Part 1
Immigration, in the United States, is a contentious issue as it affects the social, political and economical way of healthy living in America. For instance, 2018 Midterm elections had many female contestants winning elective posts in both Houses of Representatives and Congress. Socially, immigration has increased racial and religious tension between immigrants and residents of the U.S. in public institutions such as high schools and campuses. This discussion, nonetheless, aims at understanding major conclusions made by Peri and Yasenov when relating immigration and wage rates in the U.S.
Giovanni Peri and Yasenov provide a conclusion which indicates that an influx of immigrants does not affect wage rates of Native Americans. The mass movement of Cubans practically evidenced this into the U.S. during 1985 where it is reported that 125,000 came through the Mariel Boat Lift (Borjas 1079). However, it should be noted that their conclusions differed concerning an analysis made by David Borjas. His analysis indicates that many immigrants had a direct impact on job loss and low wage rates for the Native Americans. Peri, on the one hand, was quick to state that the economic impacts of wage rates by immigrants were categorically based on job qualification levels. On the other hand, Yasenov questioned data integrity and political influence of information collected from a biased sample of Native Americans.
Peri, in his conclusion, states that immigrants affected wage rates that are standardized for different job categories. For instance, operational activities for the unskilled and semi-skilled Cubans affected wage rates at that particular category. However, other job categories with managerial and supervisory roles and responsibilities would maintain their wage rates since most immigrants were not qualified to occupy such positions. Scholars echoed Peri’s conclusion analyzed the economic impacts of immigrants on Native Americans which arrived later.
Yasenov was also categorical in refuting Borja’s conclusion which discouraged economic contribution of immigrants due to its presumed impact of poor wage rates. Yasenov noted that Borjas generated data from a sample which shared the same sentiments regarding immigration impacts on the American economy. Most notably, Yasenov introduced a different research parameter – contrary to Peri’s conclusion – which evaluated metrics incorporated by David Borjas when making his conclusion (Borjas 1083). Yasenov acknowledged that Borjas had a small sample whose feedback represented a minor externality/ He noted that this is common in research studies, but this element narrowed research objectives to personal sentiments that had no numerical value in quantitative analysis.
Michael Clemens, however, claimed that even if there was no immediate impact of immigration on Native American’s wage rate, it was bound to happen at a future economic time. He took a logical path of research which measured a dependent variable – wage rates – Whose long term effect would be felt later in the American economy. This claim was motivated by other economic factors such as education level of immigrants after attending learning institutions shared with Native Americans. It was feared that the intellectual capacity of immigrants could threaten academic qualification of most Americans and this would affect wage rates related to managerial and supervisory roles and responsibilities. He acknowledged that after 1990, Native Americans and immigrants would be qualified for senior job positions and this would reduce existing age rates.
Work Cited
Borjas, George J. “The wage impact of the Marielitos: A reappraisal.” ILR Review 70.5 (2017): 1077-1110.