Student’s name
Word count = 607
Analyzing the impact of immigrant restrictions
The debate on immigration has raged in the US since the arrival of the first batch of European settlers from England. America is a country of immigrants, although recent restrictions have tried to limit the number of people moving into the US. Public debates have tried to establish the economic impact of letting foreigners offer their labor and skills or pushing them out. However, impact analysis revealed that the original purge of foreigners in the early 20th century resulted in the remaining American born workforce experienced a significant reduction in income. With this debate still raging on, researchers have established that migrants are a huge contributor to the USA’s economic development, with the labor force participation rate in 2018 alone standing at over 65 percent, a figure significantly higher than that of natives (Sherman et al.). While some experts warned that cheap foreign labor resulted in low wages for Americans, others noted that they complemented the skilled American workforce (Abramitzky et al. 1).
The constant American paranoia with immigrants recently witnessed with strict regulations enacted by President Donald Trump comes in the backdrop of similar fears in the 1920s. In the 1920s, the government introduced quotas, which cut the large labor force significantly. Technically, this was also interference into the basic law of economics in a free market. The free supply of labor that could spur economic development by reducing the cost of production was affected; this naturally means that workers’ earnings would rise. However, the unusual observations of reduction in earnings are attributed to the movement down the occupational ladder for the natives. According to Sherman et al., most immigrants work jobs that are despised by locals or don’t require high skill levels. These jobs also pay poorly; thus, immigration’s deportation or restriction would force locals to do such jobs.
Interference of the government in trade assumes that cutting off immigration to avail jobs to locals could increase the locals’ income. However, this situation has proved that the market tends to remain constant as corporations are reluctant to pay more for the same labor. Boustan notes that only other Americans from other towns benefit from finding new jobs in towns that experience quotas. This situation proves that the government should have reasonable control of economies since their interventions don’t lead to massive positives for their citizens.
According to Boustan, Mexican migrants were not included in the quotas but had to pay more to enter the US. Other countries that were not lucky had their immigrant numbers cut by over ninety percent. However, the Mexicans are vital to the economy since they entered and worked in rural areas in agricultural establishments. CBS News notes that most Americans are reluctant to work available farm labor despite the constant unemployment complaints. The labor department notes that close to half of the existing labor force in farms are illegal immigrants (CBS News). This essentially means that illegal migrants feed the nation. This could be a dilemma for authorities as deporting these workers who are poorly remunerated could increase the process of food products as farmers compensate for spiked legal wages.
Additionally, experts downplay immigrants’ contribution to agriculture and note that mechanization can have the same effect and keep costs low. However, Boustan notes that some essential crops are difficult to manage with machines. This discussion should also explore the environmental impact of massively mechanizing farms concerning sustainability. The government budget on financial management should be factored in to discover such a move’s aggregate impact.
Works cited
CBS News. “Despite Economy, Americans Don’t Want Farm Work.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, September 27 September 27, 2010.
Sherman, Arloc, et al. “Immigrants Contribute Greatly to US Economy, Despite Administration’s ‘Public Charge’Rule Rationale.” Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 15 (2019).