The Pew Research Center reported on higher educational attainment of graduates. It noted a steady moderate increase from 1970 through 2007, then a sharp increase. Native-born Americans are better educated than in 1970, but especially in recent years new immigrants have outpaced native-born Americans in education.

Half of newly arrived immigrants in 1970 had at least a high school education; in 2013, more than three-quarters did. In 1970, a fifth had graduated from college; in 2013, 41% had done so. What is going on?

#1 Rise in foreign college graduates

Immigrants have been tilted to college graduates more than native-born Americans for fifty years, at least. In 1970, about 20% of newly arrived immigrants had at least a bachelor’s degree compared with slightly more than 10% of U.S.-born adults. In 2013, 41% of newly arrived immigrants had completed at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 30% of U.S.-born adults and 41% of White Americans.

Note that since 1990, college graduation rates by persons in the United States increased. “From 1990 to 2014, the percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who had attained a bachelor’s or higher degree increased for Whites (from 26 to 41%), Blacks (from 13 to 22%), Hispanics (from 8 to 15%), and Asians/ Pacific Islanders (from 43 to 61 percent).” Go here.

#2: Rise in post-graduate degrees

Newly arrived immigrants also are more likely than U.S.-born adults to hold advanced degrees: In 2013, 18% did so, compared with 11% among those born in the U.S.

#3 Huge impact of more Asian immigrants, fewer Central American

In 2013 new Asian immigrants, half of whom have college degrees, for the first time exceeded Latin American immigrants in number. The number of new Asian immigrants was stable from 2000 until 2008, and then rose. New Latin American immigrant numbers started dropping in 2005; in 2013 their number had dropped by half, and Mexican numbers really dropped.

Asian immigrants are highly educated compared to 28% of the total immigrant population and 30%:

• In 2013, 4% of Chinese immigrants (ages 25 and over) had a bachelor’s degree or higher
• 76% of Indian immigrants have college degrees.

The composition of Latin American immigrants has changed. New South American immigrants are better educated than Central American immigrants.  17% of recent Mexican immigrants have some college or more, up from 13% in 1990.

# 4 The entire world is better educated.

The improved levels of education of recently arrived immigrants partly reflects rising education levels worldwide. In 2010, 45% of the world’s population had attended secondary school, up from less than 20% in 1960. Half of 20 to 24 year olds in Mexico graduated from high school compared to less than 10% in 1965. In 2013, 23% of new arrivals did not have a high school degree compared to 50% in 1970.

Still, the share of recent arrivals without a high school education is higher than native-born Americans. Native born Americans with at least high school degree rose steadily since 1970, when about 40% did not have a high school degree. Today, 10% of native-born Americans do not have a high school degree.

The educational profile of all Hispanics in the U.S. remains low, due to the low formal education of previous waves of Hispanic immigrants. “1990 and 2014, the percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who completed at least a high school diploma or its equivalent increased for Whites (from 90 to 96 percent), Blacks (from 82 to 92 percent), Hispanics (from 58 to 75 percent), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (from 92 to 97 percent).” Go here.

California has enacted a phased introduction of a $15 an hour minimum wage. Is this law especially helpful for immigrant workers, who are disproportionately represented among low-wage workers?

The Golden state’s employed workforce of 18 million is 34% foreign-born, compared to employment nationwide which is 16% foreign born. An estimated 2 million-plus workers in California are undocumented. Median household income figures (for the entire country) indicate that foreign born workers earn less than native born workers, and for California’s largest by far immigrant population, Mexicans, they earn much less.

Let’s do a very preliminary, very incomplete analysis by looking at several of California’s largest occupations. This analysis can’t be relied on except to strongly suggest that immigrants may be greatly affected by a major minimum wage increase.

The analysis assumes that all positions in the jobs cited below are covered by the $15 minimum.

The median wage in the state in 2015 was $19.15, per federal surveys. The state’s minimum wage as of January 1, 2016 was $10.00 an hour. (The national median wage was $17.40, and minimum wages vary by state.)

Let’s start with maids and housekeeping cleaners (37-2021). In 2015 102,000 Californians worked in this job paying, in California, a median hourly wage of $11.12. Assuming that the $15 wage will come in overnight – which it will not, and all are at the median wage – which they are not, a 34% increase in hourly wage will give these workers an $804 million annual earnings boost. Nationwide, 49% of these workers were estimated in 2009 – 2011 to be foreign born, and half of them were estimate to be illegal. I cannot find an estimate of the foreign born share of jobholders in California.

The same analysis for jobs with very large immigrant share could be done for cooks (California median wage $11.89/hr, 30% immigrant share nationwide) and janitors and building cleaners ($12.40/hr, 27% share).

To make a sharp contrast, let’s look at the state’s pool of 212,000 secretaries and administrative assistants, whose 2015 media hourly wage was $18.43. Using the same simplistic assumptions above, the $15 minimum wage will benefit no one. Nationwide, 8% of these workers are immigrant and less than 1% are undocumented. The same analysis could be done for construction laborers (median wage in California, $18.16/hr, 34% immigrant share nationwide).

For waiters (California median wage $11.19, 16% immigrant share nationwide) the immigrant share matches the total immigrant share in the economy.

 

The NY Times’ Upshot section published an online interactive map which shows how migration into and out of each state between 1900 and 2012. You select the state and then the in or out migration view.

After browsing through some twenty states I was struck by how the foreign born in-migration experience changes dramatically over time. The periods of large foreign born in migration have deeply influenced the popular historical image of the state; these images persist for generations.

Minnesota in 1900 had 29% of its population foreign born and 51% in-state born. In 1960, 5% of the population was foreign born and 77% in-state born. (The balance of 18% were born in other states.) Prairie Home Companion profiles a Scandinavian-rooted community today, when 8% of the population is foreign born and I expect that very few of these are Scandinavian. As recently as 1990, only 3% of the population was foreign-born; it was up to 8% in 2012.

Massachusetts was a high immigrant state in 1900, when 30% of the population was foreign-born and 55% was in-state born. The foreign born percentage declined until 1970, when it was 10%, and has since increased to 18%. Massachusetts is associated historically with Irish immigration, and that’s how it was in many TV series and crime novels. In the new wave, Latin Americans and Caribbeans dominate. Thus, one of Boston’s current election commissioners, Dion Irish, is from Antiqua and Barbuda.

Several states with a popular image of a melting pot have had relatively high foreign-born percentages throughout. All states experienced a reduction during the middle decades. But New York in 1970 had a relative high of 13% foreign born in 1970. In 1900 it was, and in 2912 it was 26% and 24%. New Jersey qualifies as a steady foreign-born state, under the shadow of its neighbor.

California’s foreign-born population at its lowest share was in 1960, at 9%. In 1900 it was 25% and in 2012 it was 28%. California’s immigration image is diluted by the fact that it has had throughout a relatively high percentage of residents born in other states; in 1940, only 36% of the population was in-state born compared, say, to Ohio, in which the in-state born population persisted almost above 70%. California’s image is less immigrant driven, as Arizona’s and Florida’s, of massive in-migration from other states.

Texas never had a foreign born percentage over 10% until after 1990.

Some states have no popular image of immigrants because of persistently low foreign-born populations. The foreign born population never rose above 5%, and historically were 2% or less, In Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. The in-state born share in these states has generally persisted above 80%.

There are no states with a recently acquired image of a large foreign-born population, because much of the growth in foreign-born residence outside the top states (New York, Jersey, California and Florida) has been scattered among many states, which grew their foreign born population dramatically since 1980 but none had in 2012 over 15% of its population foreign-born except Nevada. States like North Carolina and Maryland saw huge growth but they started with very low percentages.

The Pew Research Center reports  on changes in the undocumented workforce in America: “the U.S. unauthorized immigrant workforce now holds fewer blue-collar jobs and more white-collar ones than it did before the 2007-2009 recession, but a solid majority still works in low-skilled service, construction and production occupations.” The undocumented workforce in 2012 is estimated at 8.1 million.

 

“The size of the unauthorized immigrant labor force did not change from 2007 to 2012, but its makeup shifted slightly. The number of unauthorized immigrants in management or professional related jobs grew by 180,000, while the number in construction or production jobs fell by about 475,000, mirroring rises and declines in the overall U.S. economy. The share of all unauthorized immigrant workers with management and professional jobs grew to 13% in 2012 from 10% in 2007, and the share with construction or production jobs declined to 29% from 34%.

 

“In 2012, 62% held service, construction and production jobs, twice the share of U.S.-born workers who did. The 13% share with management or professional jobs is less than half of the 36% of U.S.-born workers in those occupations.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is battling on behalf of injured undocumented workers, according to an article in the Nation:

“On Monday [March 16, 2015] at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a division of the Organization of American States, activists presented the stories of the undocumented to demand accountability from a government that they say systematically abets injury and abuse. The National Employment Law Project (NELP), the ACLU and other advocates, argued before the IACHR that a combination of regressive court rulings, draconian immigration enforcement, and restrictive state policies turn the law into a source of further trauma for harmed workers.

The ACLU highlighted the case of Zumaya as an example of how worker safety and health is undermined by the malign neglect of these policies. The root of these problems, they say, is the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, which laid the legal foundation for Zumaya’s hard landing in 2002. The court ruled that an undocumented worker who is wrongfully fired is—because of his status—not entitled to back wages. (That is, the label branding these workers “illegal” becomes essentially a “get out of jail free” card for bosses who actually abuse the law themselves.)”

 

 

The American Farm Bureau today issued a report that forecasts declining production and higher imported food prices if immigration reform is not enacted.
The report, Gauging the Farm Sector’s Sensitivity to Immigration Reform via Changes in Labor Costs and Availability, looks at three policy options: (1) enforcement only, as today, (2) general legalization, and (3) guest worker program for agriculture.
The report says that “the hardest-hit domestic food sectors under an enforcement-only scenario are fruit production, which would plummet by 30-61 percent, and vegetable production, which would decline by 15-31 percent. The study also pointed out that while many consider fruit and vegetable production the most labor-reliant sector, livestock production in the U.S. would fall by 13-27 percent.”
“Over five years, an enforcement-only approach would lead to losses in farm income large enough to trigger large scale restructuring of the sector, higher food prices, and greater dependence on imported products.” Stallman said.
The report says that “For a number of reasons, agriculture serves as the bottom rung on the undocumented labor ladder. Many undocumented workers start working in agriculture but move on from agriculture as quickly as possible—particularly if/when changes in their legal status gives them entry into the labor market outside agriculture.”
The press release for the report is here.

The Center for Popular Democracy reports that:
Our review of 2003-2011 OSHA investigations of construction site accidents involving a fatal fall from an elevation revealed that Latinos and immigrants are disproportionately killed in fall accidents.
In 60% of the OSHA-investigated fall from an elevation fatalities in New York State, the worker was Latino and/or immigrant, disproportionately high for their participation in construction work.
In New York City, 74% of fatal falls were Latino and/or immigrant.
Narrowing further, 88% of fatal falls in Queens and 87% in Brooklyn involved Latinos and/or immigrants.
86% of Latino and/or immigrant fatalities from a fall from an elevation in New York were working for a non-union employer.
In 2011 focus groups, Latino construction workers reported fearing retaliation as a key deterrent to raising concerns about safety.
Its report, Fatal Inequality: Workplace Safety Eludes Construction Workers of Color, is available on its website.

The Migration Policy Institute reports on a settlement between the state of Alabama and plaintiffs who had tied up the implementation of HB 56, enacted in 2011 to crack down on undocumented persons. Plaintiffs prevented the law from being enforced through a suit in federal court and a federal Court of Appeals decision to enjoin the state from enforcing the law. The Supreme Court declined in April 2013 to review the decision. The state threw in the towel, signing a settlement on October 29. The text of the settlement is here.
This settlement might blow the winds out of the sails of those trying to pass draconian, anti- undocumented worker statutes. The Alabama statute was the most far-reaching such law. Per the MPI, Arizona led the charge in 2010 by enacting SB 1070, which served as the blueprint for this forceful new activism toward unauthorized immigrants, rooted in the idea of “attrition through enforcement.” Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah — quickly followed Arizona’s example in 2011.
The MPI says that under the settlement, Alabama state officials agreed to block components of HB 56 that would have:
Required K-12 public schools to collect information about the immigration status of their students
Made it a criminal offense for noncitizens to fail to carry their alien registration documents
Made it a crime for unauthorized immigrants to solicit work
Made it a criminal offense to offer a ride or rent housing to an unauthorized immigrant
Infringed on the ability of individuals to contract with an unauthorized immigrant.
In addition to agreeing to block these provisions, the state will pay organizations that brought the lawsuit — including the Southern Poverty Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigration Law Center, and Mexican American Legal and Education Defense Fund — $350,000 for attorney fees and expenses incurred in the litigation.
The MPI goes on to say that in the months leading up to the Alabama settlement, federal courts have been inhospitable to state omnibus immigration enforcement laws.

Common sense suggests that Limited English Proficiency among the 15 million or so immigrant workers who work in average or about average risky jobs contributes to the rate of injury. It’s impossible to document this because so many injuries sustained by immigrant workers, and undocumented workers especially, go un-reported.
A study looked national survey data and reported a close correlation between LEP and working in higher injury risk jobs.
“Our results indicate that differences in observable characteristics, such as English ability and education, play important roles in the tendency of immigrants to work in riskier jobs. Workers’ ability to speak English is inversely related to their industry injury and fatality rates, indicating that immigrants who speak English fluently work in safer jobs. The CDC (2008) attributed the high number of work-related deaths among foreign-born Hispanics in part to inadequate knowledge of safety hazards and inadequate training and supervision of workers, which are often exacerbated by language and literacy problems. Our findings bolster such calls for more safety training in languages other than English (National Research Council 2003).”
Source:
Do Immigrants Work in Riskier Jobs? Orrenius P et al. Demography. 2009 August; 46(3): 535–551. Found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831347/

Teri Hale, work works at UL Workplace Health and Safety, posted a valuable commentary on the work injury risks of language barriers. Her posting, Training in native language improves likelihood of retention – and helps create safer workplaces, capture the problems well.
Here is her posting in full:
People learn, understand and retain information best if it is taught to them in their native language.
If you have ever visited a foreign country where you speak little or none of the language, you know how confusing it can be.
In terms of safety training, comprehension increase when learners can give their complete attention to the content without first needing to mentally convert the information into their first language. From the beginning of the course, the learner is focused on the subject matter, not on trying to translate and interpret the material.
Misinterpretation can lead to lower productivity, lost revenue and more seriously, injury and loss of life. This is especially true in high-risk sectors such as manufacturing, oil and gas exploration, and construction. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that language barriers are a contributing factor in 25 percent of job-related accidents. Moreover, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that fatal injury rates were 69 percent higher for foreign-born Hispanic workers than for native-born Hispanic workers (who tend to have a better grasp of English).
In 2010, OSHA announced an initiative in which it directed compliance officers to observe whether employers provide employees safety training in a language they understand. Employers who fail to properly train their employees are subject to citations and penalties.
While OSHA cannot mandate that safety training be given in any language other than English, the agency seeks to protect workers who speak English as a second language. This is especially true for employers with a largely Hispanic workforce. OSHA has a compliance assistance website for Spanish-speakers and other resources for Hispanic workers and employers.
Earlier this year, OSHA extended similar training protections to temporary workers. Field inspectors are expected to assess whether employers who use temporary workers are complying with their responsibilities under the OSH Act. The initiative follows on the heels of a spike in reports of temporary workers suffering fatal injuries on the job. In many cases, OSHA reports, the employer either provided inadequate safety training or failed to provide it at all.
To ensure the safety of your workforce, and to avoid potential liability under OSHA’s initiative, it’s imperative to offer training in employees’ native language and take steps to ensure that all safety practices are explained in an easily understood manner. Translating existing training materials from English to Spanish (and other languages, as needed) is a cost-effective solution.
–
Maximize the impact of your training program with eLearning created for YOUR workplace, including native language training and custom branded courses.
.