Ezra Klein and David Frum agree that mass immigration yields benefits for millions of American professionals in the form of more affordable services. They agree that the tradeoffs - including lower wages and reduced opportunities - mostly fall on low-wage workers (although I know some American STEM workers who would beg to differ). But they disagree on whether concern for low-skilled workers should be central to immigration policy.
Ezra Klein suggests mass immigration's impact on low-skilled workers is overblown:
There's overwhelming economic evidence that higher levels of immigration make most native-born workers better off. There's mixed evidence on the effect on low-skill workers, but even if there are small losses, those are better managed through transfer programs than by closing the border.
David Frum says the negative impact on low-wage workers is too often overlooked:
Immigration is a tough issue to report dispassionately. The costs are loaded onto people who don't carry a lot of weight in our society. The benefits are collected by some of the most influential interests in America, including of course the affluent and educated social classes from which journalists are mostly recruited....The loss to some workers -- and especially low-wage workers -- is more than balanced by the gains to upmarket Americans, such as the people who write the laws and report on elections.
Klein has the greater challenge when it comes to shaping public opinion. His column starts as a pitch to "open the borders" in order to offset replacement-level U.S. birth rates (an idea that brings to mind David Attenborough's warning: "The notion of ever more old people needing ever more young people, who will in turn grow old and need even more young people, and so on ad infinitum, is an obvious ecological Ponzi scheme.") and segues into a rebuttal of the economic-justice argument for limiting immigration.
Those are going to be hard sells with the American public. Three out of four likely voters believe citizens and immigrants who are already in the U.S. should be given preference for jobs over future waves of immigrants; and two out of four believe that the current U.S. policy of issuing a million new permanent work permits to immigrants every year is unfair to Americans who can't find jobs. Three out of four voters believe U.S. immigration policy should protect low-wage citizens and legal immigrant workers who are already here, including large majorities of women, Independents, and those making $40,000 or less.
Klein argues that U.S.-born citizens have little to fear from open immigration because, according to his research, immigrants primarily compete with other immigrants, not U.S.-born workers (a questionable theory; see below*). In fact, the only group that Klein believes is vulnerable to mass immigration are immigrants who are already here, competing for low-wage jobs. His proposal is to give them welfare.
Would low-wage immigrant workers prefer a tight labor market to welfare? I would venture "yes" but Klein doesn't consider that option. Low-wage immigrant workers aren't his target audience. It's the "They took our jobs" crowd that Klein has in his sights: "if you're worried about competition between workers," he concludes, "then you should be more comfortable adding workers through immigration than through higher birth rates. But to my knowledge, almost no one actually is. It's almost as if the core concern around immigration isn't really wages for low-skill native-born workers at all."
I am sure Klein cares about recent immigrants who work low-wage jobs. The chief concern of his column, however, is not for their prospects, but for the prospects of ever-increasing immigration itself. He brushes off groups that stand to lose from mass immigration ("those are better managed through transfer programs") but takes time to insinuate that restrictionists who do express concern for low-wage workers (U.S.-born and immigrant alike) are insincere and hiding their true motives.
After Eric Cantor's defeat at the hands of Dave Brat (a candidate who, in the words of William Kristol, launched "a broad assault on GOP elites who put the interests of American corporations over American workers"), Frum made this prediction:
"Whatever else they disagree about, almost all of the pundits and politicians who will comment on Eric Cantor's defeat will share one bedrock conviction: Immigration liberalization is right and good -- and those who oppose it are animated by unthinking and misguided prejudice."
Read Frum and Klein's articles back to back and it's clear that Frum views analysis like Klein's to be elitist and out of touch while Klein views analysis like Frum's to be insincere populist pandering that conceals ulterior motives. Such is the state of much immigration punditry today.
*DO LOW-WAGE IMMIGRANT WORKERS PRIMARILY COMPETE WITH OTHER IMMIGRANTS?
The crux of Klein's argument is that workers who are fluent in English have access to jobs that non-fluent English speakers do not. I have a few problems with this:
- Lots of immigrants are fluent in English.
- Klein's claim is a variation on the "Jobs American't Won't Do" argument. Klein has a legitimate point that lack of English fluency can limit job opportunities, but that doesn't mean English-speaking workers aren't competing with non-English-speaking workers in industries like construction, manufacturing, or service.
- There are very few jobs that Americans (English-speaking or otherwise) aren't competing for. Out of 472 civilian occupations tracked by the government, only six have a majority foreign-born workforce:
- Agricultural graders and sorters (63% foreign-born);
- Misc. personal appearance workers like fingernail painters (59%);
- Plasterers and stucco masons (56%);
- Sewing machine operators (52%);
- Misc. agricultural workers like animal breeders (52%); and
- Tailors/dressmakers/sewers (52%).
These six occupations account for less than one percent of the total U.S. workforce. And even within these six jobs, U.S.-born workers make up between thirty-seven and forty-eight percent of the workforce. Clearly, there is competition for the same jobs.
JEREMY BECK is the Director of the Media Standards Project for NumbersUSA
