On the walls of Ellis Island is painted the complaint of an Italian immigrant: “I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, I found out three things: First, the streets weren’t paved with gold: second, they weren’t paved at all; and third, I was expected to pave them.”
While we hear of wildly successful immigrants, such as Andrew Carnegie (who went from a poor Scottish boy to a multi-millionaire), this is the exception, not the norm. Often, it isn’t the first generation of immigrants that sees great success. It’s their children.
In fact, first-generation immigrants have been shown to have a net cost in the short run. However, this approach to looking at immigration fails to consider the multi-generational benefits. Second-generation immigrants are among the strongest economic contributors in the United States, and their contributions exceed the costs of first-generation immigrants.
Yet current immigration enforcement practices are having detrimental effects on children of immigrants. Policy reform that focuses on social inclusion and community support services is necessary to help mitigate the negative effects of enforcement.
What are the current costs of immigration?
When looking at the costs of immigration, it is essential to understand where that money is going. First-generation costs of immigration primarily come from education. Education takes the most significant portion of state and local government budgets, and since first-generation immigrants have on average more children than second or third-generation immigrants, the costs of educating their children are higher than that of following generations. Of course, immigrants also pay taxes and contribute to their children’s education costs. In this sense, first-generation immigrants bear some of the costs of educating their children, the second generation.
Fundamentally, however, education is not just a cost. Educating the children of immigrants and young immigrants is an investment. Those same children that we pay to educate today contribute to our economy in the future. Understanding the portion of the bill associated with education-related costs from immigrants arriving in the US is significant. Not looking to the future is like treating your retirement savings as only a cost. Really, paying to educate children today is like contributing to your 401k or other retirement plan.
Education costs are often a major driver of the costs of immigration. One study of Florida by the Center for Immigration Studies found that about 89% of all state immigration costs are related to education. That is almost 90 cents of every dollar spent on immigrants. Florida’s spending illustrates a common trend among states, according to other immigration researchers. A national study by an anti-immigration group similarly puts state education costs at about two thirds, 63 percent, of the costs to state and local governments from immigration ($73 billion out of $115 billion). Education costs are 63 cents of every dollar of the so-called costs of immigration for states and local governments. Because education costs bear fruits over the long run, this makes snapshots of fiscal costs like FAIR’s fundamentally and largely misleading.
Still, the important truth is that critics of immigration are entirely correct that states and localities carry more of the cost than the federal government. If people move out of state, then those localities may also not recoup their investments. But there is a simple solution. The federal government can adopt policies that spread immigration costs more evenly over the country. Currently, state governments bear greater responsibility for paying immigration costs than federal governments.
Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson from the Brookings Institution propose that the federal government redistribute transfers of funds to communities that have higher fiscal costs due to immigration. These transfers would be $2,500 per immigrant. These transfers would go through already established federal funding channels so that the use of funds would be visible. Primarily, these funds would go through Impact Aid for education and federally qualified health centers to provide greater health access to immigrants.
As a country, we are investing a large amount of money to educate these children. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences in the US published research showing that when we take into account the multi-generational benefits of immigration, the children of immigrants are ultimately a blessing, not a burden. Either way, these children are contributing to our economy, but we want to focus on policies that best use the money we are spending. The question comes down to how we can make policies that maximize our investment in the children of immigrants.
Current immigration policies push immigrants into the shadows
As we already mentioned, policymakers should think about immigration and education spending like they think about investing in a 401k. Yes, if you invest in a 401k, then you can’t spend that money today. But you will see gains in the future. Snapshot cost estimates, like the one done by FAIR and displayed in the earlier graph, neglect this long-run view and so can be misleading without the right context.
Enforcement policies can have an effect similar to not contributing as much as you can to your 401k. You will still receive returns from your 401k when you retire, but they most likely won’t be as high as they could have been. Similarly, second generation immigrants still are huge contributors to the United States economy, but their contributions could be even more if we didn’t also have enforcement policies that are hindering our earlier efforts.
When it comes to immigration policies that encourage this second generation, we want to focus on pulling immigrants into the light, rather than pushing them into the shadows. Existing policies have resulted in limited English learning, education challenges, limited access to healthcare, psychological distress, and increased poverty rates among immigrants. Enforcement policies are essentially squandering the efforts the United States has made in education spending.
With an increase in immigration enforcement, undocumented parents are less likely to leave the house. This has a negative effect on their children because the parents themselves are less likely to learn English, and the children have fewer opportunities to learn and practice English outside of the home. Children of undocumented immigrants are also more likely to experience social isolation. With fewer opportunities to leave the house, they have fewer opportunities to make friends with their peers. Social isolation can be exacerbated by immigrant children refraining from discussing their fears to protect family members. They may also fear being targeted or stigmatized by their peers for their immigration status.
Another concerning consequence of immigration enforcement is that children are more likely to drop out of school to work. The need to support their family financially and other economic pressures can cause children to prioritize working over their education. Leaving school early can limit their opportunities, and it can perpetuate poverty cycles within immigrant families and communities.
Immigrant parents also have difficulty providing adequate medical care for their children. They are more likely to work in jobs that lack benefits. This often leads to limited access to healthcare. Families that are living in fear of deportation or separation are less likely to seek medical attention for their families. This leads to untreated illnesses, lack of vaccinations, and inadequate healthcare overall.
Immigration enforcement also causes high levels of psychological distress in children whose families are affected. The constant fear of separation and anxiety about the uncertainty of their status can create and exacerbate emotional and mental health issues for these children. With their limited access to healthcare, psychological distress can have long-lasting effects, well into adulthood.
Each of these individual causes plays into the issue of poverty within immigrant families. Fear of enforcement can further limit economic opportunities that are already inadequate. Individuals that are afraid of deportation may choose to stay home and work less. Times of deportation or detentions, combined with legal fees, strain family finances even more. Financial instability has many adverse effects on children, creating a cycle of generational poverty.
The long-term effects on immigrant children depend upon the number of enforcement episodes, the length of time of enforcement, and the age of the child. A comprehensive approach that focuses on policies promoting inclusion can help mitigate some of these challenges.
Good policies encourage assimilation, inclusion, and integration
On a federal scale, promoting inclusive policies should start with the redistribution of funds to states that carry most of the costs to high impact immigration areas. It’s vital that the federal government help cover costs that states carry because so much of it comes down to education. The education system is a powerful tool for integration. Federal funds can be distributed through existing federal networks and focus on the largest cost of each high-impact immigration area, such as education, healthcare, and legal representation.
At a local and state level, there are integration organizations across the country in every state. Charitable legal professionals are especially needed right now. On average in the United States, there are 1,413 undocumented immigrants for every professional. Some states have even higher numbers, such as Alabama, Hawaii, and Kansas. The New Americans Campaign is one such national network that provides legal resource centers for immigrants. They help with the naturalization process and provide support for immigrants seeking to become citizens of the United States.
Welcoming America is a national nonprofit organization. Aptly named, they focus on creating a network of nonprofits and local governments that are welcoming to all residents, including immigrants. For example, they partner with cities and towns to set up best practices for helping immigrants succeed—sometimes creating business incubators or helping immigrants find education and training programs.
Universities can also play a role in integrating immigrants. Centers for Inclusion and Belonging (CIB) are located on university campuses. They focus on increasing the engagement and success of underrepresented populations and supporting inclusive learning opportunities. They foster a sense of belonging by celebrating individuals' cultural identities.
Some states have created official offices to aid assimilation and integration. The Utah Center for Immigration & Integration is one such group that helps individuals navigate working in the US. For example, Utah’s legislature and integration office are leading a special effort to recognize foreign training and experience in licensed occupations (like medical fields or trades like electrical and plumbing).
The basic lesson from research on integration and assimilation is simple: an open hand goes farther than a closed fist. Heavy-handed enforcement risks wasting the investments that we make in immigrants and their children. In contrast, inclusive policies help us use our resources to their full benefit.
States and localities need more support from the federal government to share the costs of their integration efforts. There is also a need for individuals to reach out in their communities, as many already do through groups like Welcoming America.
Immigration policies that are welcoming go a long way towards supporting these second generation Americans as they become thriving contributors in our society.
 | A guest post by
|