Month: October 2024

Poll on high-skilled immigration

This by the Economic Innovation Group, which supports high-skilled immigration (HSI), so the poll results need to be taken with a grain of salt. I anticipate that in the next administration there will be enacted an immigration bill which includes more high-skilled immigration, in the eontext of an explicit strategy to boost economic investment.

:Definition of HSI: “immigrants with a high level of educational achievement or specialized professional skills, such as scientists, medical doctors, computer programmers, engineers, or business finance professionals.”

Seventy-four percent of voters support “allowing more legal, high-skilled immigration to the United States,” versus only 18 percent who oppose it.

Support for HSI is overwhelmingly bipartisan: 71 percent of voters who plan to support President Trump in November and 86 percent of those who plan to vote for President Biden favor increasing HSI.

More than two-thirds of voters in every swing state (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) support increasing HSI.

Most Americans do not believe the U.S. immigration system is designed to benefit them. Only 37 percent agreed that “the U.S. immigration system is currently designed to benefit the U.S. economy, its workers, and its communities.”

Four-fifths of voters believe the American immigration system needs “major changes” or “a complete overhaul.”

Voters overwhelmingly see the economic and competitive advantages of HSI; 70 percent say it benefits the U.S. economy.

The voters least likely to compete with high-skilled immigrants—rural Americans with a high-school degree or less—are those most likely to oppose more HSI.

What does the UNHCR do?

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN Refugee Agency, was established in 1950 to help millions of Europeans displaced after World War II. (Some 8 million German speaking persons were expelled from Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union.) Its mission is to protect people forced to flee their homes due to conflict and persecution.

UNHCR operates in 136 countries with over 20,000 personnel. It provides life-saving assistance such as shelter, food, water, and medical care to forcibly displaced communities. The agency also works to defend refugees’ rights, help them find safe havens, and collaborate with countries to improve refugee and asylum laws and policies.

For 2024, UNHCR’s approved budget is $10.2 billion. (Compare this with the annual budget of the state of Maine, $10.5 billion.) UNHCR’s funding comes mainly from voluntary contributions. The largest donors are the United States, the European Union, and Germany,

About 43 million persons today can be considered refugees living outside theiir country of origin. Many are taken care of by host countries such as EU countries and the U.S. If one assumes that UNHCR actively supports only one quarter of the 43 million with direct services (which may be a gross under-estimate), that comes to about $1000 per directly supported refugee per year.

Here is a summary of how the UNHCR describes its work with refugees from Venezuela:

The number of refugees and migrants from Venezuela has surpassed 7 million globally.  70% are concentrated in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile. Most are families with children, pregnant women, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Many are facing poverty and struggling to survive.

Half of all refugees and migrants in Latin America and the Caribbean cannot afford three meals a day and lack access to safe and dignified housing. To access food or avoid homelessness, many Venezuelans resort to survival sex, begging or indebtedness. Extremely low salaries further hinder the ability of Venezuelan refugees and migrants to support themselves and their families.

To ensure safe and dignified reception conditions, UNHCR has stepped up its presence in border areas across the region, providing life-saving assistance (including drinking water and hygiene kits for women and children) while ensuring access to territory and asylum, providing legal aid and counselling and upholding refugee law and practice.

UNHCR works closely with local authorities, civil society and the private sector and supports providing vocational training to Venezuelans. UNHCR is also supporting the relocation of Venezuelan refugees and migrants to places with more employment opportunities and services.

A comprehensive cash transfer programme helps refugees and migrants to meet their most urgent needs, such as food, rent and utilities.  UNHCR helps refugees and migrants receive updated and reliable information and a minimum package of services in key locations across the region.

Ronald Brownstein documents Trump’s steep descent in zeno-phobia

Ronald Brownstein’s new article in the Atlantic highlights the escalating intensity of Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric during his current campaign. “Even by his standards, the volume and venom of Trump’s attacks on immigrants have amped up sharply during this campaign.” Trump’s immigrant rhetoric is increasingly extreme and detached from factual reality.

Trump and J.D. Vance have made numerous claims about immigrants, including accusations of job theft, crime increases, housing cost inflation, disease spread, voter fraud, and resource depletion. Brownstein systematically debunks these claims, citing data and local records that contradict the candidates’ assertions. For instance, violent crime rates have been declining, and research suggests undocumented immigrants commit fewer offenses than native-born Americans. Employment data also refutes claims about job theft, showing significant job growth among native-born Americans.

He expresses particular concern over Trump’s dehumanizing language towards immigrants, noting his use of terms like “poisoning the blood” and referring to them as “animals” or not even “people.” The article draws parallels between this rhetoric and historical instances of dangerous xenophobia. A 1917 anti-immigration screed by James Murphy Ward even referred to immigrants (in this instance Chinese) making soup out of rats

Brownstein notes that Trump’s recent on genetics and murder suggest a turn towards eugenics in his campaign messaging.

Why there will be a major immigration bill during the next administration

The next administration, with Congressional support, will shift immigration for the first time since the 1965 liberalization act from family and humanitarian priorities to economic development priorities. This will happen regardless of who wins and will involve a major bipartisan legislative act.

A Trump victory portends a drastic reduction of immigration. A Harris victory will prolong what I view as Democratic paralysis over immigration, with inclusivists insisting on relatively open borders for a diverse population of immigrants. I believe that in either administration, there will emerge consensus for a third approach: more constrained immigration with a visible commitment to skilled worker immigration, such as I have often posted about Canada and Australia.

Driving this new consensus will be a national strategy of targeted government investment to spur private sector growth, strengthen domestic industries, and promote American economic interests. It aims to create jobs, boost competitiveness, and build a stronger foundation for long-term economic prosperity.  This strategy was already introduced by Biden in his three major legislative acts: the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act.

Democratic politicians, I believe, realize that the 2021-2024 very large increase in migration, largely of a humanitarian kind, is politically costly. There will be an emerging consensus that an immigration strategy consistent with Biden’s truly historic commitment to state engagement in economic investment is needed.  Democrats will align with Republicans (most notable in the Senate) to fashion a pro-economic growth immigration bill.

Biden quadrupled refugee admissions over Trump, and more than Obama

The White House announced its refugee goal (and cap) for FY 2025: 125,000. Here are figures since 2016.

During the Trump years when Trump had full control over the entire fiscal year  (FY 2018 – 2020), refugee admissions averaged about 21,000 per year. Biden has increased the count every year, targeting 125,000. 100,034 were admitted in FY 2024. Biden has effectively quadrupled the rate of refugee admissions. (Note: refugees are admitted from outside the U.S., asylees from within the U.S.)

During the Obama years, in years he had fully control. admissisions rose gradually from about 55,000 to about 85,000.

FY 2016: 84,9114, with a cap of 85,000

FY2017: 53,7116, cap set by Obama at 110,000, reduced by Trump to 50,000.

FY 2018: 22,491, with a cap of 45,000

FY 2019: 30,000, which was the cap.

FY 2020: 11,814, with a cap of 18,000

FY 2021: 11,411. The cap was set by Trump at 15,000; Biden increased it to 62,000.

FY 2022: 25,465, cap of 125,000

FY 2023: 60,014, cap of 125,000

FY 2024: 100,034, cap of 125,000

FY 2025: cap of 125,000

Also go to Global Refuge, an outstanding organization.

Higher education: the white advantage as declined and will continue to do so.

The annual wage between four-year college degree holders and others was about $20,000 in 2000 and $35,000 in 2020.  When a group in American society increases its attendance at four-year college, it is not only increasing its average household income but also potentially gaining a larger share of the total college educated population. In 2000, some 45 million persons 25 and older had a four-year college degree. In 2020 about 90 million had a four-year college degree. During these 20 years, the non-white population grew faster than whites and they were increasingly attending four-year college.

Thus, over these 20 years, non-whites significantly narrowed the gap between their college degree attainment and that of whites. I believe that as the white population declines and non-white population continues to grow, the non-white college attainment track record will continue to improve relative to that of whites. Result: whites will have a distinctly lower overall advantage in formal education. By 2040 or so the graduating class of four-year colleges are increasingly likely to be over 50% non-white.

Obscuring this picture is that educational and population statistics do not consistently distinguish non-white from white Hispanics, and do not recognize mixed race. But the overall trend is undisputable.

Detail:

In 2000, about 25% of all white persons 25 years or older had a four-year college degree. This share rose to 33% in 2020. Compare that with non-whites:  in 2000, among non-whites over 25, about 12-14% had a four-year college degree and the share rose to about 23-25% in 2020. Thus, while non-white college rate was about 50% below whites (13%/25%=52%) in 2020, the gap declined to about 30% (24%/33%= 73%) in 2020.

This narrowing of the gap in a key socio-economic credential was due largely to a big jump in college completion by Hispanics, the rise in total Hispanic numbers, and the rise in the Asian population, which always had a college completion rate of over 50%.  Among foreign-born persons 25 years or older, the college graduates rose from 29% to 49% (which reflects the rise of Asia as the source of immigration in the 21st Century).

Between 2000 and 2019, the Asian population grew by 81%, Hispanics by 70%, Blacks by 26%, and non-Hispanic whites by 1.2% (including slight declines in 2016- 2019).

In other words, there are both more non-whites and their college attendance has grown.

Percentage white: Silent Generation ( first year 1928): 79%; Baby Boomers (1946): 72.2%; Generation X (1965): 61.5%; Millennials (1981) : 58%; Generation Z(1997) : 51-52%; Generation Alpha (2012): Less than 50%. Generation Alphas will be entering college in 2030.

 

Biden not to renew temporary special visas for four countries

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed that the Biden administration will not renew some 530,000 temporary visas issues to under a specially designed program to relieve pressure on the Mexican border (go here.) It is not clear how these persons will be removed from the United States. The current visas are valid for two years. That this will create some havoc is an understatement.

It is hard to avoid concluding that this decision, made a month before the presidential election, was driven by politics. JD Vance has referred to these persons are “illegal” on the grounds that the program, faced with a lawsuit, was illegally created. Trump is sure to cancel the program if he is elected. Within a global context, Biden is trimming back inclusive immigration policies, as Canada and Australia have in the past six months.

I have posted here about the Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program for Venezuela, begun in 2022, and in 2023 for Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua – the so-called semi-privatized CHNV program. By this program, persons could enter the U.S. at their own cost of air flights and with a financial guarantor.

According to Customs and Border Protection, Through the end of August 2024, nearly 530,000 CHNV citizens arrived: more than 110,000 Cubans, more than 210,000 Haitians, nearly 93,000 Nicaraguans, and nearly 117,000 Venezuelans arrived lawfully and were granted parole.

Since DHS has implemented these safe, orderly and lawful processes, encounters of CHNV nationals in between by land formal ports of entry are down by 99%. This shows how the program was designed to relieve pressure at the Mexican border.

Hispanic opinions about abortion

Polls suggest that Hispanic Americans have roughly the same opinions about abortion as other Americans. Even Hispanics who self-identify as Republicans are mostly OK with abortion.

We see this when comparing a poll of Hispanics (here) with a poll for the entire population (here and here). For instance, those wanting to ban abortions in most or all cases are 34% of Hispanics and 36% of all AmericansStrong anti-abortion sentiment regarding public policy is heavily concentrated among Republicans and Protestants. Catholic affiliation is not indicative of strong anti-abortion sentiment regarding public policy as opposed to personal preference.

In the Hispanic – specific poll, only 16% say they wany abortion to be illegal.  Among Hispanics who self-identify as Republicans: 43% say that while they oppose abortion, the government should not be making the decision for people, and they should be able to by themselves.  22% say that abortion is morally acceptable and should be legal. 32% say it should be illegal.