IMMIGRATION RESEARCH PAPER (FINAL)

Running head: The Economic Implications of Legalizing Citizenship to Immigrants in Queens, NY

CHA/BUS 495 Academic Writing and Research 495

Conrad Brooks

Professor Genao

St. Joseph College

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF IMMIGRATION

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………… 3

Chapter 1………………………………………………………………………...4

Introduction………………………………………………………………4

Chapter 2………………………………………………………………………...8

Literature Review………………………………………………………...8

Chapter 3………………………………………………………………………..14

Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………..14

Chapter 4………………………………………………………………………..16

Methodology……………………………………………………………..16

Chapter 5………………………………………………………………………...17

Findings/Discussion/Limitations………………………………………....17

Bibliography……………………………………………………………...20

Appendix………………………………………………………………….22

.

2


Abstract

Executive Summary

During recent years, the topic of immigration reform has once again resurfaced to the forefront of most, if not all, political debates. To demonstrate, supporters of immigration reform argue that immediate passage would increase U.S. revenue over the next ten years while increasing U.S. competitiveness in global markets. In addition, research studies conducted by Patrick Oakford and Robert Lynch (2013) suggest, “legal status and a road map to citizenship for the unauthorized will bring about significant economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs.” However, the opposition argues that immigration reform would only encourage legalized amnesty and place additional socio-economic burdens on our government. Hence, given the nature of its possible implications, finding a solution to this issue is paramount.

To understand the significance of immigration reform, one has to first acknowledge the significance of its history to understand why it has to be reformed. Furthermore, this study provides a historical perspective on immigration and its relativity to current immigration reform. In addition, its purpose is to evaluate the economic advantages and disadvantages of legalizing citizenship to immigrants in the U.S. with a specific focus on the borough of Queens. Queens is the most culturally diverse county in the U.S. with a large immigrant population and hence, the basis of its selection for empirical testing.

Therefore, controlling factors to estimate the economic impact that the acquisition of legal status and citizenship has made on the nation’s economy is central to this project. This was previously achieved through the use of Regression Analysis employed by the aforementioned researchers, Lynch and Oakford (2013). However, the limitations of this study are centered on certain variables omitted from previous empirical testing which could potentially exaggerate some key findings. In addition, the mixed results from prior studies suggest that we have much to learn about the economic implications of legalizing citizenship to immigrants. Therefore, a more concise method of extrapolation and interpretation of quantitative data from immigration census databases is key.

Furthermore, in conjunction with the empirical tests conducted in prior research, I expect to find similar results in my own research efforts through quantitative analysis to further expound on what has already been stated and perhaps, add to it.

Keywords: Economic implications of immigration, immigration, immigration reform,

3


Introduction

To underscore the significance of immigration reform, one has to first acknowledge the

significance of its history to understand why it has to be reformed. The liberalization of

immigration policy reflected in President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 legislation can be

understood as part of the evolutionary trend in federal policy after World War II to end legal

discrimination based on race and ethnicity (Center for Immigration Studies, 1995). Essentially,

the immigration bill was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement (Center for

Immigration Studies, 1995). At that time, legal discrimination against any specific individual or

group of individuals was seen as unconstitutional. Prior to the liberalization, there were strict

limitations on an immigrant’s entry into the United States. Under the old system first instituted

in 1921, admission largely depended on an immigrant’s country of birth, family reunification and

needed skills (Center for Immigration Studies, 1995). Seventy percent of all immigrant slots

were allotted to natives of just 3 countries-the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany-and went

mostly unused, while there were long waiting lists for the small number of visas available to

those born in Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe

(Center for Immigration Studies, 1995). In any case, the new system virtually eliminated the

various national origins quota system putting people of all nations on an equal footing for

immigration to the U.S. (Center for Immigration Studies, 1995). Thus, this new legislation

created the foundation of current immigration law which as a result, commenced a new era of

mass immigration (Center for Immigration Studies, 1995). Furthermore, this new, augmented

immigration flow came from countries in Asia and Latin America ushering in millions of both

legal and illegal immigrants to the U.S.

4


The allure of Western culture had drawn multitudes of the undocumented from abroad,

each in their own pursuit of happiness, to experience the American Dream. Whatever the

catalyst was for their sudden transition into Western culture the reality of their new American

lifestyle sometimes proved harsh. One example was language alone.

For most, English was not their first language, so communication became a major

concern. Education was usually unaffordable for the undocumented so many tried to avoid its

high cost, leaving them to learn this overwhelmingly complex dialect on their own. In addition,

poverty also became an issue due to limited options to earn an income. Hence, when

opportunities for employment did arise, it was usually the most entry-level position available.

Companies illegally hired the undocumented all the time. They were usually subjugated to

unsafe work conditions and strenuous work hours for pennies on the dollar. In the business

world, the hiring of illegal immigrants was commonly used as a method of reducing labor costs.

While this method proves to be a lucrative approach for the company, where did it leave the

worker? Overworked and underpaid. Why shouldn’t these same workers be given the

opportunity to pursue their citizenship or at least a shot at temporary residency when the

economic merits of having them here are so rewarding?

Furthermore, the next paragraph will attempt to delineate the positive and negative

economic implications that immigration has had and will have on the U.S. economy through the

pathways of legalized citizenship.

5


Immigration can have either a negative or positive effect on a nation’s economy through

the pathways of legalized citizenship. It constitutes a substantial portion of our nation’s financial

resources both on a city and state level. Legalization of citizenship for immigrants can

potentially bridge the socioeconomic disparity between the lower and middleclass as suggested

by several economists. Moreover, if immigrants were granted a clearer pathway to citizenship,

the increase in their economic potential would subsequently trickle down into the economy.

According to research studies conducted by Robert Lynch and Patrick Oakford (2013),

legal status and a roadmap to citizenship for the unauthorized will bring about significant

economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues, and jobs-all of which will not occur

in the absence of immigration reform. In addition, it also promotes investment in the education

and training of immigrants that eventually pays off in the form of higher wages and output while

granting access to a broader range of higher paying jobs (Lynch & Oakford, 2013). Generally

speaking, if an employee earns more, they are more likely to spend more and therefore, pay more

in taxes. As a result, this would become an economic incentive for the city of New York and

respectively, for the borough of Queens. Results have been confirmed through research studies

conducted by Pew Hispanic Center demographer, Jeffrey Passel and several other reputable

sources discussed in later chapters. Similarly, the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy

estimated that the income tax paid by unauthorized immigrants in 2010 amounted in billions of

revenue to state and local governments (Immigration Policy Center, 2011). In conjunction with

the findings of the aforementioned economists, Dr. Ray Perryman, President and CEO of the

Perryman Group, conducted a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to

the American economy (Center for Civic Policy, 2010). From the study, he estimated that illegal

6


immigrants add $245 billion in GDP to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs (Center for

Civic Policy, 2010). Furthermore, his estimate along with other reputable economists serves as

an illustration of the potential benefits of the legalization of citizenship to immigrants in Queens,

N.Y.

Empirical tests of this proposition conducted by several economists named in the existing

literature have measured the long-term effects of legalizing citizenship to immigrants on the

economy in terms of its cumulative impact on the GDP.

However, although economists such as Lynch and Oakford (2013); Passel (2011) have

studied the economic impact of immigration extensively and achieved consensus on its effects,

there still remains a significant portion of others that refute their findings. The basis for their

opposition lies in the potential challenges the study faced when certain variables were excluded.

Nonetheless, their studies did in fact, use sufficient control measures to ascertain relevant data to

arrive at their conclusion, thereby, ruling out omitted variable bias.

Furthermore, the next chapter delineates how the legalization of citizenship for

immigrants would potentially affect New York’s economy on both a city and state level. I will

be focusing my research on New York, specifically, the borough of Queens.

7


Literature Review

Queens is the most culturally diverse county in New York with large populations of

immigrants. The borough of Queens consists primarily of East and Southern Asians, Carribean

and Hispanics (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2010). The total foreign-born population in

Queens, N.Y. in the year 2012 was estimated to be at 1,087,607. According to census bureau

data and city housing surveys, foreign-born households constitute increasingly large shares of

total households in the USA: at least 11% in the year 2000 (Myers, 2005). More recently, census

data obtained from Education Week editor Lesli A. Maxwell (2010) states that, of the 40 million

foreign-born residents of the U.S. last year, 17 percent were newly arrived, which means they

came between 2005-2010. As this data suggests, an increasingly large proportion of the U.S.

population are foreign-born residents. In addition, research conducted by Sarah Leiseca from the

PEW Charitable Trusts Organization confirmed that, foreign-born residents made up 13% of the

US population in 2010 (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010). That is a 2% increase from 2000.

Furthermore, the foreign-born population of the U.S. increased from 31.1 million in 2000 to 40

million in 2010 (Pew Hispanic Center, 2010). Her methodology was based on data from the Pew

Hispanic Center’s Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population in the US, 2010 (Pew

Hispanic Center, 2010).

However, these are only the households that the federal government can account for by

recorded legal immigration data. Moreover, there still remains an ever-growing increase in the

undocumented, especially in the Mexican-born population. Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with

the Pew Hispanic Center has extensively studied the issue and said, nationally 80 to 85% of all

8


Mexican immigration since 1980 was undocumented (Bernstein, 2005). This leaves only a

fraction of their total population accounted for. In addition, Passel also states that any place

that’s getting a lot of new immigration from Mexico, virtually all of it is undocumented, and that

certainly includes New York (Berenstein, 2005). Furthermore, a possible inference that could be

made is from this data is that our immigrant population, both legal and illegal, is here to stay and

their numbers are steadily rising. Hence, relative to our city’s economy, implementing a clearer

pathway towards citizenship for those undocumented living in the shadows in Queens would

have a significant long-term financial impact.

Studies conducted by Lynch and Oakford (2013), suggest that significant economic gains

are inevitable for Queens, New York with the legalization of citizenship for immigrants. One

study in particular estimated that, within 10 years from 2010, the taxes paid by undocumented

immigrants to the city of New York would be about $2,452,000,000 (Lynch & Oakford, 2013).

In addition, $109 billion would be paid in taxes to our federal government within the same time

frame (Lynch & Oakford, 2013). The study also demonstrated that, if the 11.1 million

undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were provided legal status, then

the 10-year cumulative increase in the GDP of the US would be $832 billion (Lynch & Oakford,

2013). Their research concluded, Undocumented immigrants are currently earning far less than

their potential and therefore paying much less to the U.S. economy than they otherwise would

be. Overall, they are contributing significantly less to the U.S. economy than they potentially

could (Lynch & Oakford, 2010). Similarly, in 2010, the Institute for Taxation and Economic

Policy estimated that the income tax paid by unauthorized immigrants amounted in billions in

revenue to state and local governments (Immigration

9


Policy Center, 2011). Their methodology relied on three pieces of data: 1) an estimate of each

state’s unauthorized population; 2) the average family income for unauthorized

immigrants; and 3) state-specific tax payments. Collectively, unauthorized immigrants paid

$11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2011 (Immigration Policy Center, 2011). That included

$1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $8.4 billion in sales

taxes (Immigration Policy Center, 2011). In conjunction with the findings of the economists

mentioned in the existing literature, Heidi Shierholz of the liberal Economic Policy Institute

found that, between 1994 and 2007, immigration had a small but positive impact on the relative

wages of Americans at all educational levels (Shierholz, 2010). She proceeds to state that

although immigrant workers add to the labor supply, they also consume goods and services,

creating more jobs (Shierholz, 2010). To clarify, immigrants are not only workers, but also

consumers. Whether in the form of food, clothing, or technology, a consumer will have more

purchasing power if their earning potential were to increase. Their earning potential will cause

them to spend more and, in turn, stimulate demand in the economy for more products and

services, which creates jobs and expands the economy (Lynch & Oakford, 2010). Furthermore,

the positive implications of legalizing citizenship to immigrants can be economically rewarding

both on a city and state level.

On the contrary, although there are many who support immigration reform and the

economic incentives attached to it, there still remains a significant portion of the nation that does

not. According to Christopher Muste, assistant professor of Political Science at the University of

Montana, public opinion about immigration levels, the impacts of recent immigrants, and

immigration policies demonstrated continued negativity and revealed a pattern of steep increases

10


in anti-immigrant sentiment in response to events such as the 1994 election and 9/11(Muste,

2013). The survey also illustrated that concerns about job competition and border enforcement

are still high (Muste, 2013). However, declines in anti-immigrant sentiment have followed over

several years since 2001, and has recently stabilized at lower levels (Muste, 2013). Still, there

remains a substantial portion of our population who do not support immigration. Public opinion

data was obtained by integrating trend data from ANES, GSS, Gallup, and Pew, and media

surveys from 1992 to 2012.

For instance, in 1995, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform reported, it is not in

the national interest to admit unskilled workers because the U.S. economy is showing difficulty

in absorbing disadvantaged workers (Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2009). Their

report contained the following findings:

In 2009, less than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills

deemed essential to the U.S. economy.

Studies that find minimal or no negative effects on native workers from low-skill

immigration are based upon flawed assumptions and skewed economic models, not upon

observations of actual labor market conditions.

There is no such thing as an “immigrant job.” The reality is that immigrants and natives

compete for the same jobs and native workers are increasingly at a disadvantage because

employers have access to a steady supply of low-wage foreign workers.

Low-skilled immigrants are more likely than their native-born counterparts to live in

poverty, lack health insurance, and to utilize welfare programs. Immigrants and their children

made up 32 percent of those in the United States without health insurance in

11


2009.

Research done by the Center for American Progress has found that reducing the illegal alien

population in the United States by one-third would raise the income of unskilled workers by

$400 a year.

Defenders of illegal immigration often tout the findings of the so-called Perryman Report to

argue that illegal aliens are responsible for job creation in the United States; yet, if one

accepts the Perryman findings as true, that would mean that only one job is created in the

United States for every three illegal workers in the workforce.

It is true that if the illegal alien population decreased the overall number of jobs in the U.S.

would be reduced, but there would be many more jobs available to native workers — jobs

that paid higher wages and offered better working conditions.

The Commission’s report was based on the notion that immigration contributes to an

already-existing surplus of low-skilled workers, increasing job competition and driving down

wages and conditions to the detriment of American workers (Federation For American

Immigration Reform, 2009).

In conjunction with the findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration, Steven A.

Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, confirms that there is

significant research showing that immigration has reduced employment and wages for less-

educated natives (Camarota, S.A. & Zeigler, K., 2009). Similarly, a 2006 study conducted by

Andrew Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern University found that the arrival of new

immigrants (legal and illegal) in a state results in a decline in

12


employment among young native-born workers in that state (Center for Immigration Studies,

2009). Their findings indicate that young native-born workers are being displaced in the labor

market by the arrival of new immigrants (Center for Immigration Studies, 2009). Camarota’s

findings conclude that the overall impact of immigration is almost certainly very small

(Camarota, S.A. & Zeigler, K., 2009). In addition, immigration benefits the immigrants

themselves and not so much our labor market. Furthermore, the studies of Camarota, the U.S.

Commission on Immigration, Andrew Sum, and others refute the studies of Lynch & Oakford

and the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy.

Furthermore, I find the results from the research conducted inconclusive. However, there

are both positive and negative economic implications of legalizing citizenship to immigrants in

Queens, N.Y. The mixed results of this study suggest that we have much to learn about the

economic implications of legalizing citizenship to immigrants. Lastly, the next chapter will

delineate the theoretical framework which attempts to justify the main empirical specification

used in the existing literature.

13


Theoretical Framework

Theory of Regression Analysis

Controlling factors to estimate the economic impact that legal status and citizenship has

made on the nation’s economy through its authorized and unauthorized immigrant population is

central to this project. Therefore, the most influential theory associated with this process is the

theory of Regression Analysis as employed by Lynch and Oakford (2013). Regression analysis

is a statistical tool used for the investigation of relationships between two variables. Hence, the

two variables in this case being investigated are legalizing citizenship to immigrants and its

subsequent effect on the economy. Furthermore, through use of this method a positive

correlation is evident from the legalization of citizenship to immigrants and a cumulative

increase in the GDP as theorized by several economists (Lynch & Oakford, 2013; Shierholz

2010).

Control Factors

Lynch & Oakford’s (2013) use of Regression Analysis controlled for factors such as

education level; work experience; age; year of arrival in the United States; race/ethnicity; gender

differences; country of origin; state of residency; rural versus urban residence; and marital status

of naturalized and non-citizen immigrant population to estimate the effect that citizenship has on

earnings. Such factors are likely to be responsible for differences in the earnings of naturalized

immigrants (Lynch & Oakford 2013; Shierholz 2010). Hence, these differences would remain

even if all noncitizens acquired citizenship. Factors also taken into consideration were that

14


noncitizen immigrants are younger, less educated, and less advanced in their careers than

naturalized citizens.

Hypothesis

Furthermore, Lynch & Oakford’s (2013) use of regression analysis as a foundation in

finding a positive correlation between legalizing citizenship to immigrants and the economy lies

parallel with my own personal hypothesis. In my experiment, I will attempt to demonstrate the

correlation between legalizing citizenship to immigrants and its positive effect on the economy.

My hypothesis is that:

H1: If immigrants are granted legal status or full citizenship, then a cumulative increase in the

GDP will occur.

Lastly, the next chapter will delineate the methodology used to arrive at my conclusion.

15


Methods

The methodology of this research paper was based on a quantitative approach using data

retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce and the Pew Hispanic

Research Center. This data delineates statistical trends in our immigrant population and its

relative impact on the U.S. GDP. This method employs a comprehensive analysis of statistical

data rather than human observation. Moreover, analysis of certain key factors could not be

achieved through means of standard observation due to a limited time frame. Therefore, human

subjects were excluded from any empirical testing conducted within the scope of this study and a

more statistical approach was employed. Furthermore, selected data further expounds on key

variables that were used to establish the economic impact of legalizing citizenship to immigrants

in prior, current and future studies. The next chapter delineates the findings and limitations of

this study.

16


Findings/Limitations/Discussions

The results from each database were, in fact, consistent with suggested results from prior

empirical studies. Hence, the purpose of my research was thereby, to identify the correlation of

these trends and its subsequent impact on our economy, both on a state and national level.

Table 1 (See Appendix A), obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,

provides positive affirmation that there are in fact, economic implications of providing

permanent legal status or citizenship to immigrants as stated in the prospective findings section

of this research paper. This correlation does not explain causation. However, considering the

technical and agricultural skills immigrants contribute to our labor market, a sizeable reduction

in the number of immigrants would mean, or equate to, a potential reduction in human capital

and a remarkable reduction in our labor force, which are major contributors to our economy.

The Census Bureau’s new projected forecast of 420.3 million in 2060 is below its

previous projection of 439 million for a decade earlier as delineated in Table 1. Moreover, by

the year 2050, the census bureau’s new projected population is 399.8 million in the year 2050.

This chart suggests a lower U.S. growth forecast mainly due to a significant reduction in

immigration and births.

Table 2 (See Appendix B), obtained from the Pew Hispanic Research Center Estimates

of the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population, 2000-2009, suggests that in 2009 there was an

estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. comparative to 11.6 in 2008 and

respectively, 12 million in 2007. This change in the population characterizes the downward shift

in the amount of immigrants entering the U.S. from 2007-2009.

17


Table 3 (See Appendix C), obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis, clearly demonstrates that the real GDP decreased at an annual rate of 1.0 %

in the second quarter of 2009 after declining below 6% in the first quarter. 2008 shows a

downward trend in the GDP towards the end of the 4th quarter due to the recession while 2007

reflects the beginning of the decline shown at the end of the 4th quarter. The smaller decrease in

the real GDP reflected much smaller decreases in business investment, including inventory

investment, and in exports: an upturn in government spending, and a smaller decline in housing.

Also note there was a significant decline in imports from 2007 to 2009 as well.

All of these factors were concurrently followed by a significant reduction in immigration.

As aforementioned in Table 2, the number of immigrants entering the U.S declined from 12

million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2009; also around the same time that the U.S. GDP was on the

decline. Once again, this correlation does not explain causation.

Table 4 (See Appendix D), obtained from the Pew Hispanic Research Center, Statistical

Portrait 2013, clearly demonstrates that if immigrants are granted permanent legal status and

citizenship in the year 2013, then the cumulative GDP in 10 years will increase to $1.4 trillion

dollars. If the undocumented population acquires legal status in 2013 and a citizenship in five

years, then that will add $1.1trillion dollars to the U.S. economy. The chart also demonstrates

that the taxes paid by undocumented immigrants will add $184 billion dollars to the U.S. federal

economy.

However stated, there are both negative and positive implications of legalizing

citizenship to immigrants or providing them with permanent legal status. Immigration is the

cornerstone on which this great nation was built. Moreover, the passage of the 1986

18


Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) has proved to be ineffective and its methods of

rectification punitive. Therefore, true and meaningful reform has to take place now.

We still face huge deficits in our economy despite our rebound from this recent recession.

Increased government spending and rising health care costs continue to plague our nations

budget so additional sources of revenue should certainly be of a core interest. The economic

merits of immigration have historically proven to be an effective method of upward mobility.

Hence, in reference to immigration reform, it would be in the American government’s best

interest to act fast.

19


Bibliography

Bernstein, N. (2005, Jan 24). Record immigration changing New York's neighborhoods. New York Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/432967641?

accountid=28722

Camarota, S.A. & Zeigler, K. (2009). Trends in Immigrant and Native Employment. Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved from http://www.cis.org/FirstQuarter2009Unemployment

Dingmann, T. (2010). FAIR Report on Immigration Costs Is Anything But. Center for Civic Policy. Retrieved from http://civicpolicy.com/fair-report-on-immigration-costs-isanything-but

Federation for American Immigration Reform (2009). Immigration Issues. Population Growth. Retrieved from http://www.fairus.org/issue/population-growth

Immigration Policy Center. (2011). Unauthorized Immigrants Pay Taxes, Too. Estimates of the State and Local Taxes paid by Unauthorized Immigrant Households. Retrieved from http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/unauthorized- immigrants-pay-taxes-too

Lynch, R & Oakford, P. (2013). The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants

Maxwell, L. A. (2011). IMMIGRATION TRENDS. Education Week, 31(14), 5.

Motel, S. (2012). Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the U.S., 2010. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/02/21/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-2010

Muste, C. P. (2013). The Dynamics of Immigration Opinion in the United States, 1992–2012. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(1), 398-416.

Myers, D., & Liu, C. (2005). The Emerging Dominance of Immigrants in the US Housing Market 1970–2000. Urban Policy & Research, 23(3), 347-365. doi:10.1080/08111470500197920

Passel, Jeffrey S., and D’Vera Cohn. 2009. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Queens. (2013). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, 1.

Shierholz, H. (2010). Immigration and Wages. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/bp255/

20

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp255/


U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 1. U.S. International Transactions,” www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=6&step=3&isuri=1&600=1 (accessed April 14, 2014).

21


Appendix

Appendix A

Table 1 (as noted on page 17)

22


Appendix B

Table 2 (as noted on pages 17, 18)

23


Appendix C


24


Appendix D


25


26


27


28


29


30

IMMIGRATION RESEARCH PAPER (FINAL)

Documents

Transcript of IMMIGRATION RESEARCH PAPER (FINAL)