PERSPECTIVE ON IMMIGRATION : Clearing Up the Myths and Misperceptions : Illegal immigrants are a serious California problem that needs addressing, but not with national ‘reforms.’

Over the past two years, immigration has been transformed into a wedge issue, one that, like crime, race and abortion, taps into popular passions and defines essential political values. This transformation has moved the debate beyond the Beltway and the elites that once dominated it to a far larger political and public audience. But the opinions of these larger audiences are being shaped by impressions, emotions and flawed studies and not by hard facts. As a result, reforms are being proposed that address perceptions rather than reality.

What are some of the basic facts that should guide our thinking and policy on this issue?

The policy context. Immigration policy needs to be viewed not as one but three separate policies: the admission of legal immigrants on family- and work-related grounds; humanitarian admissions, principally refugees and asylees, and the control of illegal immigration through border and workplace enforcement.

The distinction is important because the focus on our failure to control illegal immigration has led many to view immigration as a whole in a negative light. As a result, the strengths of our legal and humanitarian admissions policies have been obscured and the standards we should use to evaluate them have been lost.

The immigrant population. We need to be clear about the characteristics of current immigration flows. The most commonly noted is their scale: More immigrants entered the United States in the 1980s (10 million) than during any decade in our history. Less frequently noticed is that the share of the population that is foreign-born (8%) is one-half what it was at the turn of the century (15%).

In addition to their scale, what is striking about current flows is their concentration and pace: A mere six states are home to 75% of all immigrants; 93% live in urban areas. In terms of pace, almost half of the immigrant population was not here 10 years ago. The apparent failure of many immigrants to integrate rapidly--to speak English well, for example--has more to do with their recent arrival than their abilities or separatist inclinations.

Contrary to popular belief, most immigrants are here with the nation’s express consent. Of the 19.7 million foreign-born counted by the 1990 Census, more than half were legal permanent residents, one-third were naturalized citizens and roughly 13% were here illegally.

Illegal immigration. The nature and scale of illegal immigration are broadly misunderstood. The flow is, for the most part, circular, with most leaving soon after arrival. Thus, the most useful measure is the number of illegal immigrants who enter and stay, or about 200,000 to 300,000 per year, not the 1.5 million apprehensions of illegal immigrants that take place along the southern border. Thus, in an annual immigration flow of 1.1 million, illegal immigrants represent about one-quarter, not the 75% that public opinion polls report that many Americans believe.

Less than half of the country’s illegal immigrants cross the southern border clandestinely; most enter legally and overstay their visas and most (two-thirds) are not Mexican.

That said, almost half of the nation’s 3.5 million illegal immigrants live in California, one-quarter of them in Los Angeles County. This means that California’s immigrants are more likely to be poor and illegal than is the case for the country as a whole.

Immigrant “quality.” A perception that the new immigrants, who are preponderantly from poor Latin American and Asian countries, are less educated than their European predecessors has led to complaints about the declining quality of recent immigrants and to calls for reduced immigration. How accurate are these perceptions, and does a policy shift toward restriction make sense?

The key here is to distinguish among immigrants on the basis of whether they enter as legal immigrants, refugees or illegals. Legal immigrants generally have high education levels and are substantially more likely to have a college degree than native-born Americans. But the education levels of refugees and illegal immigrants fall below those of natives.

Another measure of “quality” that is often used is income. The average incomes of both legal immigrant and refugee households that entered the United States before 1980 are higher than those of natives. The poverty rate for these groups is no higher than for natives. As for legal immigrants and refugees arriving after 1980, a larger share is poor (23% versus 12% for natives).

It is frequently claimed that immigrants are more likely to be on welfare than are natives. In an absolute sense, this is true: The census indicates that 4.7% of immigrants are on welfare, versus 4.2% of natives. But welfare use among immigrants is highly concentrated among two vulnerable populations: refugees, who usually arrive without family or job networks and require immediate assistance, and the elderly, who receive SSI because they have not worked here long enough to qualify for Social Security.

Working-age immigrants are substantially less likely to use welfare than are natives (3.7% versus 3.2%), and recently arrived working-age immigrants are even less likely to use welfare.

Welfare use among illegal immigrants is so low as to be undetectable, primarily because they are barred from virtually all benefit programs.

What do these facts mean for policy? First, fix only what is broken. Legal immigrants appear to be doing well. Illegal immigration needs to be stopped not just at the border, but also by addressing the problem of visa overstayers. And, while California’s immigration troubles are important to the nation, they are unique and should not dictate the nation’s policy.

Finally, because welfare use among immigrants is concentrated among two vulnerable, legally admitted populations, curbing immigrant access to public benefits may yield lower savings than many admit and will have a negligible impact on illegal immigration.

The Legal Majority

Legal status of the foreign-born population in 1990:

Permanent residents (45%): 8.8 million

Naturalized citizens (33%)

Undocumented alien (13%)

Refugees and Asylees (6%)

Other legal (4%)

Note: Numbers do not add up to 100% because of rounding.

Source: Urban Institute