From an economic standpoint, the case is clear: immigration is very good for economic growth. The macro scale effect is pronounced, sticky, and it takes a spectacularly failed immigration policy to undo it.
I think that this is in question. Even in the short term, many of the employers that rely on low-wage labor encourage employees to seek transfer payments to make up the difference. Moreover, there are substantial costs associated with additional infrastructure use, education of ESL students, support of multiple languages in public and private communications, and enforcing laws on a larger and less homogeneous population.
To my knowledge, nobody has done the exact math yet, but given the fairly consistent unpopularity of increased migration rates and the relative public apathy towards corporate subsidies, I would not be surprised if it were less costly, in both economic and political terms, to simply provide a government-backed discount to the cost of domestic labor directly.
In the longer term (12 years, as opposed to 12 months), I think the stability and human capital costs of current youth unemployment alone vastly outweigh the costs of paying 20-30 percent more for labor. Moreover, quality of work is a factor—I’ve already seeing pretty substantial tech debt at major companies in the wake of mass H1B visa abuse(the causation is anecdotal, but consistent with the experience of every other programmer I’ve spoken to on the subject), and newer-build homes have a reputation for vastly poorer quality than Americans are used to.
Edit: It is worth noting that even AEI, a Bush Conservative think tank with a generally pro-migration tack, acknowledges the above (see section “Why not just bring in more immigrants?”).
I think that this is in question. Even in the short term, many of the employers that rely on low-wage labor encourage employees to seek transfer payments to make up the difference. Moreover, there are substantial costs associated with additional infrastructure use, education of ESL students, support of multiple languages in public and private communications, and enforcing laws on a larger and less homogeneous population.
To my knowledge, nobody has done the exact math yet, but given the fairly consistent unpopularity of increased migration rates and the relative public apathy towards corporate subsidies, I would not be surprised if it were less costly, in both economic and political terms, to simply provide a government-backed discount to the cost of domestic labor directly.
In the longer term (12 years, as opposed to 12 months), I think the stability and human capital costs of current youth unemployment alone vastly outweigh the costs of paying 20-30 percent more for labor. Moreover, quality of work is a factor—I’ve already seeing pretty substantial tech debt at major companies in the wake of mass H1B visa abuse (the causation is anecdotal, but consistent with the experience of every other programmer I’ve spoken to on the subject), and newer-build homes have a reputation for vastly poorer quality than Americans are used to.
Edit: It is worth noting that even AEI, a Bush Conservative think tank with a generally pro-migration tack, acknowledges the above (see section “Why not just bring in more immigrants?”).