type of family immigration includes the family-sponsored preference categories: unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, spouses and children (minor and adult) of legal permanent residents, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and siblings of U.S. citizens. As Table 3 shows, India ranked 5th among countries in individuals immigrating to the United States in the family preference categories in 2010.


Table 3
Family Preference Categories – Immigration to the U.S. (2010) by Country of Birth


Rank Country Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – Family Preference Categories
1 Mexico 34,114
2 Dominican Republic  31,089
3 Vietnam 18,027
4 Philippines 17,849
5 India 14,636

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth.

Employment-Based Immigration

Table 4 shows India was the leading source country for employment-based immigrants (green card holders), ranking ahead of China, South Korea, Mexico and the Philippines. This reflects the large proportion of H-1B visa holders who were born in India and have worked in the United States while waiting for their priority date to receive permanent residence.


Table 4
Employment-based Preference Categories – Immigration to the U.S. (2010) by Country of Birth

Rank Country Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in 2010 – Employment-based Preference Categories
1 India 31,118
2 China  17,949
3 South Korea 11,642
4 Mexico 11,535
5 Philippines 6,423

Source: Table 10, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security. Note: Country designation is by country of birth. Includes “Other Workers” category in which an undergraduate degree is not required.

Conclusion

The data show that India ranked 3rd overall in immigration to the United States in 2010. Close to half of Indian immigration came through the employment-based preference categories. However, the data show family immigration also remains an important source of immigration to the United States for Indians.

Immigration Blog

Indian-Americans and the DREAM Act

1 Comment

Although Indian-Americans take an active interest in immigration issues, the DREAM Act did not stir the same emotions among Indian-Americans as among other groups. Why?

For those who didn’t follow the spirited debate in the second half of 2010, the DREAM Act would have allowed individuals in the country illegally today to legalize their status and eventually gain a green card if they came here as children and (in the past or future) completed high school, attended college or served in the U.S. military.

The primary argument in favor of the DREAM Act is that children living in the United States illegally because of their parents should not face punishment for the sins of their fathers. Opponents argued the bill amounted to “amnesty” and that Democrats were pushing the bill for political purposes.

In the end, in December 2010, the bill failed to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. In a mostly party line vote, only three Republicans voted in favor of the bill and only 5 Democrats opposed the legislation. We don’t know the fate of the DREAM Act in this Congressional session, although House Republicans are unlikely to move it forward in its most recent reform.

Rep. Elton Gallegly, a California Republican, and the chair of the House Immigration Policy and Enforcement, wrote in a letter to the New York Times (February 25, 2011), “I am sympathetic to illegal immigrant children like Isabel Castillo who were brought here by their parents. Because their parents disregarded America’s immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. But by granting citizenship, the United States would actually reward their illegal immigrant parents, who knowingly violated our laws. It would perpetuate the problem the bill claims to solve . . . Once they become citizens, illegal immigrants could petition for their parents to be legalized; the parents could then bring in others in an endless chain.”

Immigration attorney Greg Siskind responded on his blog (December 9, 2010) to this often-made argument: “ One of the bigger myths floating around regarding DREAM is that it will lead to chain migration. The thought is that DREAMers will get citizenship and then quickly sponsor their parents for green cards. Not quite. DREAM Act recipients must wait ten years in a non-immigrant conditional status to apply for a green card. The adjustment of status will probably take a year or so to get and then a person must wait three more years for citizenship (which could take a year to get). So we’re talking about 15 years to citizenship in all likelihood. Then they FILE for green cards for their parents. But because the parents are very likely subject to reentry bars, they’ll then have to exit the country and wait TEN years before they are allowed to step foot in the U.S. with permanent residency.”

During the House floor debate on the DREAM Act, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) estimated “it will be 25 years before any person whose status is adjusted under this legislation will be able to petition for the parent that brought that kid here . . . The chain migration argument is another bogus argument, just like the amnesty argument.”

A July 2010 Migration Policy Institute study estimated that 10 percent of the 2.1 million potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act came from Asia. And according to a February 2011 Department of Homeland Security report, approximately 200,000 illegal immigrants from India were residing in the U.S as of January 2010.

However, no reliable data are available on how many potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are from India. It’s possible there are more Indians in the United States eligible to legalize their status under the DREAM Act than we realize. But until they step forward we may never know.

Immigration Blog

Notes on the Great Indian Exodus

Leave a comment

The Indian-American Diaspora in the United States has historically evoked mixed feelings in India, running the gamut from envy, to resentment to admiration.  Now, apparently, it is the Diaspora that feels a mixture of envy resentment and admiration every time they come home to a rapidly changing India.  Even as one ponders over this improbable turn of the dice, news items such as this about the rising tide of illegal migration from India into the United States make one wonder whether moffusil India is yet to get the memo…that the green pastures of the West are gradually turning brown. Or, are people willing to sell all their worldly belongings and put life and limb at risk in their efforts to get out because the green pastures back home are still so illusory, and seemingly ephemeral?

Reading these news reports, it’s almost as if people from different states have devised different routes to migration. The above report mentions that most of the migrants are Sikhs, who, once caught, ask for political asylum citing religious persecution back in India. Of course, the very nature of illegal immigration is such that there is no way to verify these claims and they might well be from any country in the South Asian region. This would also explain why India was cited as one of eight countries that had refused to take back illegal immigrants in a Congressional Bill that sought to sanction such countries. Statistics from the DoJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review show that, from 2006 to 2009,on an average, a thousand Indians have applied for asylum every year. Whilst 450 were granted asylum in 2006,the authorities seemed to have wised up since then, with the number of approvals seeing a precipitous decline.

The other case that hit the headlines was that of the Tri-valley University scam. From all accounts, there were students who enrolled in good faith as well as those who were willingly party to the scam. With 20,000 H1-B visas reserved for those who have a masters or a higher degree from American institutions, one may well see an increase in scams such as this.

For the Indian government, handling student issues is a headache, especially since the missions are under staffed and barely able to cope with normal consular duties. This is even as the media turns the continuing saga into a pot boiler. There is the cruel step-mother in the form of the U.S. government, the over-protective father personified in the Indian government, and then there are the hapless students and their guardians, shouting from the rooftops about their mistreatment by the stepmother and abandonment by the father despite protestations to the contrary.  Even though the media frenzy has resulted in some positive developments, this promises to be a long drawn out affair as the various cases wind their way through the judicial process. One wonders if there is any coordination between the nodal Ministries of External Affairs, Overseas Indian Affairs, and Human Resource Development. In the case of the students returning from Australia after the student related troubles there last year, the Human Resource Development Ministry has now been tasked with recovering the balance of the fees due to the students who have cut short their education in Australia after the change in the Australian government policies.

It goes without saying that the great Indian exodus continues largely because of the abysmal failure of successive governments to provide adequate education and generate employment opportunities to the youth. Since that state of affairs is unlikely to change any time soon, the only advice one can give the government is to create posts in its missions abroad specifically to deal with Indian student affairs!

Endpiece: All this is even as there is by all accounts, a reverse migration of professionals taking place from the United States to India, with some predicting as many as 100,000 returning over the next ten years.  Whilst this can’t be confirmed independently,t he U.S. Census Bureau does show a decline in both permanent residency and citizenship figures from India.

temp