At the heart of the debate over illegal immigration
lies one key question: are immigrants good or bad for the economy? The American
public overwhelmingly thinks they’re bad. Yet the agreement among most
economists is that immigration, both legal and illegal, provides a small net
boost to the economy. Immigrants provide cheap labor, lower the prices of
everything from farm produce to new homes, and leave consumers with a little
more money in their pockets. So why is there such a discrepancy between the
perception of immigrants’ impact on the economy and the reality?
There are a number of familiar theories. Some argue
that people are anxious and feel threatened by an inflow of new workers. Others
highlight the stress that undocumented immigrants place on public services,
like schools, hospitals, and jails. Still others emphasize the role of race,
arguing that foreigners add to the nation's fears and insecurities. There’s
some truth to all these explanations, but they aren’t quite sufficient.
To get a better understanding of what’s going on,
consider the way immigration’s impact is felt. Though its overall effect may be
positive, its costs and benefits are distributed unevenly. David Card, an
economist at UC Berkeley, notes that the ones who profit most directly from
immigrants’ low-cost labor are businesses and employers —meatpacking
plants in Nebraska, for instance, these producers’ savings probably translate
into lower prices at the grocery store, but how many consumers make that mental
connection at the checkout counter? As for the drawbacks of illegal immigration,
these, too, are concentrated. Native low-skilled workers suffer most from the
competition of foreign labor. According to a study by George Borjas, a Harvard
economist, immigration has reduced the wages of American high-school dropouts
by 9%.
Among high-skilled, better-educated employees,
however, opposition was strongest in states with both high numbers of
immigrants and relatively generous social services. What worried them most, in
other words, was the financial burden of immigration. That conclusion was
reinforced by another finding: that their opposition appeared to soften when
that financial burden decreased, as occurred with welfare reform in the 1990s,
which curbed immigrants’ access to certain benefits.
The irony is that for all the overexcited debate, the
net effect of immigration is minimal. Even for those most acutely
affected — say, low-skilled workers, or California
residents — the impact isn’t all that dramatic. “The unpleasant
voices have tended to dominate our perceptions,” says Daniel Tichenor, a
professor at the University of Oregon. “But when all those factors are put
together and the economists calculate the numbers, it ends up being a net
positive, but a small one.” Too bad most people don’t realize it.
1.What can we learn from the first paragraph?
A．Whether
immigrants are good or bad for the economy has been puzzling economists.
B．The American
economy used to thrive on immigration but now it’s a
different story.
C．The agreement
among economists is that immigration should not be encouraged.
D．The general
public thinks differently from most economists on the impact of immigration.
2.What is the chief concern of native high-skilled,
better-educated employees about the inflow of immigrants?
A．It may change
the existing social structure.
B．It may pose a
threat to their economic status.
C．It may
decrease .their financial burden.
D．It may place
a great pressure on the state budget.
3.What is the irony about the debate over immigration?
A．Even
economists can’t reach an agreement about its impact.
B．Those who are
opposed to it turn out to benefit most from it.
C．People are
making too big a fuss about something of small impact.
D．There is no
essential difference between seemingly opposite opinions.
4.Which of the following might be the best title of
the passage?
A．A debate
about whether to immigrate.
B．A debate
about the impact of illegal immigrants.
C．The great
impact of immigrants on the economy.
D．Opposition to
illegal immigration.