Distinction between the early immigrants of the 19th century and the immigrants 20th century

Since the sixteenth century, immigrants have flocked to the shores of United States of America, deluded with the notion that American [city] streets were paved with gold. Many immigrants -escaping oppression, impoverishment and starvation - came to the U.S. thinking that their lives would be ameliorated only to experience destitution, discrimination and alienation. The immigrants of the 1900's were mostly Europeans and Eastern Europeans [Germans, Italians, Irish and Polish], as pointed out by Judd and Swanstrom, in City Politics. Each set was discriminated against by those who had assimilated and achieved social mobility - the Irish by the Anglo-Saxon [WASP], the Italians by the Irish, etc.

Many achieved social mobility in the second generation through higher education and professional jobs. The Irish became teachers and politicians, while the Jews consolidated themselves in business and commerce. With the exception of the Jews, the early immigrants were often unskilled workers, educated at the elementary level and spoke very little English. Many were fresh starters [for lack of a better term], that is, being first generation immigrants, they had no relatives already living in the United States, that they could pool resources and income with until they were able to make it on their own. The 1930's-1940's was marked by the emergence of the New Deal programs and the greater dependency of the population [immigrants and citizens] on federal social aids. Between the 1970's-1990's, the immigration trends in the United States distinctly shifted, introducing an influx of a new immigration population. Figure A shows the twelve highest emigrant countries to the U.S. Notedly, Asia countries are at the top of list. Immigration from the Germany decreased after 1970 from 424 to 53 (thousands) immigration rate, while Canada dropped from 361 to 105. All the other countries listed in Figure A experienced significant growth in emigration to the United States between 1980 to 1989.

From 1970 to 1979 the largest source of immigrants was Mexicans, followed by Filipinos, Chinese, Cubans, Indians, ... and etc.[See Figure A] In the mid-1980's nearly half of the Mexican working population was either unemployed or underemployed. Nearly 55 percent of the estimated 2 million illegal aliens in the 1990 were Mexicans - who crossed the 1,950 miles border between Mexico and U.S. in search of a better life. A vast number of this immigration influx of the 1980's were refugees. Of the more than 800,000 persons who entered the U.S. in 1980, more than 150,000 were refugees from India and China, and some 125,000 were Cubans seeking political asylum. By 1990 the Asian population had increased by nearly 108 percent than the decade before.

Impact of immigration in the job-market

Were the new immigrants a neded commodity for the economy?

Immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean vastly outnumbered the Western and Europeans immigrants by the 1980's, such that Canada and Germany emigrants rate declined. The latter immigrants are distinctively different from the former immigrant population. With exception to the majority of Mexicans, the immigrant population are more educated, skilled and ardent workers than their predecessors. They achieve social mobility within approximately ten years residency in the United States as oppose to the early immigrants - who achieved it during the second and third generation. The education and income level of recent legal immigrants remained steadily high since the 1980's. Unlike the early immigrants, those migrating from Second and Third World countries are often more educated than the U.S. citizens within a certain age group. Without a doubt, the new immigrants are far more skilled than the early immigrants, and this accounted for the increase in income level of foreign-born residents in the U.S.

The effect of immigration on wages and jobs in specific labor markets show small negative effects on low-skilled workers in stagnant local economies but with a high concentrations of immigrants. In growing economies, immigration increases the labor market opportunities of low-skilled workers; in declining ones or stagnant economies, immigration diminishes them. Self-employment is higher among immigrants than the native-born Americans. Immigrant incomes in 1989 totaled about $285 billion, representing the same share of total incomes in the U.S.- that immigrants represent of the total U.S. population.

Almost half the immigrant population arrived within the past ten years. Simultaneously, the number of emigrating countries with at least 100,000 foreign-born residents entering the United States increased from 21 in 1970 to 27 in 1980 and 41 in 1990. The vast majority of the immigrants are concentrated in only six states and almost all live in metropolitan areas. California is home to 7.7 million foreign-born person, that account for more than one-third of all immigrants to the U.S. and nearly one-quarter of all California residents. New York ranks second with 2.9 million and Florida ranks third with 2.1 million foreign-born. Texas, Illinois and New Jersey have over 1 million foreign-born residents. The absolute number of immigrants a year who enter and stay - currently is about 1.1 million [legal and illegal].

According to the Urban Institute's 1995 Annual Report- Population Studies [of California's rural population]; "In these growing towns, from 25 to 50 percent of families have incomes below the poverty level compared to 11 to 12 percent for U.S. families as a whole; and 7 of the state's 10 poorest cities are farm worker towns. Immigrants' desire to escape worse poverty in Mexico, the proliferation of farm labor contractors who introduce seasonal farm workers to growers, and U.S. farmers' increasing reliance on seasonal workers rather than year round workers all contribute to the problem."

Impact of Immigration on the Public Sector

Are the immigrants population social burdens to the economy?

Overall, annual taxes paid by immigrants to all levels of governments out weighs the costs of services received, generates a net annual surplus of $25 billion to $30 billion. Immigrants who arrived in the past decade receive higher rates of public assistance than native-born Americans [6.6 versus 4.9 percent]. But welfare use among immigrants is concentrated among refugees and elderly immigrants who use welfare at rates disproportionate to their numbers. Refugees and illegal immigrants are often poorer and less educated on average than other immigrants, and so there is a greater dependency by this set on the public aids. Welfare use among working-age immigrants (18-64) who did not enter as refugees is about the same as for the natives (5.1 versus 5.3 percent).

Welfare use among working-age [15 to 64 years], non-refugee immigrants is relatively low if one takes into consideration the naturalized immigrant versus non-citizen immigrants. According to the Urban Institute, "poverty and benefits use are far more heavily concentrated among immigrants who are not citizens than among immigrants who have naturalized." But this is not fully examined since studies that "report a decline in immigrant income and education levels - often referred to as immigrant" quality - fail to take into account the fact that U.S. census data do not differentiate by immigration status. Legal immigrants, refugees and illegal immigrants are all included in U.S. censuses. Significantly, the average household incomes of both legal immigrants and refugees who entered before 1980 are higher than natives, "immigrants who are poor remain substantially less likely to use welfare than natives (16 percent versus 25 percent)." The naturalizing immigrants is directly related to lowering their dependency on welfare. In the Figure B, the higher the levels of use among non-citizens was offset by lower use by naturalized citizens.

The Legality of Immigration

Its History and Current Policies

According to the Urban Institute's Policy and Research Report, U.S. immigrant integration policies, which historically have been policies of benign neglect, are slated to be transformed into policies of exclusion - by restricting immigrants access to services and shifting responsibility for support to the families of immigrants. Most of the laws relating to immigration were codified by the immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [the McCarran-Walter act]. The Refugee Relief Act of 1953 made an additional allocation of places for victims of war and disaster. The law was amended in 1965 and 1968- limiting the annual quotas of immigration from the Eastern and Western hemisphere.

But in 1977 an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act change the quota to 290,00 immigrants worldwide, with a maximum of 20,000 for any one country - giving preference to citizens or permanent resident aliens and to workers whose skills are needed in the U.S. The Refugee Act was amended in 1980 that reduced the worldwide quota to 270,000 immigrants and establishing spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens exempt from the numerical limitation as special immigrants. The 1980's experienced the one of the largest influx of wide scale [legal and illegal] immigration to the U.S. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in an attempt to curtail illegal immigration. In Immigration Act of 1990 established the unprecedented practice of granting permanent United States visas on a lottery basis to 40,000 immigrants each year for three years.

Because of the financial strain that illegal immigration put on the public services offered by states, Congress [promoted by Republican, Senator Alan Simpson] propose to reform immigration policy by reducing overall number of immigrants admitted by one-third; shifting greater financial responsibility to families of immigrants, and refocusing immigration policy on unification of nuclear [versus extended] families. In the Alan Simpson's opening statement on the Immigration Reform Bill in February this year , he explained that the "bill is designed to reduce illegal immigration and provide a modest and temporary reduction. A breathing space if you will, in legal immigration." The important point in the bill is that it address both forms of immigration and the transcend problems of in public service benefits. According to the Urban Institute report, the proposal would:

• eliminate the immigration preference category for adult brother and sisters of citizens;
• eliminate the preference category for adult children of citizens and legal permanent (green card) residents;
• limit the entry of citizens' parents to those over age sixty-five with health and long-term insurance;
• impose new financial requirements on sponsors.

But will this really resolve the problems of the overburden welfare system and stop the influx of illegal immigration? Certainly it would increase immigrants' to naturalize and become citizens. Perhaps it will make immigrant families more financially accountable and relieve governmental support to incoming immigrants. Where the proposal is most lacking is in the area where companies are only required to train American workers before considering hiring foreigners and immigrants - who may be skilled to do the job. If the current shift to make immigration laws more strident and restrictive, immigrants will have very little incentive to migrate here. And with little benefits [and social services] offered to incoming immigrants by the job- market and the government they will not have the opportunity to prosper and experience social mobility. Will this not have an even adverse effect on the economy? The United States' population is significantly comprised of foreign-born people and from ancestral origins. Let's not forget the history of United States - the nation of great ethnicity, the "melting pot" of the world. In the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, "Immigrants have always helped to make America of tomorrow even greater than the America of today, and they always will. It's part of what makes America America. Let's not abandon it. Let's honor our ideals, not reject them." Where is the America, the Land of Opportunity? The 1996 Immigration Law may certainly decrease the number of immigration to the United States. However, legal immigration growth will decline but I doubt very much that it will have a tremendous impact on illegal immigration in California and Florida.

APPENDIX

Population by Country of Birth, Citizenship, and year of Entry: March 1996

[FIGURE A]

(In thousands)

		Citizenship			Year of Entry
Country of Birth	Total Foreign Born	Naturalized citizen	Not a Citizen	Before1970	1970 to 1979	1980 to 1989	1990 to 1996
ALL COUNTRIES	24,557	7,904	16,653	4,806	4,756	8,416	6,579
Mexico	6,679	852	5,828	838	1,542	2,428	1,900
Philippines	1,164	610	554	159	294	451	260
China	801	276	525	76	139	313	274
Cuba	772	361	412	318	148	201	106
India	757	285	472	53	181	299	224
Vietnam	740	308	432	17	98	323	302
El Salvador	701	113	588	31	143	373	154
Canada	660	315	345	361	75	119	105
Korea	550	167	384	14	103	278	155
Germany	523	371	152	424	27	19	53
Dominican Republic	515	126	389	47	79	195	166
Jamaica	506	158	348	49	139	191	128

Note: Countries with totals under 500,000 are not shown.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

[FIGURE B]

IMMIGRANT AND NATIVE USE OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS-INDIVIDUAL LEVEL ANALYSIS

All Ages
	Natives	Immigrants		Natives	Immigrants and Theirs Children
Cash Programs
AFDC	3.6%	3.2%		3.6%	3.9%
SSI**	2.3%	3.7%*		2.4%	3.1%
General Assistance	4.0%	6.0%		0.4%	0.6%
Noncash Programs
Medicaid	7.3%	8.6%		7.2%	9.4%*
Food Stamps	6.7%	7.0%		6.6%	8.0%
Housing	4.2%	5.2%		4.2%	5.6%*
WIC	1.0%	0.7%		1.0%	1.2%
Sample Size	44,759	4,290		43,713	5,336
Total	223,970,774	19,098,292		219,766,082	23,302,985

Source: Elaine Scorensen and Nikki Blasberg's analysis of the 1990 Survey of Income and Program Participation, The Urban Institute. This analysis is based in 12 months of data from the SIPP.

Note: * indicates significance at the 5% level.

a.) SSI is calculated on an annual rather than recently basis.

1. Population by Country of Birth, Citizenship, and Year of Entry: March 1996 Http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/031996/popsum/3_000.htm

2. The Foreign-Born Population:1994 Http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/

3. The Urban Institute Home Page

Http://www.urban.org

4. Gopher Search Engine

5. Judd and Swanstrom, City Politics, Private Power & Public Policy. Harper Collins College Publishers. New York:1994

6. America Online Service

7. "Immigration," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright 8 1993 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright 8 1993 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.