Explore the vast range of titles available.

The U.S. took in more than a million immigrants per year in the late 1990s, more than at any other time in history. For humanitarian and many other reasons, this may be good news. But as George Borjas shows inHeaven's Door, it's decidedly mixed news for the American economy--and positively bad news for the country's poorest citizens. Widely regarded as the country's leading immigration economist, Borjas presents the most comprehensive, accessible, and up-to-date account yet of the economic impact of recent immigration on America. He reveals that the benefits of immigration have been greatly exaggerated and that, if we allow immigration to continue unabated and unmodified, we are supporting an astonishing transfer of wealth from the poorest people in the country, who are disproportionately minorities, to the richest. In the course of the book, Borjas carefully analyzes immigrants' skills, national origins, welfare use, economic mobility, and impact on the labor market, and he makes groundbreaking use of new data to trace current trends in ethnic segregation. He also evaluates the implications of the evidence for the type of immigration policy the that U.S. should pursue. Some of his findings are dramatic: Despite estimates that range into hundreds of billions of dollars, net annual gains from immigration are only about $8 billion. In dragging down wages, immigration currently shifts about $160 billion per year from workers to employers and users of immigrants' services. Immigrants today are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to re-quire public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain in poor, segregated communities. Borjas considers the moral arguments against restricting immigration and writes eloquently about his own past as an immigrant from Cuba. But he concludes that in the current economic climate--which is less conducive to mass immigration of unskilled labor than past eras--it would be fair and wise to return immigration to the levels of the 1970s (roughly 500,000 per year) and institute policies to favor more skilled immigrants.

Immigration to the United States has increased substantially in recent decades, rising from about 330,000 per year in the period 1961-70 to 1,050,000 per year in the period 2009-15 (Cohn 2017). In the process, the foreign-born population has risen from 9.7 million to 43.2 million, with the portion of foreign born rising from 5.4 percent of the population to 14.1 percent (Lopez and Radford 2017)-not far below the record of 14.8 percent in 1890. This pattern is not unique to the United States: 20 percent of Canada's population is foreign born, and nearly 30 percent of Australia's population were born elsewhere. In a familiar historical pattern, high levels of immigration have made immigration policy a potent political issue. Unsurprisingly, the topic has drawn keen attention from social scientists. Many American economists argue that theories demonstrating positive net benefits from international free trade in goods and services also carry over to the free movement of workers. One noted exception to this \"economistic\" perspective is George Borjas-author of a stream of important research articles on the economics of immigration and a recent, influential book: We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative (2016). This symposium features Borjas's overview of the key arguments and evidence in his book and two responses to his essay.

  [George J. Borjas] has published more than 125 articles in books and scholarly journals.

The problem is exacerbated by the negative focus of the immigration debate the most passionate advocates on both sides are against illegal immigration or a crackdown on illegal-immigration. But what are they for? After two decades of stalemate between these warring fractions, perhaps it is time to reframe the immigration debate. Perhaps enough voters will rally behind a comprehensive immigration policy only when Americans decide what they want their immigration policy to accomplish, rather than what they want it to avoid. In coming weeks, Beyond Borders Blog will engage readers over the question of what the United States should want out of its immigration policy. I encourage you to send your thoughts to conor.friedersdorf Meanwhile, the blog will host a book club of sorts. Anyone interested should order [George J. Borjas]' book it's available at Amazon.com and other book retailers. I'll post occasionally about ideas found within its chapters, publish letters sent by readers about the book and moderate debate among readers if enough people participate.

(Editor's note: This is a twice weekly column written by ConorFriedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Website, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum foropinions and information on immigration. The blog is at\">www.beyondbordersblog.com After two decades of stalemate between these warring factions perhaps itis time to reframe the immigration debate. Perhaps enough voters will rallybehind a comprehensive immigration policy only when Americans decide whatthey want their immigration policy to accomplish, rather than what theywant it to avoid. Professor [George J. Borjas] focuses on the immigration policy that would maximizethe economic benefit to the United States. As he notes, however, we mightchoose to craft an immigration policy with all sorts of different goals inmind. Some will want to focus on protecting asylum seekers from death atthe hands of foreign tyrants. Others will want to protect the environment.Others will want to increase the ethnic diversity of the United States.Still others will want to maintain traditional American culture at allcosts.

The problem is exacerbated by the negative focus of the immigration debate the most passionate advocates on both sides are against illegal immigration or a crackdown on illegal-immigration. But what are they for? After two decades of stalemate between these warring fractions, perhaps it is time to reframe the immigration debate. Perhaps enough voters will rally behind a comprehensive immigration policy only when Americans decide what they want their immigration policy to accomplish, rather than what they want it to avoid. Meanwhile, the blog will host a book club of sorts. Anyone interested should order [George J. Borjas]' book it's available at Amazon.com and other book retailers. I'll post occasionally about ideas found within its chapters, publish letters sent by readers about the book and moderate debate among readers if enough people participate. This is a twice-weekly column by Conor Friedersdorf, who manages The Sun's blog on immigration issues. The blog, designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration, is at www.beyondbordersblog.com

His study of two decades of wages concluded that U.S.-born high school dropouts suffered the most - a 7.4 percent drop in annual wages by the year 2000. For high school graduates and workers with some college, the loss was a little more than 2 percent. And for college graduates, wages were held back an average 3.6 percent. [George J. Borjas] found that U.S.-born Hispanic workers saw their wages reduced by an average 5 percent, and U.S.-born blacks experienced a 4.5 percent drop. These two groups faced the most direct competition from foreign-born workers, he said. \"The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary,\" said Borjas, who is himself an immigrant from Cuba. \"It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.\"

His study of two decades of wages concluded that U.S.-born high school dropouts suffered the most -- a 7.4 percent drop in annual wages by the year 2000. For high school graduates and workers with some college, the loss was a little more than 2 percent. And for college graduates, wages were held back an average 3.6 percent. [George J. Borjas] found that U.S.-born Hispanic workers saw their wages reduced by an average 5 percent, and U.S.-born blacks experienced a 4.5 percent drop. These two groups faced the most direct competition from foreign-born workers, he said. \"The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary,\" said Borjas, himself an immigrant from Cuba. \"It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.\"

Thoughtful critics like [George Borjas] and Peter Brimelow -- themselves immigrants -- point out the need to assimilate immigrants into our culture. But it is native-born liberals, not immigrants, who are responsible for such destructive absurdities as racial quotas and bilingual education. We need to amend immigration law to admit permanent residents primarily on the basis of the skills they bring. We need to revive guest worker programs so people can come here legally to work at low- skill jobs. And we need to crack down hard on illegal immigration. A sensible immigration policy will be color-blind. As the 442nd RCT exemplified, anyone who shares our values, obeys our laws, pulls his own load and rallies to the colors when the war drums beat is an American, or ought to be. I think about the 442nd RCT whenever I hear someone moan about how immigrants are destroying America. Immigration is our secret weapon. If we wield it effectively, it can ameliorate socio-economic problems which seem so intractable now.

Citing another, real-life economic model, Mr. Borjas asserts that low-skill immigrants put downward pressure on the wages of low-skill natives: \"A 10% increase in the number of workers in a particular skill group probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent.\"