Key Findings of Research:

Impact on Aggregate Size of Economy

George Borjas , the nation's leading immigration economist estimates that the presence of immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year.

But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native­born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.

Impact on Wages and Employment

Using the standard to textbook model of the economy, Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States - from both legal and illegal immigration. This benefit is referred to as the immigrant surplus.

To generate the surplus of $35 billion, immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion.

The standard model predicts that the redistribution will be much larger than the tiny economic gain. The native­born workers who lose the most from immigration are those without a high school education, who are a significant share of the working poor.

The findings from empirical research that tries to examine what actually happens in response to immigration aligns well with economy theory. By increasing the supply of workers, immigration does reduce the wages for those natives in competition with immigrants.

Economists have focused more on the wage impact of immigration. However, some studies have tried to examine the impact of immigration on the employment of natives. Those that find a negative impact generally find that it reduces employment for the young, the less­educated, and minorities.

Immigrant Gains, Native Losses

Recent trends in the labor market show that, although natives account for the majority of population growth, most of the net gain in employment has gone to immigrants.

In the first quarter of 2013, the number of working­age natives (16 to 65) working was 1.3 million fewer than in the first quarter of 2000, while the number of immigrants working was 5.3 million greater over the same period. Thus, all of the employment growth over the last 13 years went to immigrants even though the native­born accounted for two­thirds of the growth in the working age population.

The last 13 years have seen very weak employment growth, whether measured by the establishment survey or the household survey. Over the same time period 16 million new immigrants arrived from abroad.6 One can debate the extent to which immigrants displace natives, but the last 13 years make clear that large­scale immigration does not necessarily result in large­scale job growth.

Fiscal Impact

The National Research Council (NRC) estimated in 1996 that immigrant households (legal and illegal) create a net fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) on all levels of government of between $11.4 billion and $20.2 billion annually.

The NRC also found that the fiscal impact of immigration depends heavily on the education level of the immigrant in question.

At the individual level, excluding any costs for their children, the NRC estimated a net lifetime fiscal drain of ­$89,000 (1996 dollars) for an immigrant without a high school diploma, and a net fiscal drain of ­$31,000 for an immigrant with only a high school education. However, more educated immigrants create a lifetime net fiscal benefit of +$105,000.

A just­released study from the Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an illegal immigrant used nearly $14,400 more in services than it paid in taxes, for a total fiscal drain of $55 billion.

The Heritage study is absolutely clear that the fiscal costs associated with illegal immigrant households is directly related to their educational attainment. They find that illegal immigrant have on average only 10 years of schooling.

Figure 2 at the end of this testimony illustrates the importance of education. For example, it shows that 59 percent of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school access one or more welfare programs, and 70 percent have no federal income tax liability. In contrast, 16 percent ofhouseholds headed by an immigrant with bachelor's degree access welfare and only 21 percent had no federal income tax liability.

In a study I authored for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level.

Illegal immigrants with little education are a significant fiscal drain, but less­educated immigrants who are legal residents are a much larger fiscal problem because they are eligible for many more programs. For this reason amnesty increases costs in the long run. Heritage's just­released study confirms the finding that amnesty would substantially increase costs over time.