Immigration is little if not an emotive topic, and new research from the Stanford Graduate School of Business highlights how family ties are currently distorting the picture in the United States.
The research highlights how educational attainment is often not the determining factor in whether many migrants are allowed to enter the United States and other western countries. It marks a clear distortion of the supposedly market-based realities that would see highly skilled people move to countries where their skills would be better rewarded.
The research suggests that when assessing migration within the United States, this is indeed the case, but is not the case for international migration. The paper explains that there is largely an excess of supply of migrants who wish to come to the US, and who is allowed in is more to do with who government regulations say is allowed than who market forces do.
Supply and demand
The researchers highlight how roughly 25 million people apply for permanent admission to the US each year, but just 1 million are able to secure green cards, with a further 4 million on the waiting list. They suggest that who is allowed into the country is largely determined by a rationing system, with policy often the key determinant.
“The important implication is that we can have any group of immigrants or attainment we want,” they say. “From our point of view, there are no bad countries. Every country, even those with poor educational systems like Algeria, produces highly skilled, educated people.”
The paper highlights how the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 signaled a significant shift in immigration policy in the US. It saw the allocation system change from quotas that were based on national origin to one that favored family reunification. This had a rapid effect, with the number of immigrants growing by close to one-third, with the source of immigrants changing significantly.
For instance, immigrants from Asia quadrupled in the five years after the law was passed, with those from northern Europe falling. For instance, immigrants from France fell from 4% to 1%, due in large part to the relatively small number of immigrants from France that were already living in the country.
Family ties
The adoption of family ties as the dominant criteria for accepting migrants has led to the overrepresentation of migrants from some countries at the expense of others. For instance, Algerians are underrepresented by a factor of 10 compared to their share of the global population, whereas Israelis are overrepresented by a factor of three.
Similarly, Mexico is far more overrepresented than India, despite Indian immigrants generally being near the top in terms of educational attainment and Mexicans being near the bottom. Indeed, looked at historically, the best-educated group of immigrants were actually those from the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
Interestingly, there appeared to be no correlation at all between countries where advanced education and skills are poorly rewarded, and migration to the United States from those countries.
What’s more, the researchers suggest that their findings are likely to be just as true in other countries as it is in the US, even when immigration policies are different. The main takeaway is that the more overrepresented a group is, the lower the attainment levels.
It’s an example of how legislation can distort what to all intents and purposes should simply be a matter between the immigrant and their employer, with society as a whole failing to benefit as much as it might do as a result.
“This isn’t about good or bad source countries,” the researchers conclude. “It’s how many the U.S. takes from each country relative to the pool in that country.”
