Why Argue Against the Facts?

Immigration is good for the economy. Both Philip E. Wolgin and Alex Nowrasteh came to an agreement on that point. In fact, Wolgin pointed out that economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship are all positive economic effects of immigration. Furthermore, both Wolgin and Nowrasteh argued that immigrants were more complimentary workers to that of the average American, in that they take the jobs Americans usually don’t seek out. Nowrasteh also mentioned that supposing all immigration barriers were removed, world output would increase from $35 trillion to $105 trillion, as immigrants are often more productive in their destination countries. Should we implement immigration reform, Wolgin assumes there will be a “$1.2 trillion increase in GDP over 10 years, $625 billion increase in earnings of all American workers over 10 years, [and] 145,000 jobs per year over the next 10 years” (Wolgin). Looking at the data, it’s clear that immigration has positively impacted the economy. So why is it such a controversial topic in American politics?

Immigration has been constructed as a moral panic in the United States, creating a wave of nativism and the belief that immigrants are actually harming the economy. Kitty Calavita explores how this wave of nativism labels “immigrants as a tax burden” (Calavita 285). Furthermore, this moral panic has created the perception that immigrants are “an economic threat” (Calavita 285). Immigration has been made out to be a moral panic, but in reality, immigrants benefit the U.S. economy very well. Understanding immigration from an economic standpoint was a very interesting experience that presented a new way of looking at the political topic of immigration to me.