A comprehensive study by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution yields striking results on the relationship between immigration and unemployment. The researchers examined every state comparing unemployment figures and foreign-born populations from 1900 to 1989. Their findings were unequivocal: the median unemployment rate was higher in states with relatively little immigrant presence. If anything, unemployment seemed negatively associated with immigration—the more immigrants, the less unemployment; immigration does not cause unemployment.19
The study gave particular attention to the effects of recent immigrants, and concluded that even recent waves of immigration have reduced joblessness. In response to the current debate over immigration, the researchers performed an analysis that looked exclusively at the 1980s. They looked at the ten states with the highest unemployment, compared them with the ten states with the lowest unemployment, and found that the immigrant population (defined as foreign-born) in the high unemployment states was much lower than in the low unemployment states. Then they looked at the ten states with the largest proportion of immigrants, compared their unemployment rates with the ten states with the smallest immigrant population, and found that the typical unemployment rate in the states with low immigration was nearly one-third higher than in the states with relatively high immigration.20 Of course, one might wonder if the causal relationship between high immigration and low unemployment could work in the other direction—namely, whether high unemployment states simply attract fewer immigrants. But that relationship has been discounted by others.21
Anecdotal evidence of individuals who are perceived to have lost jobs due to immigration is more than offset by the less visible, positive employment effects that immigration provides. Immigration is not associated with higher unemployment. Instead, immigrants actually create more jobs than they take, thereby reducing the overall rate of unemployment and producing increased employment opportunities for immigrants and native workers alike.22
b. New York
In its own survey of labor market studies in New York City, the Department of Labor concluded that immigrants did not have a negative impact on the employment or wage rates of native workers. For example, African Americans tended to be concentrated in employment areas with few immigrant workers, thereby decreasing the chance for competition from immigrants. And although wage growth in the industries with the greatest numbers of immigrants fell behind the national average in the early 1980s, the rest of the New York City labor market had higher wage growth than the rest of the nation. Most male immigrants, for example, were employed in manufacturing jobs—female immigrants were even more likely to be so employed. Some industries, such as leather and garment producers, were dominated by low-wage immigrant workers who had been used by business owners as a means to remain competitive. Many whites had left the city, allowing for the movement of African Americans into white-collar and public sector jobs.23
The availability and use of low-wage immigrant workers in New York City raise the question of whether immigrants deserve credit for the viability of certain industries or whether better alternatives exist. Immigrants have been credited with the continued viability of the traditionally labor-intensive garment and printing industries, although capital improvements were possibly avoided, and some piecework projects reinstituted, as small business and production sites increased. Similarly, the Department of Labor credits immigrants with the vitality of full service, fresh food restaurants in New York. Without immigrant workers, the food industry in New York would have followed the trend in other regions toward domination by fast-food outlets.24
The New York City data (and that of Los Angeles, below) do raise concerns. First, the Latino concentration in manufacturing raises a question about the perpetuation of Latinos in this low-wage sector. Opportunities in other sectors may be limited if ethnic networks are limited, and few “role models” for other occupations are available. The second concern is over the concentration of African Americans in public sector employment. Reliance on that sector as a means for economic advancement may be shaky given government budgetary problems and consequent limited expansion of the public sector.
c. Los Angeles
Although one-third of its population is foreign-born and accounts for as much as 70 percent of the employment growth, immigration does not have a negative impact on job opportunities for native workers in Los Angeles either. However, new arrivals do have a slight adverse effect on earlier groups of immigrants. The group that may suffer from Mexican migration is the rest of the Latino labor force. Job growth in Mexican-dominated industries, such as manufacturing, was 25 percent less than the national average in the 1970s; Latino wage growth was 40 percent less. Latino immigrants in particular hold jobs in manufacturing (e.g., textile, apparel, and furniture).
At the same time, African American job opportunities seemed to have expanded, particularly in the white-collar sector. As in New York, African Americans in Los Angeles have experienced noticeable employment gains in the public sector. Both African American teenagers and adults experienced a job rate increase larger than the national average through the early 1980s. Their wages increased faster than the state average, even in blue-collar work with large proportions of immigrants. Despite a concern over increased joblessness among young or less educated African Americans, the presence of immigrants increased the earnings and opportunities of African Americans who were employed.25
Thus, immigrants may create more jobs than they take in fields such as communications and utilities, but take more jobs than they create in manufacturing, retail trade, and restaurants in places like Los Angeles and New York. The effect is a “redistribution” of jobs for native workers away from manufacturing and lower-skilled services toward the white-collar sector, particularly in management and the professions. By 1993, almost a quarter of African Americans, but only one in ten Latinos working in Los Angeles held professional or managerial positions.26
Specific research on less skilled workers in the West provides a better understanding of the effect of less skilled immigrants on wages. By comparing wages among less skilled workers in other parts of the country, one finds that the increase of less skilled Latino and Asian immigrants in the West adversely affects the wages of natives. But through immigration, the West has maintained a steady supply of low-wage workers, which helps to explain why wages will not rise as much. In New England, for example, rising schooling levels has reduced the supply of unskilled workers over the past twenty years, which in turn raises wages among unskilled workers.27
d. Miami
For almost four decades Cubans have migrated to Miami, creating what the Department of Labor terms a “premier example of the formation of ethnic enclaves.”28 Cubans, however, are not a stereotypical group of low-wage immigrant workers. Through financial and social assistance from friends and families, about 20 percent of Cubans in Miami prior to 1980 were business managers or professionals. The ethnic enclave facilitated jobs and economic development for new arrivals, while those who ventured out of the enclave experienced lower earnings linked in part to language problems.
In one study of the effect of the “Mariel Boatlift” on Miami (discussed more fully in chapter 7), economist