Immigration Study Urges New Curbs and Criteria

By PATRICK J. McDONNELL

Sept. 15, 1997 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Sounding an alarm about heavy immigration, a new study warns that an increasingly skill-based California economy cannot continue to absorb large flows of poorly educated immigrants--who in turn pose a growing strain on public services while driving U.S.-born workers out of the state.

The study by Rand Corp., the Santa Monica-based think tank, provides a sweeping analysis of immigration into California during the past 30 years and offers several provocative recommendations.

The report, to be released today, calls on Congress to reduce new legal admissions to a “moderate range”--somewhere between the 300,000 annual average of the 1970s and the 1990s median of about 800,000; to regulate future flows in accordance with changing conditions--allowing the flexibility to curb immigration during times of high unemployment; and to add education levels and English proficiency as admission criteria to a preference system now heavily based on family ties.

Driving the need for such changes, the Rand study says, are fundamental shifts in the economy of California, home to more than one-quarter of the nation’s immigrants. The state is moving away from low-skilled jobs in manufacturing and other sectors, the report notes, and toward service and technology industries in which employers place a premium on a highly educated work force.

Despite this transformation, the study states, almost half of all immigrants to California are from Mexico and Central America, a region that sends among the least-educated new arrivals. Legions now compete here in an increasingly tight low-wage labor market and face limited prospects for advancement.

“There appears to be a growing divergence between current trends in the state’s economy and immigration policies that are producing a steady inflow of poorly educated immigrants,” write the two Rand specialists, Kevin F. McCarthy, a demographer, and Georges Vernez, an urban planner.

Quickly denouncing the study’s major recommendations were immigrant advocates and others who argue that low-skilled immigrants represent a vibrant and upwardly mobile economic force benefiting all Californians, working for wages that the U.S.-born would not accept.

“This sounds like think tank poppycock . . . think tank surrealism,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington-based umbrella group that advocates on behalf of immigrant issues. “It’s smart people thinking that the only thing the country needs is more smart people.”

California, where one in four residents are foreign-born--by far the nation’s highest such proportion--still enjoys benefits from immigration, acknowledge the Rand authors, who credit foreign settlers with helping to fuel sustained economic progress for more than two decades, until the recession of the early 1990s.

Population growth in California, long fueled by migrants from other states, is now largely driven by immigration. The number of foreign-born people residing in California doubled during the 1970s, then doubled again during the 1980s--and has continued to rise during the 1990s. On the whole, the study states, immigrants in California are just as productive as comparable U.S.-born workers, though they earn less than their non-immigrant counterparts.

But Rand found the shift toward higher-skill industries, combined with today’s generally less robust economy, is eroding advantages and creating a widening wage gap between U.S.-born and immigrant Californians even as state and local governments feel an increasing fiscal pinch. The greatest burden falls on the schools, where immigrants and their U.S.-born offspring have increased enrollment.

In comparison with other states, the study noted, California has immigrants who are generally younger, less educated, have higher fertility rates and are more likely to tap into tax-supported assistance. Rand singled out the many Indochinese refugees here as “exceptionally high users of public services,” including cash welfare, health aid and housing subsidies.

“Immigration has always been a mix of benefits and costs,” the authors state. “For California, more than for any other state, the balance is shifting to the cost side.”

The study calls on Washington to reimburse California and other affected states for the costs of educating and otherwise assisting immigrants. Gov. Pete Wilson has unsuccessfully sued Washington seeking such aid.

The Rand critique provides fresh ammunition for those favoring curbs on today’s historically high levels of legal immigration. The bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a prestigious government study group, has endorsed cuts approaching one-third of the total, but efforts to slash new admissions died in Congress last year amid pressure from business and ethnic organizations.

During fiscal 1996, according to government figures, about 900,000 people legally immigrated to the United States, and 65% of them gained entry because they were relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

One practical effect of the Rand recommendations, if implemented, would be to reduce family-based immigration, especially by people from Mexico, Central America, Haiti and other nations whose immigrants tend to be poorer and less educated than many from Asia and Europe.

To critics, the Rand assessment overlooks immigrants’ continued role in agriculture, manufacturing, the service and apparel sectors and sundry other industries. Contrary to the report’s central assumption, many argue that the need for low-skilled immigrant workers will continue to grow as the United States seeks to retain its competitive edge in a global economy where many employers prize a low-wage work force.

“It’s because of low-wage jobs and low-skilled workers that Los Angeles’ manufacturing sectors have been saved,” argued Gregory Rodriguez, a research fellow at Pepperdine’s Institute for Public Policy who authored a study last year concluding that Latino immigrants and their children were gradually moving into the middle class.

He criticized as elitist Rand’s suggestion that preference be given to would-be immigrants who speak English and have high education levels, as is now done in Canada but would be a marked departure from a U.S. process long linked to familial connections. “It’s saying we don’t want striving people anymore,” Rodriguez said.

But supporters call Rand’s ideas a logical response to continued large-scale influx that many contend is costing California taxpayers and taking jobs from U.S. natives. In a new estimate, Rand calculates that between 1% and 1.5% of California’s low-skill, native-born population has left the labor force since 1970--and in some cases has been driven out of the state--because of competition from immigrants.

“If our ambition as a country and a state is to maintain a top-flight economy, we have to have people who are trained and competent,” said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based group that seeks sharp reductions in immigration levels.

In contrast to the generally bleak outlook for poorly educated immigrants, the report said those with high school diplomas or advanced degrees will continue to do well.

The Rand report comes four months after an exhaustive study commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found that immigrants were a net benefit to the U.S. economy. But that study also concluded that taxpayers of certain immigrant-heavy states, especially California, were contributing more to pay for education and other public services used by immigrant households.

The 321-page Rand analysis does not make detailed distinctions between effects of legal and illegal arrivals in a state where about one in five immigrants is undocumented. But the authors say that should not skew results, because factors such as education level are paramount in determining economic status.

Sean Walsh, a spokesman for Gov. Wilson, said lack of differentiation was “troublesome” because illegal immigrants represent an “enormous” drain on the state treasury. And Walsh said the governor, who last month vetoed a $5-million legislative package to help naturalize citizens, rejects two Rand suggestions: that California augment naturalization efforts beyond the funding of English-language training, and that the state create a separate office of immigrant affairs.

The Rand experts agreed with the governor on the need to sustain efforts against illegal immigration. But the study also found that Mexico, the single largest source of immigrants to California, is a “special case,” and should be treated differently. One suggestion: Adjust the number of legal immigrant slots for Mexico in exchange for Mexico City’s collaboration on border enforcement.

The study was funded principally by several private foundations.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Immigrant Profile

Here are the education levels and English language abilities for all California immigrants based one 1990 U.S. Department of Commerce data.

Country of Origin: U.K./Canada

Median Years of Schooling: 14.3

% Who Speak English Well: 99.4%

Country of Origin: Europe

Median Years of Schooling: 13.8

% Who Speak English Well: 88.2%

Country of Origin: Japan/Korea/China

Median Years of Schooling: 14.6