"Immigrants, on average, have lower crime rates than regular citizens. "
You can't keep saying this. This is a lie. There is NO ONE ON THE FUCKING PLANET COLLECTING THIS DATA.
Do you understand ye...
Immigrants in the United States contribute more to GDP per capita than native-born Americans when adjusted for key factors like labor force participation, age structure, and overall economic output relative to population share. Multiple studies show that immigrants' share of GDP exceeds their share of the population, often by several percentage points.
Nationally, immigrants (foreign-born individuals) make up about 14-15% of the U.S. population but account for 17-18% of total economic output (GDP). This pattern holds across states, where the immigrant share of GDP consistently outpaces their population share. This indicates higher average per capita contribution to economic production, driven by factors such as:
Higher labor force participation rates (around 67% for foreign-born vs. 62% for native-born).
A younger age profile (more working-age individuals).
Greater entrepreneurship and innovation in certain sectors.
These dynamics lead to productivity gains, specialization (e.g., immigrants filling manual or complementary roles that allow natives to specialize in higher-value tasks), and overall efficiency improvements that boost output per person.
However, this overall positive picture varies significantly by subgroup, particularly when comparing within similar income brackets or education levels:
Immigrants often start with lower earnings and are overrepresented in lower-wage jobs due to factors like limited initial English proficiency, credential recognition issues, or concentration in certain industries. Median personal incomes for foreign-born individuals are typically lower than for natives (e.g., around $20,000 vs. $28,000 in some older comparisons, with persistent gaps).
Within the same education or skill level, immigrants frequently show comparable or higher productivity in certain contexts. For example, less-educated immigrants tend to work more hours and have higher employment rates than similarly educated natives. Research indicates immigrants can increase total factor productivity through better task allocation and specialization, with positive spillovers (e.g., no significant crowding out of native employment and modest or positive wage effects for many native groups).
High-skilled immigrants (e.g., those with college or advanced degrees) contribute disproportionately more, often generating innovation, patents, and higher-value output that exceeds native averages in similar brackets.
Low-skilled or less-educated immigrants may have lower per capita output initially, though their contributions rise over time with assimilation, and they still add to overall growth without substantially reducing native per capita GDP.
Critics of high immigration levels (particularly undocumented or low-skilled inflows) argue that adding large numbers of lower-income individuals dilutes average per capita GDP by increasing population faster than proportional output gains, especially when many enter low-wage sectors with limited upward mobility. Some analyses suggest mass low-skilled immigration reduces per capita GDP and productivity metrics for the average resident.
The consensus from major reports (e.g., National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) and economists is that immigration's net effect on long-run economic growth and per capita income for natives is positive but small (often 0.2-0.4% of GDP as an "immigration surplus"). The benefits stem more from workforce expansion and dynamism than from superior per-person output in every bracket. High-skilled immigration tends to yield clearer per capita gains, while very low-skilled inflows can exert downward pressure in specific contexts.
In summary, immigrants as a group punch above their population weight in GDP contribution, implying higher average per capita impact. Within comparable income or education brackets, outcomes are mixed but often show immigrants performing comparably or better in labor supply and productivity, with the overall economy benefiting from their presence.
Nationally, immigrants (foreign-born individuals) make up about 14-15% of the U.S. population but account for 17-18% of total economic output (GDP). This pattern holds across states, where the immigrant share of GDP consistently outpaces their population share. This indicates higher average per capita contribution to economic production, driven by factors such as:
Higher labor force participation rates (around 67% for foreign-born vs. 62% for native-born).
A younger age profile (more working-age individuals).
Greater entrepreneurship and innovation in certain sectors.
These dynamics lead to productivity gains, specialization (e.g., immigrants filling manual or complementary roles that allow natives to specialize in higher-value tasks), and overall efficiency improvements that boost output per person.
However, this overall positive picture varies significantly by subgroup, particularly when comparing within similar income brackets or education levels:
Immigrants often start with lower earnings and are overrepresented in lower-wage jobs due to factors like limited initial English proficiency, credential recognition issues, or concentration in certain industries. Median personal incomes for foreign-born individuals are typically lower than for natives (e.g., around $20,000 vs. $28,000 in some older comparisons, with persistent gaps).
Within the same education or skill level, immigrants frequently show comparable or higher productivity in certain contexts. For example, less-educated immigrants tend to work more hours and have higher employment rates than similarly educated natives. Research indicates immigrants can increase total factor productivity through better task allocation and specialization, with positive spillovers (e.g., no significant crowding out of native employment and modest or positive wage effects for many native groups).
High-skilled immigrants (e.g., those with college or advanced degrees) contribute disproportionately more, often generating innovation, patents, and higher-value output that exceeds native averages in similar brackets.
Low-skilled or less-educated immigrants may have lower per capita output initially, though their contributions rise over time with assimilation, and they still add to overall growth without substantially reducing native per capita GDP.
Critics of high immigration levels (particularly undocumented or low-skilled inflows) argue that adding large numbers of lower-income individuals dilutes average per capita GDP by increasing population faster than proportional output gains, especially when many enter low-wage sectors with limited upward mobility. Some analyses suggest mass low-skilled immigration reduces per capita GDP and productivity metrics for the average resident.
The consensus from major reports (e.g., National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) and economists is that immigration's net effect on long-run economic growth and per capita income for natives is positive but small (often 0.2-0.4% of GDP as an "immigration surplus"). The benefits stem more from workforce expansion and dynamism than from superior per-person output in every bracket. High-skilled immigration tends to yield clearer per capita gains, while very low-skilled inflows can exert downward pressure in specific contexts.
In summary, immigrants as a group punch above their population weight in GDP contribution, implying higher average per capita impact. Within comparable income or education brackets, outcomes are mixed but often show immigrants performing comparably or better in labor supply and productivity, with the overall economy benefiting from their presence.