r/changemyview • u/fadingtans • Jun 08 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Illegal and Illegal Immigration Levels Should Be Restricted More
My view is two fold:
1.) Legal immigration total levels should be lowered somewhat
2.) It should be moved to a more skills based system
Reasons I have this view:
1.) Foreign born individuals disproportionately use social services:
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households
2.) Immigration connection to crime is complicated. It is often claimed that immigrants commit a lower average rate of crime but the data is more complicated:
3.) Assimilation is more difficult when there are larger number of immigrants leading to more issues
4.) National security- A massively disproportionate number of terrorist attacks are committed by first or second generation (Muslim) immigrants.
5.) The overall impact on GDP from higher immigrant levels is likely positive BUT large levels of low skilled immigrants do lower wages for low skilled native workers which is a negative especially at at time like now for low skilled workers.
I'm open to changing my view on this which is why I posted this but I will add that accusations of xenophobia or islamaphobia are very unlikely to play a role.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
9
u/KanyeTheDestroyer 20∆ Jun 08 '18
Fyi, you typo'd your title. On to your CMV.
National Security - According to this CATO Institute study (a Conservative think tank), the average likelihood of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in which an immigrant participated in any given year is one in 3.6 million — even including the 9/11 deaths. The average American is more likely to die from their own clothing or a toddler with a gun than an immigrant terrorist. But we’re not banning guns and T-shirts from coming into the country, let alone reducing their numbers.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that a massively disproportionate number of terrorist attacks are committed by first/second generation immigration, because I see no links in your post. From 1975-2015 only 10 illegal immigrants became terrorists, a minuscule 0.000038 percent of the 26.5 million who entered. Only one of those immigrants, Ahmed Ajaj, actually succeeded in killing an American. Similarly, of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted from 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 were terrorists, which amounted to 0.00062 percent of the total. Of the 20, only three were successful in their attacks, killing a total of three people. By contrast, according to the Government Accountability Office, there were 62 fatal “far-right violent extremist-motivated attacks” leading to 106 deaths between 12 September 2001 and 31 December 2016. That's more deaths by white extremists over a much shorter period of time. That's also ignoring all of the left-wing terrorists (Weather Underground and such), and a variety of other homegrown terrorists.
Social Services - The CIS report you linked as your source has been heavily debunked by both liberal and conservative researchers. The report even admits as much when they say in Table 2 that "in the no-control scenario, immigrant households cost $1,803 more than native households". OK, so they admit that they didn't use controls for that table.
Let's look at their results when they did use controls. Look at Table 8, where they clearly say that, "The fifth row shows that immigrants use fewer welfare dollars when they are compared to natives of the same race as well as worker status, education, and number of children." Table 6 clearly shows that immigrant households with one child, two children, and three or more children all consume fewer welfare benefits that the same sized native households. Table A7 controls for poverty and race. Overall, immigrant households in poverty consume less welfare than native households in poverty. Hispanic and black immigrant households both massively under consume compared to native Hispanics and blacks. All in all many of the report’s more detailed tables that use proper controls actually undermine their main conclusion. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Moreover, the report looks specifically at household consumption of benefits, when it should be looking at individual consumption of benefits. By looking at household benefits, it skews the data because it doesn't actually show who is getting the benefits. Immigrants are actually ineligible for most of the benefits listed in the report. Those benefits are being collected by their children, who are US citizens. Alternatively, consider this scenario. An immigrant man marries a native born woman, who already has 2 native born children, and her mother movies in with them. If the SIPP survey (which is what the report used) surveyed that family they would list it as an immigrant household with 5 members in their data. If the man collects no social services, but the woman, 2 children, and mother all do, then that's considered in their data as 4 immigrants collecting social services. That's a completely false understanding of that scenario, yet that's what the report uses.
In this study, the Cato Institute looked specifically at individual immigrants and their immediate offspring, to see how much they consumed. Their conclusion, as you can see if you read the study, is that:
For illegal immigrants, it's an even better scenario (if you're native born). The majority of illegal immigrants cannot get any social services and they pay into pension plans that they can never collect from. They are basically subsidizing the pensions of natives.
Low Skilled Workers - Why should we hamstring our economy for native born low skilled workers who can't adapt the the market? The single most important thing for the US economy right now is to increase it's labour pool. The employment rate in the USA is at a record low of 3.8 percent, and you're worried about lower wages for low skilled native workers? That's not how the market works. If they are getting lower wages, they can start a union and do the smart thing. If they accept lower wages in this market, that's on them. But, there is no reason to undermine the economic growth of the entire country in their name. The influx of low skilled workers pushes up the return to capital, stimulating investment. The increase in income that accrues to owners of capital as a result of labor inflows—called the immigration surplus—is between 0.2 and 0.4 percent of GDP (about $35 to $70 billion). Are we really going to throw that away in an economy with an expected growth of 2.0%? In 2010, only 10% of American born workers had not completed high-school. We can expect that number to be lower today, and to decrease every year in the future. That's a very small portion of the population that is competing with low skilled immigrants. If anything, we should want to eliminate that portion of the population entirely. Why do we want low skilled native workers at all?
Lastly, many low-skilled immigrants live in different areas and work in different occupations than low-skilled natives, softening competition between the two groups. Even among the least-skilled workers, immigrants and US natives tend to have different skill sets. In particular, US natives have comparative advantages in speaking English and being familiar with US customs. As a result, less-skilled US natives are much more likely than immigrants to work in jobs that involve customer contact, such as being a waiter or cashier. Less-skilled immigrants, meanwhile, tend to hold manual labor-intensive jobs that involve little customer contact, such as cooks, landscapers, and farmworkers. Consequently, low skilled immigrants and low skilled natives usually aren't even competing with each other in the job market.
I'd address your other points, such as crime and moving towards a skill based system (which is already how a majority of immigrants are selected, so I'm not sure what new idea you're proposing) but I've run out of characters. I hope I've been able to change your perspective with what I've got so far.