Politics & Policy

On Immigration, Trump Needs to Focus on the Numbers

Migrants from Honduras climb a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, Mexico, December 12, 2018. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)
For all the fuss about the border, we're missing the big question.

It is understandable that a successful businessman such as President Trump would think about immigration from the standpoint of employers and their need for workers. To his credit, he rejected Republican orthodoxy in 2016 and argued for stopping illegal immigration, and he met with victims of illegal-alien crime. It is one of the main reasons he won. Equally impressive have been the administration’s attempts to fix the “public charge” rules and address the fact that 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen access welfare.

But for all the talk about the border, the biggest issue when it comes to immigration is not welfare or illegal immigration per se; it is the total number of immigrants settling in the country, legally or illegally. While Democrats focus on amnesty, business associations endlessly push for ever more guest workers — and the media happily support both. But the president should always bring the discussion back to the numbers. Both the national interest and his political future depend on it.

The reason numbers are by far the most important immigration issue is that all the effects of immigration stem directly from the scale of immigration — cultural, political, social, economic, and fiscal. And the scale of contemporary immigration is truly enormous. The latest data indicate that there are about 45 million legal and illegal immigrants — roughly 34 million of whom are legal. About l.7 million new legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year. The total number of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the country has doubled since 1990, tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970. As a share of the population, about one in seven U.S. residents is now a legal or illegal immigrant — the highest percentage in 107 years. The Census Bureau projects the immigrant share will surpass the highest level ever in America history in eight years if we choose to continue current policy.

Pew Research has estimated that since 1965 (when the law was liberalized) immigration has added 72 million people to the U.S. population. That’s post-1965 immigrants and their progeny. An analysis of the latest Census Bureau projections indicates that future immigration will add another 75 million by 2060. That means that future immigrants and their descendants will add a population the size of France in just four decades. There is no precedent for this in American history. The last great wave of immigration came to an end after about 60 years in 1914 due to World War I and then restrictive legislation in the 1920s.

Americans, particularly Trump voters, may not understand all the ins and outs of immigration law, or how exactly so many people gain entry. Most of them do not think immigrants are bad people. But they do know that in many parts of America now, there are so many immigrants that the incentive to learn English or adopt American culture is greatly reduced. They rightly sense that the numbers are overwhelming the assimilation process.

They also sense that immigration is remaking the political balance by adding millions of new voters who are voting Democratic by about 2 to 1. The long-term political impact of legal immigration is very large. After all, the president won immigrant-heavy Florida by only about 100,000 votes. Every single year we give out 1.1 million new green cards — which allow citizenship in 3 or 5 years.

Americans in general and Trump voters in particular may also not know all the employment statistics. But they do sense there is no labor shortage when real wages are no higher now than they were in 1978. Sure, unemployment is historically low, yet most people realize this is not the whole story. Unemployment includes only those who looked for a job in the last four weeks. At the end of 2018, 54.3 million working-age Americans (ages 16 to 64, excluding prisoners) were out of the labor force entirely, meaning they were neither working nor looking for work, and so don’t show up in the unemployment numbers. The overall labor-force participation rate, the share who are working or looking for work, has not changed that much in recent years, especially for Trump voters — native-born people without a college degree.

At election time, it is voters who determine the winner — not employers, not the media, not the editorial page of the New York Times. As an analysis of the 2016 election by FiveThirtyEight showed: “Trump’s Hardline Immigration Stance Got Him to the White House.” A look at the thousands of negative comments that are made at Breitbart (such as here or here) whenever the president even mentions increasing immigration demonstrates that Trump voters want less immigration — including guest workers. The president cannot win in 2020 if he alienates his base on this issue.

The strong economy is a huge opening for the president to argue that we should take advantage of it to draw more Americans back into the labor force by lowering both legal and illegal immigration. Saying outright that employers should raise wages if they need more workers would resonate with working-class voters — who are, after all, his supporters. Making the argument that the time has come to lower the numbers and facilitate the assimilation of the tens of millions of immigrants and their children already here, if done carefully, would appeal to a broad cross-section of the American people. This is especially true of the swing voters in the Midwest, who tend to be more culturally conservative but more economically liberal, and who were key to Trump’s victory.

For the sake of the country and his reelection, the people who voted for Trump need to be heard on immigration. There is no one better suited to do this than the president himself.

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

LEARN MORE
Steven A. CamarotaMr. Camarota is the director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Most Popular

Religion

Chick-fil-A’s Shameful Capitulation

After what one Chick-fil-A executive called “years of taking it on the chin,” referring presumably to the decades of hectoring leveled at the company by LGBT activists, the press, and scolds at American colleges and universities, the fast-food chain announced its decision to withdraw support from three ... Read More
Religion

Chick-fil-A’s Shameful Capitulation

After what one Chick-fil-A executive called “years of taking it on the chin,” referring presumably to the decades of hectoring leveled at the company by LGBT activists, the press, and scolds at American colleges and universities, the fast-food chain announced its decision to withdraw support from three ... Read More
Film & TV

Frozen II Is a Fjord Fiasco

Since Frozen was a nearly perfect Disney feature, Frozen II brings with it the expectation of magic. Magic is really hard to pull off, though, and this time the sparkle is gone. In Frozen II, the story is strange, the jokes are terrible, the romance is nonexistent, and the songs are clunkers. Fairy tales that end ... Read More
Film & TV

Frozen II Is a Fjord Fiasco

Since Frozen was a nearly perfect Disney feature, Frozen II brings with it the expectation of magic. Magic is really hard to pull off, though, and this time the sparkle is gone. In Frozen II, the story is strange, the jokes are terrible, the romance is nonexistent, and the songs are clunkers. Fairy tales that end ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Clock

Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry is incoherent. Given the impossibility of a senatorial conviction, the only strategy is to taint the president with the brand of impeachment and weaken him in the 2020 election. Yet Schiff seems to have no sense that the worm has already turned. Far from tormenting Trump and ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Clock

Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry is incoherent. Given the impossibility of a senatorial conviction, the only strategy is to taint the president with the brand of impeachment and weaken him in the 2020 election. Yet Schiff seems to have no sense that the worm has already turned. Far from tormenting Trump and ... Read More
Elections

Warren’s Wealth Tax Is Unethical

Senator Warren would impose a 2 percent annual tax on wealth above $50 million, and a 6 percent annual tax on wealth above $1 billion. These numbers may seem small, but remember that they would be applied every year. With wealth taxes, small numbers have large effects. Applied to an asset yielding a steady ... Read More
Elections

Warren’s Wealth Tax Is Unethical

Senator Warren would impose a 2 percent annual tax on wealth above $50 million, and a 6 percent annual tax on wealth above $1 billion. These numbers may seem small, but remember that they would be applied every year. With wealth taxes, small numbers have large effects. Applied to an asset yielding a steady ... Read More