The Truth About Immigration

The Truth About Immigration Plot Summary

Introduction

Immigration has become one of the most contentious issues in modern politics, often generating more heat than light in public discourse. While many perceive immigrants as economic competitors who strain public resources and threaten cultural cohesion, a substantial body of evidence points in the opposite direction. Immigration actually strengthens nations through multiple reinforcing mechanisms that create a virtuous cycle of economic and social renewal. This evidence-based case challenges conventional wisdom by demonstrating how immigrants drive investment, spur innovation, fill critical workforce gaps, contribute positively to public finances, successfully integrate into their new societies, and enhance rather than threaten public safety. The power of this analysis lies in its comprehensive approach to evaluating immigration's impacts across multiple dimensions of national life. Rather than focusing narrowly on short-term economic effects or cultural concerns, it examines the full spectrum of evidence about how immigration shapes societies over time. This holistic perspective reveals that the benefits of immigration emerge not despite immigrants' differences from natives, but because of them. The diversity of skills, perspectives, and connections that immigrants bring creates productive complementarities with native populations, expanding what societies can collectively accomplish. Understanding these dynamics can help us move beyond polarized debates toward immigration policies that maximize benefits while addressing legitimate concerns.

Chapter 1: Economic Engine: How Immigration Drives Investment and Growth

Immigration creates powerful economic networks that function like conveyor belts, moving not just people but also capital, ideas, and business opportunities across borders. These networks facilitate investment flows that might otherwise never materialize, connecting sending and receiving countries in ways that generate growth and opportunity. The case of Pollo Campero illustrates this dynamic perfectly - this Guatemalan fast-food chain followed Central American immigrants to the United States, opening its first U.S. location in Los Angeles in 2002 after noticing how immigrants would buy their chicken at airports to take to relatives in America. The store reached $1 million in sales in just 47 days, setting an industry record and demonstrating how immigrant communities create new markets and investment opportunities. Research consistently shows that the presence of immigrants significantly increases foreign direct investment from their home countries. A study examining investments in the U.S. by companies from 27 different countries found that states with larger immigrant populations from specific countries attracted more investment from those countries. These immigrant-facilitated investments also proved more durable, with companies staying in business longer and creating more permanent jobs. The investment conveyor belt runs both ways - immigrants not only attract foreign capital to their new homes but also help local businesses expand internationally. When venture capital firms develop relationships with immigrant entrepreneurs in the U.S., they become significantly more likely to invest in startups in those entrepreneurs' home countries. These economic benefits extend beyond major urban centers to struggling communities. In Hazleton, Pennsylvania, a once-prosperous manufacturing town that lost jobs and population as factories closed, Mexican immigrants have helped revitalize the economy. Despite initial resistance from locals, the area now hosts four Mexican-owned factories, including facilities run by the bread giant Bimbo and the tortilla maker Mission Foods. While Hazleton hasn't fully recovered its past prosperity, it would likely be worse off without this immigrant-facilitated investment that created new jobs and economic activity in a region that desperately needed both. The historical costs of restricting immigration are substantial and often overlooked. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the 1924 National Origins Act not only prevented people from entering the country but also severed potential investment ties that could have generated economic growth. Research suggests that states that would have received more Chinese immigrants between 1882 and 1965 would today have significantly more investment connections with China. This represents a massive missed opportunity that continues to affect economic development patterns across the United States, demonstrating how immigration restrictions can have negative economic consequences that persist for generations. Immigration creates economic value through mechanisms that go beyond conventional economic models focused solely on labor market effects. By facilitating cross-border investment, creating new markets, and connecting economies in productive ways, immigrants generate economic benefits that would be impossible to achieve without their unique networks and knowledge. These investment dynamics represent just one dimension of how immigration strengthens rather than weakens the economies of receiving countries.

Chapter 2: Beyond Competition: Immigrants Create More Jobs Than They Take

The evidence consistently shows that immigrants create more jobs than they take, contradicting the common perception that immigration harms native workers. Natural experiments provide particularly compelling evidence on this point. The Mariel boatlift of 1980, when 125,000 Cubans suddenly arrived in Miami, increasing the city's labor force by 7-8%, had no significant negative effect on wages or employment for Miami natives. Similar results emerge from other major refugee waves, such as the 3.6 million Syrians who fled to Turkey between 2011 and 2019, and the 1.7 million Venezuelans who arrived in Colombia between 2015 and 2021. In both cases, researchers found no meaningful job losses or wage declines for native workers despite these massive and sudden population increases. This counterintuitive outcome occurs because immigrants don't just add to the supply of workers—they also increase demand for goods and services. When Miami received over 100,000 Cubans, it also gained 100,000 new consumers who needed housing, food, and entertainment. Existing businesses expanded and new ones emerged to meet this demand. Some immigrants started their own businesses, creating additional jobs. The economic pie grew larger rather than being divided into smaller pieces, allowing both immigrants and natives to find employment opportunities in the expanding economy. Immigrants and natives often want different types of jobs and bring different skills to the labor market, creating complementary relationships rather than competition. In North Carolina, during a period when nearly half a million residents were unemployed, only 268 applied for 6,500 available farm jobs. Of those hired, only seven stayed until the end of the harvest. Immigrants fill crucial gaps in sectors where natives are unwilling to work, including agriculture, household services, hospitality, and food production. They represent 18% of the U.S. labor force but fill 45% of jobs in household services, 36% in clothes manufacturing, and 33% in agriculture. A study of working-age adults in the U.S. found that immigrants (especially recent arrivals) are much more likely to work in occupations requiring manual skills than native workers. As the proportion of less-educated immigrants in a state's workforce increases, native workers shift toward occupations favoring communication skills—jobs that typically pay better. This specialization benefits natives, allowing them to move up the skills ladder while immigrants take on entry-level positions. Rather than competing for the same jobs, immigrants and natives often complement each other in the labor market, with each group focusing on the types of work where they have comparative advantages. Efforts to restrict immigration in the name of protecting native workers have consistently backfired. When the U.S. government repatriated about 400,000 Mexicans during the Great Depression, it resulted in fewer jobs for American workers, not more. Similarly, when the Bracero Program (which allowed Mexican farmworkers to work temporarily in the U.S.) ended in 1964, farmers didn't hire more native workers—they developed new technologies to automate harvesting. The evidence consistently shows that removing immigrants from the labor force harms rather than helps native workers and businesses, demonstrating that immigration policies based on fears of job competition often produce outcomes opposite to their intended effects.

Chapter 3: Innovation Catalysts: Immigrant Contributions to Technology and Culture

Immigrants serve as powerful catalysts for innovation, transforming both high-technology fields and everyday cultural experiences. While they represent 16% of inventors in the United States, they contribute to 36% of all patents once you account for how much more productive they make native inventors. This disproportionate impact stems from the unique knowledge networks immigrants maintain with their home countries and the experiences they had while living there. Dr. Hari Har P. Cohly, an Indian doctor trained in Canada and the U.S., saved a patient's leg from amputation by suggesting turmeric as a treatment—knowledge he had gained from attending lectures on Ayurvedic medicine as a student in Agra, India. This led to a clinical trial and patent demonstrating turmeric's medicinal properties, illustrating how immigrants can bridge different knowledge systems to create innovations that might otherwise never emerge. Immigrant inventors don't just bring their individual talents; they change how collective innovation functions. They tend to be more active in cutting-edge areas like computers, communications, electronics, and biotechnology. They're also more likely to collaborate with foreign inventors and build upon inventions documented in foreign patents. When an immigrant collaborator dies prematurely, the remaining team members experience a 17% decline in patents—nearly double the 9% decline when a native collaborator dies. This demonstrates how much native inventors benefit from working with immigrants who bring different perspectives and approaches, creating synergies that enhance innovation outcomes for everyone involved. Beyond formal technology, immigrants enrich societies through "lowbrow" innovations that transform daily life. Consider the foods that would disappear from American grocery stores without immigrant contributions: tortillas, salsa, pasta, pizza, bagels, sushi, Greek yogurt, and many more. While some of these foods might have made it onto shelves without immigration, most would not have entered the mainstream. The same applies to activities like yoga, martial arts, and sports like football, baseball, and soccer. These cultural contributions aren't just about variety; they fundamentally reshape consumption patterns through three mechanisms: the "quantity effect" (increasing the number of consumers), the "novelty effect" (introducing products from sending countries), and the "remix effect" (creating entirely new product categories through cultural fusion). Immigrants are also disproportionately entrepreneurial, starting businesses at rates 80% higher than native-born individuals. About 25% of all new firms in the U.S. have at least one immigrant founder, and this percentage rises to 48% for venture-capital-backed startups. Companies founded by immigrants create more jobs than those started by natives across all size levels, from small businesses to large corporations. These immigrant-founded companies are also more innovative, scoring higher on measures like creating novel products, improving existing ones, using new production processes, and patenting. The historical costs of restricting immigration are staggering. After the 1924 National Origins Act severely limited immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, the U.S. experienced a 68% decline in patenting by American scientists in fields where European immigrants had been active. This loss of innovation persisted for over four decades, demonstrating how critical immigrant contributions are to maintaining technological leadership. This historical evidence suggests that current restrictions on immigration may similarly undermine innovation and economic growth, with negative consequences that will be felt for generations to come.

Chapter 4: Fiscal Facts: The Long-Term Budget Benefits of Immigration

The fiscal impact of immigration represents one of the most contentious aspects of the immigration debate, with critics arguing that immigrants impose a net burden on public finances. However, comprehensive research from the National Academies of Science reveals that the average immigrant makes a net positive contribution of $259,000 to public coffers over a 75-year period. Two-thirds of this amount ($173,000) comes directly from the immigrant over their lifetime, while the remaining third ($85,000) comes from their descendants. This intergenerational perspective is crucial for understanding the true fiscal impact of immigration, as it captures the full lifecycle of contributions across generations. The fiscal impact varies significantly based on education level. Immigrants with less than a high school education produce a negative fiscal burden, though less negative than comparable natives. This is partly because many undocumented immigrants don't qualify for public services, and those who arrive as adults didn't attend state-funded schools in the U.S. Once we look at people with college degrees or higher, the fiscal contributions are strongly positive, with little difference between immigrants and natives. This variation highlights the importance of education in determining fiscal outcomes, though even less-educated immigrants often make positive contributions through their children and grandchildren. While the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive at the national level, the short-term costs and benefits are unevenly distributed. States and localities that receive large numbers of immigrants bear disproportionate costs for education, healthcare, and other services. This creates a legitimate sense of unfairness that contributes to political polarization around immigration. For example, El Paso, Texas, which runs on an annual budget of $1.2 billion, was projected to spend $89 million on asylum seekers in a single year during a recent surge in border crossings. These local fiscal pressures are real and deserve serious attention in policy discussions. The fiscal imbalance occurs because states pay for the initial costs of helping immigrants assimilate, but the federal government receives most of the tax benefits. Each immigrant costs their state of residence an average of $1,600 over a lifetime, primarily because first-generation immigrants have more children than other generations, increasing public education expenses. However, the children of immigrants each make a net positive contribution of $1,700 to their state over their lifetimes, and the grandchildren contribute another $1,300 per person. Added up across generations, states gain $254.3 billion from second- and third-generation immigrants, about 4.5 times the $57.4 billion cost of educating immigrants' children. The fiscal benefits of immigration become even more critical when considering demographic challenges facing many developed countries. The fertility rate in the United States has dropped to a historic low (1.78 as of 2022), creating serious problems for programs like Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Social Security funds will run out by 2033 at current benefit payout rates, requiring either a 23% reduction in benefits or tax increases. Medicare faces similar challenges, with funds projected to evaporate by 2031. These dire predictions assume immigration levels remain stable; reducing immigration would make the situation worse by removing taxpayers from the system at precisely the moment when more contributors are needed to support aging populations.

Chapter 5: Integration Reality: How Immigrants Successfully Become Americans

Contrary to popular belief, immigrants in the United States are integrating at the same rate today as they did in the past, even during the era of mass migration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This conclusion emerges from comprehensive studies that track individuals across decades of census data, allowing for accurate comparisons over time. The evidence shows that integration proceeds steadily across multiple dimensions, including economic achievement, political participation, language acquisition, residential patterns, and intermarriage rates. Economic integration follows a consistent pattern: the first generation doesn't quite catch up to the earnings of the native-born, but the children of immigrants surpass the children of natives in earnings and upward mobility. For those born between 1978 and 1983, 35% of children of immigrants became high-income earners compared to 23% of natives' children. This pattern holds across eras and for virtually all immigrant groups, including those from countries Americans tend to worry about most, like Guatemala, Mexico, or Vietnam. Several factors explain this successful economic integration. Immigrant parents strategically choose places with healthy job growth and rising economies, creating more opportunities for their children. They also motivate their children through what psychologists call "identity work"—the process of constructing a sense of who they are and who they aren't. As immigrant parents tell and retell the story of their sacrifices, they create an implicit psychological contract with their children: your success validates my sacrifice. Political integration also proceeds steadily, though not always in predictable ways. Immigrants don't vote as monolithic blocs based on ethnicity. For example, many expressed surprise that 38% of Latinos voted for Trump in 2020, but this aligns with broader voting patterns—these voters tended to be less educated and live in rural areas, characteristics that predicted Trump support among the general electorate as well. The location where immigrants initially settle has a strong imprinting effect on their political choices. Those placed in neighborhoods with high rates of voter participation develop much higher rates of voting in later years than those placed in low-turnout neighborhoods, suggesting that local political culture shapes immigrant civic engagement more than ethnic background. Cultural integration occurs gradually across multiple indicators. Immigrants increasingly adopt the language of their new country over time. About 30% of immigrants arriving in the 1970s spoke English "very well" upon arrival, increasing to 50% after three decades. By the third generation, there is typically a complete switch to English and loss of the ability to speak the immigrant language. Similarly, immigrants increasingly give their children typically American names, erasing about half of the naming gap with natives after 20 years in the country. Residential patterns also show consistent integration, with immigrants moving from ethnic enclaves to more diverse neighborhoods over time. Intermarriage rates provide another indicator of integration: over half of immigrants who married between 2008 and 2012 did so to a native-born person. Importantly, successful integration doesn't require immigrants to completely abandon their original cultures. Research shows that immigrants who maintain healthy attachments to both their original and new cultures (integration) have better psychological outcomes than those who abandon their original culture (assimilation), remain isolated from the mainstream (separation), or lose connection to both cultures (marginalization). Efforts to force assimilation through measures like English-only education laws have historically backfired, causing immigrants to double down on their original cultural identities rather than embrace their new ones. The evidence clearly shows that immigrants successfully become Americans over a two-generation process, contributing economically, engaging with local political issues, and adopting local cultural values while maintaining some aspects of their original identities.

Chapter 6: Safety Misconceptions: Immigration Reduces Crime and Increases Security

One of the most persistent myths about immigration is that it increases crime and threatens public safety. The evidence overwhelmingly shows the opposite: immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. A study covering all fifty states between 2006 and 2015 found that the incarceration rate for undocumented immigrants was 33% lower than for natives, while legal immigrants were 66% less likely to be imprisoned than natives. Texas, which matches its crime records to Department of Homeland Security information on individuals' immigration status, provides particularly reliable data. Between 2012 and 2018, U.S.-born citizens in Texas were over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes than undocumented immigrants. This pattern of lower immigrant criminality has remained consistent throughout American history. Even the Dillingham Commission, established in 1907 to study the effects of immigration and stacked with people opposed to immigration, especially from Southern and Eastern Europe, could not find evidence linking immigration to increased crime. They reluctantly concluded: "No satisfactory evidence has yet been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in crime.... Such comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to obtain indicate that immigrants are less prone to commit crime than are native Americans." This historical consistency suggests that lower criminality among immigrants is not a recent or temporary phenomenon but a stable pattern that persists across different eras and immigrant groups. Despite this evidence, programs designed to identify and deport criminal immigrants have proliferated since 9/11. The most sweeping of these, Secure Communities, allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to check the immigration status of people detained by local authorities. Multiple studies show that such programs have no effect on crime rates. However, they do harm communities by increasing mental distress among immigrants and making them less likely to report crimes against themselves or others, thus undermining public safety. The fear of deportation can prevent immigrants from cooperating with police investigations or reporting domestic violence, creating zones of impunity that actually increase vulnerability to crime. The fear of immigrant criminality persists partly because of media portrayals. An evaluation of thousands of news articles in popular U.S. newspapers showed that between 1990 and 2013, half of immigration-crime stories portrayed immigrants as criminals—more than double compared to other portrayals. Similarly, a third of immigrant characters in U.S. TV shows were associated with crime or shown as imprisoned, rising to 63% for undocumented immigrant characters. These portrayals have potent effects on public perception, leading people to recommend harsher sentences for identical crimes when the perpetrator is an undocumented immigrant rather than a white person. Perhaps most importantly, the real national security threat may be not allowing immigrants in. The United States became a technological superpower partly through the contributions of immigrant scientists and inventors. Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi Germany caused a 31% increase in patenting by U.S. chemists in the same fields. Conversely, the 1924 National Origins Act, which severely restricted immigration, led to a 68% decline in patenting by American scientists in fields where Southern and Eastern European scientists would have contributed. Today, the U.S. risks losing its technological edge by restricting immigration. In fields designated as critical for national security by the White House—including artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, robotics, and biotechnology—immigrants play disproportionate roles as innovators and collaborators. Missing out on this talent means falling behind in key technologies, which ultimately weakens national security more than any threat immigrants might pose.

Chapter 7: A Better System: Practical Reforms for Maximum Benefits

The current U.S. immigration system fails to maximize the benefits immigrants bring while exacerbating the challenges of integrating newcomers. A reformed system would address both economic needs and social concerns, creating a more rational approach that serves the national interest. The existing system suffers from fundamental design flaws that prevent it from functioning effectively in today's economic and social context. Visa caps set decades ago bear no relationship to current economic realities. The H-1B visa for skilled workers has been capped at 85,000 annually since 2004, despite the economy becoming much more dependent on STEM workers. Similarly, the H-2B visa for temporary non-agricultural workers has been limited to 66,000 per year since 1990. In 2022, employers requested four times that number. These artificial constraints force businesses to participate in lotteries to hire the workers they need, hampering growth and innovation. Family-based immigration, which accounts for about two-thirds of permanent residence visas, creates long backlogs that separate families for years or even decades. Meanwhile, employment-based immigration represents just 13.5% of green cards, far below what the economy requires. The system also lacks flexibility to respond to changing labor market needs across skill levels and industries. Perhaps most problematically, the current system has created a permanent underclass of approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in legal limbo. These individuals have been in the U.S. for an average of more than ten years, contributing to the economy but unable to fully integrate due to their status. The lack of legal pathways for essential workers drives unauthorized immigration, as the economy demands their labor but the immigration system provides no way for them to enter legally. A reformed system would start by recognizing immigration as primarily an economic and social phenomenon rather than a security threat. This means moving primary responsibility for immigration from the Department of Homeland Security to agencies better positioned to maximize economic benefits, such as the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Agriculture, with DHS maintaining a focused security role. Visa caps should be flexible and tied to economic indicators rather than fixed at arbitrary levels set by political compromise. Canada's points-based system offers one model, adjusting immigration levels based on labor market needs while giving preference to those with skills, education, and language abilities that predict successful integration. For temporary workers at all skill levels, a reformed system would create sufficient legal pathways to meet labor market demands. This would reduce unauthorized immigration by channeling workers through legal ports of entry. For those already in the country without documentation, a path to legal status would bring them out of the shadows, allowing them to contribute more fully to the economy and society. The system should also recognize the importance of immigrant entrepreneurship by creating dedicated visas for those who start businesses and create jobs. Countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia have successfully implemented startup visa programs that attract innovative founders. Beyond economic considerations, reforms should facilitate integration by providing English language training, civics education, and other support services. Research shows that obtaining citizenship earlier rather than later improves long-term social integration outcomes. Making the naturalization process more accessible would strengthen immigrants' attachment to their new country while preserving their valuable connections to their countries of origin. Finally, a reformed system would distribute the fiscal costs and benefits of immigration more equitably. This could involve federal reimbursement to states and localities that bear disproportionate short-term costs, recognizing that the long-term fiscal benefits accrue primarily at the federal level.

Summary

Immigration strengthens nations through multiple reinforcing mechanisms that create a virtuous cycle of economic and social renewal. The evidence consistently shows that immigrants drive investment, spur innovation, fill critical workforce gaps, pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, successfully integrate into their new societies, and reduce rather than increase crime. These benefits emerge not despite immigrants' differences from natives, but because of them. The diversity of skills, perspectives, networks, and experiences that immigrants bring creates productive complementarities with native populations, expanding what societies can collectively accomplish. The key insight that emerges from examining the evidence is that diversity itself is the engine of prosperity when properly channeled. Immigrants bring different ideas, skills, networks, and perspectives that expand what societies can accomplish collectively. This diversity creates productive "task conflict"—the form of disagreement in which different approaches to solving problems lead to better outcomes. The challenge for immigration policy is to maximize this productive conflict while minimizing unproductive "relational conflict" based on identity differences. A well-designed immigration system would recognize this fundamental dynamic, creating pathways for legal immigration that meet economic needs while providing support for successful integration. Such a system would treat newcomers not as threats to be feared but as investments in a nation's future, recognizing that the differences immigrants bring represent assets rather than liabilities in an increasingly interconnected world.

About Author

Loading...

Zeke Hernandez

Read more