In keeping with the basic ground rules of this site, which are to offer practical analysis and suggestions without fanning the flames of partisan politics, I will not address some of the politically-charged aspects of immigration policy, such as whether it makes sense to build a “big, beautiful wall” along our entire southern border or under what circumstances we should be deporting the parents and siblings of children who are U.S. citizens.
Rather, I aim to address some practical questions. First, do we know whether undocumented workers economically hurt the country economically, or do they actually contribute? Second, what are the practical aspects of threatening to deport 11 million residents, or trying to do so in any significant way? Is their any sensible policy that isn’t primarily driven by our visceral feelings like “well, they are illegals” or “well, they are our friends and neighbors”?
It is quite hard to find meaningful analysis that isn’t reverse-engineered to be effectively “pro-” or “anti-” immigrant. Perhaps you don’t think this is a practical issue; if they are all “illegals”, for example, why would we allow them to remain in the country and provide them with education and health care, and what difference does it make whether there is a taxpayer benefit? Why should there be exceptions in terms of who gets deported and who gets to stay? That’s a consistent point of view, but many of us will take the practical point of view that even though there are 11 million undocumented residents from other countries here, there are some who are placing a burden on the American citizen and taxpayer and some who are not, and so it is very helpful to have some insight into what the tradeoffs are. In addition, we probably can’t afford to deport everyone, and we may not even know how. The U.S. deported just over 200,000 immigrants in 2017, slightly less than in the previous year (the ICE says that deportations are down because border enforcement, and especially border apprehensions, are up — as a result the number of undocumented residents is declining, but not by much).
In terms of the economic costs and benefits of undocumented workers, analyses that I would categorize as “anti-” point to total costs of as much as $100 billion per year, including, for example over $50 billion for “education for the children of illegal aliens” (who, of course, may be U.S. citizens). Although many undocumented workers pay taxes, some studies show that the costs of social services for them and their families (such as medical care) may be greater than than the taxes they pay, and that each migrant family thus sustains a deficit borne by the American taxpayer (many of these costs, particularly education, are at the local level).
Leaving out analyses that could be considered left-leaning, economic conservatives such as George W Bush pointed out that immigrants who were educated, good workers and learned English could make a valuable contribution to American business, and thus he proposed “a path to citizenship” that later became dubbed “amnesty” and opposed by virtually all Republican politicians at the national level, perhaps most vigorously by the eventual successful presidential candidate. Alan Greenspan, the long-time Federal Reserve Board chairman who described himself as a “Republican libertarian”, famously testified before Congress that, while, there were costs at the local level associated with illegal immigrants, they accounted for 5% of the civilian labor force and “there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy.” In other words, in the past conservative Republican economists and a conservative Republican president believed that the net effect of illegal immigration was a positive contribution to economic growth. Greenspan pointed out that, because immigrants tend to “pick up the slack” in the labor force, there are some economists who believe they can have a suppressive effect on wages, but, because they provide much-needed labor, the overall effect of undocumented workers on the economy is positive (this does not conflict, by the way, with the points made by anti-immigration economists, who look at local costs at the family level and not, for example, at the benefits to the economy of a roofing, construction, or farming enterprise that is able to produce and sell more due to the availability of more workers).
Thus, at a time when unemployment is at historic lows, given the overall shape of the economic analysis and a bit of common sense (e.g., do you really think you can take away 5% of the workforce without severely hurting the economy? Would those construction and agriculture jobs just be picked up by eager documented workers?) it does not seem valid to argue that we can’t afford to have immigrants in the country — it may be the reverse. It also seems ironic that anti-immigration analysts point to the costs of educating children (be they immigrants or children of immigrants, they don’t distinguish) when being educated and knowing English are certainly going to equip those children to be productive workers and productive citizens, and many advocate that they should be allowed to serve in the armed forces as a path to citizenship. This seems to presume both that education is a bad investment, and that for every child of an immigrant hoping to get a job there is a qualified citizen who would like that job. This is certainly not the case. Of course there are some workers who feel displaced by non-citizens, and they are important, but in the scope of overall employment this is a drop in the bucket. The data show that immigrants help grow the economy and fill jobs; they do not hurt the economy or take away jobs.
The sensible economic approach would then be to develop policies that reduce the non-productive and negative elements of the illegal immigrant population (such as violent criminals, street gangs, and so forth) and encourage and reward the more productive (such as allowing military service where we need military personnel and providing a “path” as George W Bush proposed to those who have lived here for many years, know no other home, speak English–often as their primary language–and have valuable skills). Although arresting and deporting people at random could help to discourage others from entering the country, it can also clog our system with “illegals” who pose no threat and reduce the resources for vigorous immigration law enforcement against the “bad” elements; indeed, some observers fear this is already happening. If this is so, we will make our country no richer or safer–we may be richer and safer than we would be if we tried to deport everyone, but not as rich and safe as if we could agree on a sensible policy.