Revised figures for number of recent immigrants

One June 9,2024, I summarized the conflicting estimates of the level of recent foreign born persons. The figures differed widely among Federal estimates. The difficulties arise from the surge of aslyum applicants and temporary visas issued for humanitarian purposes. And, the total figures do not distinquish well between permanent (Gree card) entrants and other entrants.

In the past few days, the Census, which as had the lower bound of estimates, increased its count for FY 2023 from 1.1 million to 2.3 million. its 2024 estimate of 2.8 million holds.

Here is what the Census said on December 20: “Net international migration, which refers to any change of residence across U.S. borders (the 50 states and the District of Columbia), was the critical demographic component of change driving growth in the resident population. With a net increase of 2.8 million people, it accounted for 84% of the nation’s 3.3 million increase in population between 2023 and 2024. This reflects a continued trend of rising international migration, with a net increase of 1.7 million in 2022 and 2.3 million in 2023.”

In the 2010s, the Census recorded a net immigration total hovering around one million. The 2022, 2023 and 2024 totals come to an average annual figure of 2.3 milion, or 1.3 million higher than past trend.

Scapegoating of immigrants

Two individuals can have a productive, rational, and deeply satisfying argument over the merits of a more restrictionist versus a more inclusive immigration policy. We do not have this debate because the political leadership in the country has evaded it. What we do have is, among several disruptive behaviors,  scapegoating of immigrants.

Donald Trump appears often to scapegoat immigrants, primarily as the cause of violence, but also stealing jobs. There’s an element in his rhetoric which suggests the so-called scapegoat mechanism of collective violence. This was articulated by René Girard (1923-2015), a French philosopher who taught at Stanford and one of whose students is Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire and erstwhile supporter of trump.

Elements of the scapegoat mechanism:

Social tensions intensify, seen in an increase in a phenomenon of severe competition over status and identity. We can see this within the right (at the Mar a Lago court) and within the left (virtue signaling, censoring).

Release of tensions: this can involve group action to blame an individual or group. The scapegoat is often chosen arbitrarily, typically someone who stands out as different or vulnerable. Poor unauthorized immigrants fit this profile.

By focusing collective violence on a single target, the community temporarily sets aside internal rivalries and conflicts. The act of scapegoating provides a cathartic release for the community’s destructive tensions. Blaming a scapegoat gives the illusion of control over complex, systemic problems.  Doesn’t this seem like a conventional behavior of Trump?

Girard argues that for scapegoating to be effective, the community must be unconscious of the mechanism. They must genuinely believe in the scapegoat’s guilt.

It is quite remarkable that the mass deportation idea runs completely afoul of the legal protections afforded any resident of the United States. I have posted recently on the complex steps from detaining an individual in the United States and deporting them.

The Tech Bro Battle and MAGA: H-1B visas

The H-1B program is a critical source of computer science talent and a major resource for the STEM field.

There are in the U.S. about 35 million STEM workers (the number varies a lot by definitions) of which about 2.5 million are computer science workers. Before the pandemic scrambled the entire legal immigration system, there were at any given time about 600,000 active H-1B visas (about 85-100K issued every year, for multiple years). 90% of H-1B visas are for STEM work, and two thirds in computer science.   Overall, there are about 7 million foreign born STEM workers; about one out of twelve of these workers are here on a H-1B visa.

For an informed debate about the H-1B program, go to this posting of two years ago.

Here is the fascinating story of how the H-iB program was one of the enablers of the tech industry in India, through knowledge transfer by H-1B visa holders.

Problems with the program today: First, a huge demand by American employers has created a situation ripe with gaming and uncertainty.  Second, the fact that about one third of visas are awarded for jobs paying less than $100,000 suggests that many positions could reasonably be filled by Americans.

Importantly, the administration of the program is divided among Homeland Security (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS), the Labor Department (for wage standards), and the Department of State. No agency, no special review unit, is tasked with assessing the performance of the H-1B program with respect to meeting labor demands efficiently, effectively, and fairly.

Immigration politics is heavily client-oriented, largely out of view and with without extensive public debate.  When it bursts into the open, all kinds of contradictions appear. Tweet by Musk on 11/24/23:  “We should greatly increase legal immigration of anyone who is hardworking, honest and loves America. Every such person is an asset to the country. But massive illegal immigration of people we know nothing about is insane.”

 

 

The battle between tech bros and MAGA: the lust for global STEM talent

 

Britta Glennon in 2020 (updated Sept 2024) wrote a paper which succinctly states the demand for foreign talent from Silicon Valley, and how Silicon Valley eventually has its way. From the abstract:

“Highly-skilled workers are not only a crucial and relatively scarce inputs into firms’ productive and innovative processes, but are also a critical resource determining competitive advantage….Firms respond to restrictions on H-1B immigration by increasing foreign affiliate employment at the intensive and extensive margins, particularly in China, India, and Canada….The most globalized multi-national corporations are the most likely to respond to [skilled worker immigration] restrictions by offshoring….these firms hire 0.9 employees abroad for every visa rejection. More broadly, the paper provides evidence of a push factor for internationalizing knowledge activity.”

I have posted on the extreme dependence of American firms on foreign-born AI talent: The United States has a large lead over all other countries in top-tier AI research, with nearly 60% of top-tier researchers working for American universities and companies. The US lead is built on attracting international talent, with more than two-thirds of the top-tier AI researchers working in the United States having received undergraduate degrees in other countries.

 

 

 

 

Lant Pritchett and rotational migration

Lant Pritchett challenges us to think radically about the global allocation of workers over the next 100 years. He wants us to think about huge numbers of temporary workers. This idea now is completely off the table in the United States. But it’s an idea whose time may be coming.

He is currently Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics in the School of Public Policy and the co-founder and Research Director of Labor Mobility Partnerships. He is a long-time advocate for easing the barriers to global mobility.

I’ve addressed the imbalance between rich and emerging country workforce demographics. Part of the picture is the rise in formal education in the emerging countries, which allows their workers to be more productive.

Among industrialized countries, production of goods and services and the financing of retirement has during the 20th century required much more working age persons as a ratio of older persons.

Rich, industrialized countries will experience shrinking labor forces and increasing elderly populations, while poorer regions, particularly in Africa and South Asia, will see substantial growth in their labor force-aged populations. ​

Pritchett sees these demographic differences as creating a massive opportunity for “age arbitrage,” where young workers from labor-abundant countries can move to labor-scarce, ageing societies through expanded legal pathways, including rotational labor mobility. ​ by 2050, there could be 130 to 300 million people working in rich countries on a rotational basis, depending on various assumptions about labor force participation and migration policies. ​

He argues that with the right legal and administrative arrangements, rotational labor mobility can be implemented in a safe, orderly, and rights-respecting way, benefiting all parties involved. ​

Per Pritchett, a “well-regulated and orderly system for rotational labor force mobility” threads the three-fold political needle facing rich societies by acknowledging three questions about who can legally reside and work in their country:

(1) Who is the “future of us”—who is to be allowed to live and work in our country on a direct expected pathway to citizenship and hence participate in the shaping of the future of “our” society and culture and politics,

(2) Who will we admit as “movers of distress”—how will our country act with respect to refugees, asylum seekers, and those fleeing intolerable conditions (a category which will expand with climate change), and

(3) Who will we allow to legally reside and work in our country on a fixed term basis, and under what terms and conditions (including restrictions on occupations, sectors, regions), in order to help us meet our labor force needs?

One aspect of very large temporary worker flows is who captures the retirement contributions of these workers, the host country or the sending country?

Some facts: From 2020 to 2050 the population 65+ in Italy will grow by 5.4 million (39%) but the population 15-64 will fall by 12.4 million (33%). The projected ratio of the labor force to those 65+ will fall to less than one worker for every person 65+. This is an extreme case of demographic change. In the United States, the demographics are relatively young due to immigration. The ratio between the 15-64 cohort and 65 + shows this trend: 1950, 7.75; 2000, 5.17; 2022, 3.82; 2050, 2.8.

Fertility rates of some countries

Data as of 2023. The replacement rate is 2.1. The global fertility rate of 2.41 is over 2.1 due to African and Middle Eastern countries. The American fertility is elevated by immigration in that recent immigrants are more concentrated in child-bearing years than is the U.S. born population (Immigrants as birthing factory).

Nigeria                  5.13

The World          2.41

Indonesia           2.11

India                       2.0

Russia                   1.82

United States    1.78

China                     1.70

France                   1.68

Brazil                      1.66

UK                           1.44

Germany             1.35

Canada                1.26

Italy                         1.21

 

Did the Dems lose their way in immigration, or did Biden?

The Atlantic has a new article, “How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration: The party once championed an approach popular with voters and politicians alike. Why give up on it?” by Cecilia Muñoz and Frank Sharry.

They write, “How did Democrats fall so far and so quickly on immigration? It’s easy to blame Trump, and the lure of his xenophobic rhetoric. But we believe that immigration has become a losing issue for Democrats over the past decade because elected leaders have followed progressive advocates to the left, beyond the political space available to them. Voters, feeling unheard and frustrated, may have squirmed at Trump’s racism and radicalism, but they also saw him as someone who took the problem seriously and was trying to address it.”

The article provides no critique of Biden’s immigration policies. It was these policies, not the “progressive advocates,” who mis-managed immigration. Biden failed to address the public about the issue. He tried to bury the news on border crossing by shifting migration into temporary visas.  The number of persons entering the country in during the Biden administration far exceeded past patterns for decades, and put strain on public shelter programs and school systems.

One of the authors, Frank Sharry, “served as an immigration advisor to Kamala Harris.  Harris told the public that she would not have changed anything Biden did.

 

Biden initiatives on immigration at the outset of his administration

Given that the immigration issue very likely worked against the Harris candidacy and in favor of Trump, I am noting here what the Biden White House did in first days of its administration in 2017. The boldness is a far cry from the furtive actions taken in 2013 and 2024 to reduce the visibility of border crossings.

Setting the stage – 2020 Democratic Party platform: In the summer of 2016, the Party issued a platform which included a 1,800 word section of immigration. This section provided the context for substantially all Biden administration action on immigration until it sought to cut down border crossings in 2023.

The section includes this overall concept: “Democrats believe that our fight to end systemic and structural racism in our country extends to our immigration system, including the policies at our borders and ports of entry, detention centers, and within immigration law enforcement agencies and their policies and operations.”  The section includes no mention enforcement of laws on legal status of persons or mention of borders except to revoke Trump administration policy. The mentions the “root causes” of migration—”violence and insecurity, poverty, pervasive corruption, lack of educational and economic opportunity, and the impacts of climate change,” calling for “well-designed assistance programs can help prevent and mitigate the effects of migration crises around the world.”

January 20, 2021, Comprehensive Immigration bill: The Biden administration submitted, as expected, an immigration bill on January 20: the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. The highlight of the bill is legalization of substantially all unauthorized persons in the country as of 1/1/21.  It did not significantly alter the design of the country’s visa system except for normalization, through temporary legal status, of the state of unauthorized persons

February 2017 Executive Order: On February 2, 2021, the president issued an executive order “on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.” The order was focused on the rights of foreign-born persons in the country. There was no mention of policy and practice about authorizing entry to the U.S. or addressing the unauthorized population:

“Consistent with our character as a Nation of opportunity and of welcome, it is essential to ensure that our laws and policies encourage full participation by immigrants, including refugees, in our civic life; that immigration processes and other benefits are delivered effectively and efficiently; and that the Federal Government eliminates sources of fear and other barriers that prevent immigrants from accessing government services available to them.”

Remain in Mexico program suspended: Biden’s DHS on the first day of his administration suspended all new enrollments in MPP, ending people being sent back to Mexico. It undertook immediately to terminate the program.

Other executive orders in early 2021, (go here for more detail):  revoked the prior Administration’s orders excluding noncitizens from the Census; directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, to take all appropriate actions under the law to achieve the goal of preserving and fortifying Dreamers’ protections; repeals Muslim/African Bans; reviewed Trump Administration “extreme vetting” practices; immediately terminated the national emergency declaration used to justify some wall-funding diversions and immediately pauses wall construction projects to review legality of the funding and contracting methods used.

 

 

How unauthorized persons are deported

Here are the key steps from arrest to deportation from the United States. I focus here on non asylum-related cases There is no clear, comprehensive data on non-asylum cases. They include many people who have been previously deported and came into the United States again, persons who have been arrested for a felony or misdemeanor and determined by law enforcement to be here illegally, and those wanted internationally for crimes abroad.

Arrest and detainment by immigration authorities: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detain the individual after identifying them as being unlawfully present in the U.S.  They may be taken to a detention center or released on bond, parole, or other terms (e.g., ankle monitoring). The detention facility in Aurora Colorado currently holds about 1,200 such persons. All told, there are about 38,000 persons currently detained across the country. A quick profile of detainment around the country is here.

How many of these detainees have committed a crime of the sort we ordinarily call a crime such as theft, assault, fraud, rape, or murder? I have addressed this issue here. Simply stated, very few of detainees have either been convicted or accused of such a crime. There are state misdemeanors such as involve reckless driving. There are also federal misdemeanors and felonies which weigh in. Most likely the greatest share of these federal cases involve the misdemeanor of having entered the country illegally, Including having entered multiple times illegally. The incoming Trump administration has deliberately confused the issue by grouping essentially all unauthorized persons as having committed an illegal act.

Notice to Appear (NTA): The individual receives an NTA, a legal document that states they must appear before an immigration judge. The NTA includes details about why the government believes the person should be deported. This and further court proceedings are skipped when the person has been arrested for having been deported before, in which case the person goes immediately into deportation by ICE.

There are currently about 3.7 million cases before immigration courts. Of these roughly half are asylum cases, the other half not related to asylum.

Court Hearings: The individual appears before an immigration judge to plead their case (with or without legal representation). They may request voluntary departure, asylum, or other forms of relief. The individual can provide evidence, testimony, or witnesses in their defense. ICE may also present its case.

Final Decision: The judge decides whether to issue a deportation order or grant relief.  There are about 35,000 deportation orders issued monthly; That includes was denied amnesty as well as otherwise appearing before the court. Roughly half or more of deportation orders rise from an arrest for a felony or misdemeanor.

Appeals: If the judge orders deportation, the individual can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). If denied, further appeals can be made to the federal courts.

Removal Order and Deportation: If all appeals fail or are waived, the deportation order becomes final. ICE coordinates the removal process. This may involve booking a commercial flight or using ICE’s chartered flights for transportation, plus coordinating with the receiving country to ensure they will accept the individual. The individual is escorted out of the U.S. In some cases, a reentry ban may apply for several years, making it illegal for the person to return to the U.S. during that time without special permission.

 

 

 

 

…..

 

 

 

 

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick’s statement to Congress on mass deportation

A Senate hearing was held on December 10, 2024, on mass deportations. This hearing was conducted by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.  I have predicted that Trump will abandon his mass deportation plan and revert to cancelling DACA and terminating early many temporary visas.  Reichlin-Melnick’s testimony lays out the case against mass deportation in a way that the majority of the American media will likely echo.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick is the senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.  Here is his resume. He is a 2014 graduate of Georgetown Law School. Here is the Council’s website blog entry on mass deportation.

In an X posting, he wrote, “Not even most ICE agents want to barge into churches or schools and carry out arrests. But the Trump admin wants people to be afraid; so they want nowhere to seem safe, no matter how draconian and brutal the operation may seem and how much backlash it may generate.”

Riechlin-Melnick’s remarks (transcribed by Word dictation):

At the Council we have long studied the population of immigrants in the United States and provide detailed estimates of their demographics and economic contributions…. Today there are at least 13 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. President-elect Trump has promised a mass deportation campaign with the stated intent of rounding up and deporting every single one of them.

So, who are they? Well, most of them have been here for at least 15 years, having entered before the Obama administration. Over 4.8 million people have been here for 25 years or more, with no path to permanent legal status, no line for them to stand in. Most undocumented immigrants have spent decades living, working, and putting down roots. All at constant risk of deportation. Nearly all are either employed or attending school. Some have permission to work legally most do not, putting them at increased risk of exploitation.  They are farm workers, meat packers, cooks, waiters, construction workers, factory workers, delivery people, home health aides, nurses, teachers, artists, writers, musicians, entrepreneurs, and, yes, even lawyers.

Undocumented immigrants are also more than their jobs. They are parents, spouses, partners, brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren, loved ones and friends to millions of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. 5 million U.S. citizen children have at least one undocumented parent. In an average public school classroom of 25 children at least two have an undocumented immigrant parent at risk of deportation. While president-elect Trump talks about targeting criminals, over 90% have had no prior criminal record whatsoever. Of the small minority that do, the most common prior convictions are traffic offenses or immigration offenses. Efforts to ramp up deportations would sweep in tens of thousands of people each year who have no or minimal criminal legal system contact. We know this because this is what happened during the first Trump administration, when there were no enforcement priorities. Everyone was an enforcement priority, and the single largest group of the increased arrests under the Trump administration was people with no criminal record.

A mass deportation campaign would be a costly mistake for American taxpayers, when we account for the enormous capital investment, infrastructure and hiring necessary to arrest detain process and remove 1,000,000 people per year. We estimate that mass deportations would cost $968 billion in total, enough to instead construct 2.9 million new homes or fund Head Start for 79 years. Mass deportations would also cause economic chaos, as millions are expelled the US population and labor force would shrink. So too with the economy: prices would rise in sectors with significant undocumented workforces, building maintaining and repairing houses would become more expensive, as would groceries, restaurants, travel, and childcare. Every American would feel the pinch of inflation.

Overall, we estimate that a mass deportation campaign would lead to a loss in total GDP of 4.2% to 6.8% at minimum, as much as the Great Recession. And just like then, many Americans would lose their jobs. Even an attempt to deport millions of people will have repercussions. After all, undocumented immigrants are not just producers they’re also consumers. Collectively they hold over a quarter trillion dollars in annual purchasing power. If millions are deported or otherwise forced to leave, American businesses will close, not just from a lack of workers but also from a lack of customers. A large-scale mass deportation campaign will also increase exploitation. While it is carried out, unscrupulous employers will dangle deportation over any of their workers who dare to push back. And we’ll have the full force of the US government to support their threats.

But mass deportation is not the only option. Congress could instead create a new path to permanent legal status, allowing many people already living here to file an application go through a background check, pay a fee, and get their papers in order. When the Council studied the impact of Reagan’s 1986 amnesty, we concluded that legalization would be the cheapest federal workforce development and anti-poverty program to for children in history. It would also raise overall wages, create new jobs, increase tax revenues, and create a level playing field and fair competition for USA workers.

The President-elect’s mass deportation plans would crash the American economy, break up families and take a hammer to the foundations of our society by deporting nearly 4% of the entire US population. But Congress has a choice instead of going down that path. We can instead crack down on exploitation, strengthen millions of families, and build American prosperity by providing undocumented immigrants a way to fix their papers. The choice is clear. Thank you.