Poverty and Immigration

Poverty and Immigration

INTRODUCTION
The following analysis compares changes in the immigrant population in poverty and in the size of the foreign-born population. In considering these data, it should be kept in mind that the immigrant household poverty data (including other family members who may be U.S. citizens by birth in households headed by immigrants) would raise the size of that population significantly.

Also missed in these data are the effects of the current wave of often poorly-skilled and poorly-educated immigrants on U.S. citizens and residents who also may be seeking the dwindling number of jobs that does not require higher skills and education. A final cautionary note in understanding the Census Bureau data is a reminder that they are derived from a sampling of households, and are likely to significantly underrepresent poor immigrants, especially those who are working illegally in this country.

To the extent that today’s mass immigration contributes to poverty in the United States, even if its effects are ameliorated by the current robust economy, it would be negligent to ignore that problem until it is again exacerbated by an economic downturn.

Below are poverty and immigration official statistics that indicate the linkage between the two. First is a focus on the trend (between the 1970 and 1990 Censuses) to demonstrate what has been happening since the current mass wave of immigration was unleashed by the fundamental change in immigration policy adopted in 1965. Then we look at more recent data to see how the trend has been influenced by the recent economic upturn. Bringing the analysis up to date is a brief discussion of the new poverty data released September 30, 1999.

Although the meaning of these poverty and immigration data may differ depending on one’s perspective, we offer some general observations. Finally we outline an agenda for action that could have a profound effect in reducing future poverty in the United States. Poverty elsewhere cannot be ignored, but we believe that our country will be a stronger contributor to the worldwide effort to combat poverty if it has diminished poverty at home.

THE RECENT TREND IN POVERTY AND IMMIGRATION
The decennial Censuses revealed that between 1969 and 1989 persons in poverty in the United States increased by 4.6 million. This was a 17 percent increase nationwide during these two decades, but the distribution of the increased poverty varied greatly throughout the country. Just 11 states accounted for an increase of 4.8 million persons living in povertymore than the total for the nation. For the other 39 states and the District of Columbia, the poverty numbers were either dropping or rising only slightly. Of course during this period, the overall population was rising also, but a large majority of the states demonstrated that this did not mean that the number of persons in poverty had to rise as well.

The 11 states and the change in poverty cases derived from the 1970 and 1990 Censuses were as shown below:

Individuals in Poverty
                   1969        1989	# Change  % Change	
Arizona           264,430     564,362     299,932   113.4%	
California	2,152,716   3,627,585   1,474,869    68.5%	
Colorado          263,224     375,214     111,990    42.5%	
Florida         1,088,225   1,604,186     515,961    47.4%	
Illinois        1,112,145   1,326,731     214,586    19.3%	
Michigan          819,438   1,190,698     371,260    45.3%	
New York        1,985,954   2,277,296     291,342    14.7%	
Ohio            1,041,348   1,325,768     284,420    27.3%	
Oregon            234,848     344,867     110,019    46.8%	
Texas           2,046,593   3,000,515     953,922    46.6%	
Washington        335,597     517,933     182,336    54.3%	
11 State Total 11,344,518  16,155,155	4,810,637    42.4%	
United States  27,124,985  31,742,864   4,617,879    17.0%	
11 State Share      41.8%       50.9%      104.2%

A glance at the states shows that they also include the major immigrant-settlement states (with the sole exception of New Jersey). To demonstrate this fact, the numbers of foreign-born in the same states in the 1970 and 1990 Censuses are shown below:

Foreign-Born Population
                   1969        1989	# Change  % Change	
Arizona            76,570     278,200     201,630   263.3%	
California      1,757,990   6,458,825   4,700,835   267.4%	
Colorado           60,311     142,434      82,123   136.2%	
Florida           540,284   1,662,601   1,122,317   207.7%	
Illinois          628,898     952,272     323,374    51.4%	
Michigan          424,309     355,393     -68,916   -16.2%	
New York        2,109,776   2,851,861     742,085    35.2%	
Ohio	          316,496     259,673     -56,823   -18.0%	
Oregon             66,149     139,307      73,158   110.6%	
Texas	          309,772   1,524,436   1,214,664   392.1%	
Washington        156,020     322,144     166,124   106.5%	
11 State Total	6,448,545  14,949,136	8,500,591   131.8%	
United States	9,619,302  19,767,316  10,148,014   105.5%	
11 State Share        67.0%     75.6%       83.8%

Only two of the 11 states with major increases in poverty did not have an increase in their foreign-born population over the two-decade period (Michigan and Ohio). Remember, however, that the number of persons in immigrant households in poverty could have increased without an increase in the foreign-born population (as noted above). Taken collectively, these eleven states that numerically accounted for all of the increased persons living in poverty also accounted for nearly seven-eighths of the nation’s increase in foreign-born residents over this period when the number of foreign-born residents more than doubled.

Three states had major decreases in their poverty population during this period. Alaska had a drop of about 134,000, Mississippi had a drop of about 136,000 and North Carolina a drop of about 166,000. The immigrant population increased in each of these states at the same time. However, the foreign-born population was very small in each case (4.5% for Alaska, 0.8% for Mississippi and 1.7% for North Carolina).

The fact that the states with major increases in their poverty populations largely coincide with the states that had major increases in their immigrant populations may have various explanations. One of them is not likely to be that immigrants were attracted to settle in those states because of the poverty.

POVERTY AND IMMIGRATION IN THE 1990s
The economic boom this decade and dropping unemployment should have diminished poverty. Between 1990 and 1996 about eight million additional workers entered the workforce and the unemployment rate fell from 5.6 percent to 5.4 percent. Yet the massive wave of immigration has continued unabated. If the continued stream of new low-skilled immigrants has suppressed reductions in the poverty rolls, it should be seen in more recent data. The data below come from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and show the trend in the same 11 states.

Persons in Poverty (000s)
                   1990        1996  # Change  % Change	
Arizona             484         980       496    102.5%	
California        4,128       5,472     1,344     32.6%	
Colorado            461         412       -49    -10.6%	
Florida           1,896       2,037       141      7.4%	
Illinois          1,606       1,429      -177    -11.0%	
Michigan            524         458       -66    -12.6%	
New York          2,571       3,058       487     18.9%	
Ohio              1,256       1,424       168     13.4%	
Oregon              267         382       115     43.1%	
Texas             2,684       3,180       496     18.5%	
Washington          434         668       234     53.9%	
11 State Total   16,311      19,500     3,189     19.6%	
US               33,582      36,530     2,948      8.8%	
11 State Share    48.6%       53.4%    108.2%

Overall, rather than declining, the number of persons in poverty increased by nearly nine percent from 1990 to 1996. And, despite the fact that in three of the 11 states the poverty level dropped, taken together, these same 11 states accounted for an increase in poverty that exceeded the national total increase in poverty. If these states had not had large influxes of new immigrants joining the poverty ranks, poverty in the United States could have decreased over this period.

Again, the data on the poverty population can be compared with the change in the foreign-born population. In this comparison, both data sets come from the CPS sampling. The data are not directly comparable to Census data, but they should represent a valid indication of the trend between the two data sets. It should be kept in mind that the poverty definition was changed so that the 1990 data is not entirely comparable to prior data.

The data for change in the foreign-born population since 1990 are shown below. The data from the CPS are all for 1996 (except for Colorado, Ohio and Oregon which show 1997 CPS calculations.)

Foreign-Born Population (000s)
                   1990        1996	# Change  % Change	
Arizona             278         472        194       69.8%	
California        6,459       8,056      1,597       24.7%	
Colorado            142         336        194      136.6%	
Florida           1,663       2,186        523       31.4%	
Illinois            952       1,062        110       11.6%	
Michigan            355         491        136       38.3%	
New York          2,852       3,232        380       13.3%	
Ohio                260         265          5        1.9%	
Oregon              139         299        160      115.1%	
Texas             1,524       2,080        556       36.5%	
Washington          322         386         64       19.9%	
11 State Total   14,946      18,865      3,919       26.2%	
US               19,767	     25,778      6,011       30.4%	
11 State Share    75.6%       73.2%	  65.2%

Again it can be seen that these states are the major settlement areas for new immigrants, accounting for about three-fourths of the nation’s entire foreign-born population and about two-thirds of the increase since 1990.

THE MOST RECENT POVERTY DATA
A new report on poverty in the United States was released September 30, 1999 reflecting data collected in the CPS in 1998. That report shows the poverty level dropping from the level one year earlier. The decline is widespread and includes the foreign-born population as well as native-born Americans. Clearly this demonstrates that despite continuing high-level immigration progress can be made on reducing poverty given the right economic circumstances.

Nevertheless, data in the report also point to the link between immigration and the persistence of poverty in this country. The foreign-born population was shown in this new data to have a poverty rate of 18 percent compared to 12.1 percent for native-born Americans. This nearly 50 percent higher poverty rate clearly shows the persistence of immigrant poverty despite one of the rosiest economies in recent times. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that these poverty data understate the role of immigrants in contributing to U.S. poverty, because the children living in poverty who are born here into immigrant households are included in the native-born American data. Finally, it should also be kept in mind that the foreign-born poverty population may compete for jobs with the native-born American population. That is to say, even when there is a tight labor market as employers are bemoaning today it is not enough to lift all of the poverty population out of poverty. This may be attributed, at least in part, to the decreasing number of low-skilled positions and the rising number of persons qualified only for those jobs. Clearly, a robust economy helps, but by itself it will not solve the problem.

A look at the new Census Bureau data shows that major immigrant settlement states continue to lag behind the nation in poverty data. Compared to the national average of 13 percent poverty, comparable levels for these states are:

California - 16.9%
New York - 14.7%
Texas - 15.9%
Florida - 13.7%
Arizona - 16.9%

Each of those major immigrant-settlement states (except Florida) continued to have a higher level of poverty in 1998 than it had in 1990. And Oregon and Washington both second-tier immigrant-settlement states had poverty rates in 1998 that were higher than they were 1990. Oregon’s poverty rate was higher than the national average, and Washington’s was lower.

While the economic good news should be savored, it should not distract us from considering what the consequences would have been had the economy been stagnant or in a downturn. Similarly, we should consider how our society would be strengthened if poverty were significantly lessened by stemming the flood of newcomers joining the ranks of the impoverished.

CONCLUSIONS
Observations that are prompted by the above data analysis include the following:

The large overlap of the two data sets and the persistence of the differential rates of poverty between high-immigration and low-immigration states point to the fact that many of the immigrants and their children are either joining the poverty ranks or they are contributing to the poverty of native Americans. There should be little doubt that both phenomena are occurring.
At the same time, it is clear from the data that not all new immigrants enter the poverty ranks. That may be seen in the data for California, where between 1970 and 1990 the foreign-born population rose three times faster than the poverty population, or in the national data, where the foreign-born population grew by more than twice the growth in the poverty ranks. It may also be seen by the major recent increase in the immigrant population in Colorado accompanied by a decrease in the poverty population. To a much lesser extent this is true as well for Illinois and Michigan.
It is also clear that states can experience an increase in poverty without an increase in immigration. The Michigan and Ohio “rust belt” states demonstrate this. And, finally, New Jersey demonstrated between 1970 and 1990 that a state can resist increased poverty while undergoing an increase in its foreign-born population (by 52%).
What can not be calculated from these data, is the job competition and wage depression effects of large numbers of new entrants into the low-wage workforce. Nevertheless, these effects exist and they impact Americans who are in or near poverty and are seeking greater opportunities for themselves and their children. Evidence of this trend is readily available from studies such as that of the building maintenance trade in Los Angeles or the recent complaint by the United Food and Commercial Workers union Local 1428 in Los Angles about the union-busting hiring practices of ethnic groceries that are sprouting up in immigrant communities.

A CALL FOR ACTION
Recognition that today’s immigration policy negatively affects national interests is not new. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, under the leadership of the late Barbara Jordan, clearly based its ambitious mid-1990s agenda for change on that fact. Even earlier, in the early 1990s, the U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers similarly called for immigration policy changes and expressed concern about the widespread poverty among agricultural laborers.

But Congress has largely turned a deaf ear to those recommendations, apparently choosing to listen instead to employers who benefit from low-wage foreign workers. An effort is currently underway in Congress to perpetuate and exacerbate this disturbing trend.

In the agricultural labor field, plans have been announced to enact a new guest worker program. This proposal is being pushed despite evidence that farmworkers have suffered declining real wages over the past decades and that there is high unemployment in areas of concentrated seasonal crop production.

Another proposed change in immigration law is to roll back some of the reforms adopted in 1996, such as the requirement that sponsors of immigrants be able to demonstrate that they have income of at least 125 percent of the poverty level. This is one of the only measures adopted recently that is designed to lessen the entry of new immigrants into conditions of poverty in this country. Its retraction would be a sorry mistake.

The agenda for change then must include both issues of what to avoid and what to do.

What to Avoid

No new guest worker program. It is not needed, and it would undermine wage and working conditions for America’s poorest workers.
No restoration of INA section 245(i). This provision is designed to reward illegal aliens by allowing them to convert to legal status and avoid any penalty for having broken our immigration law. It would signal that we are not serious about enforcing our immigration law, and that would invite additional illegal immigration.
No rollback of the requirement that sponsors of immigrants be financially able to be responsible for them.

What to Enact

Curtail the job magnet for illegal aliens by adopting a national, mandatory system of employer checks on the identity of all newly hired employees.
Reduce and restructure legal immigration to avoid disadvantaging the work opportunities for poor Americans.

FAIR, 10/99.