From the Princeton Weekly Bulletin, April 21, 1997
How immigration
succeeds in N.J.By Mary Caffrey
How can the United States avoid the high levels of anti immigrant sentiment seen in states like California? According to Professor of Sociology Thomas Espenshade, the answers can be found by looking at the relatively successful transition of immigrants in New Jersey.
Espenshade recently unveiled the latest findings of a four-year study of N.J. immigrants, which he directed through the University's Office of Population Research. The study found that New Jersey's immigrant population is more diverse, better educated and more likely to be legal than newcomers elswhere, and these factors have made it easier for N.J. immigrants to live and work peaceably among their neighbors.
Carried out by scholars from Princeton, the Urban Institute and seven other universities, the study was funded by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and examines the immigrant experience from 1980 to 1990. The resulting book, Keys to Successful Immigration: Implications of the New Jersey Experience, which Espenshade edited, was published by the Urban Institute and released on March 19.
Researchers looked at the impact of immigrants on the state's job market, wages, local and state government, and the schools. The study also examined where immigrants live, how fertility patterns change when immigrants arrive, and how immigrants adapt to a new language, culture and political structure.
While the book focuses on the experience of one state, Espenshade said the findings have implications for federal policy makers. Antiimmigrant backlash could be reduced, he said, if more states had immigration streams like those found in New Jersey. He believes that the federal government also should set policies to improve transition. Once immigrants arrive, he said, "It's almost as if the federal government pays no attention to them." That leaves state and local governments to fill the void, and the results reflect the different experiences of individual states.
In New Jersey, for example, Gov. Christine Whitman has protested federal legislation to deny welfare benefits not only to illegal immigrants but also to those here legally. By contrast, in California voters passed Proposition 187 to deny state-funded benefits to illegal immigrants.
Why New Jersey?
Espenshade said he encountered some skepticism when he chose to study immigration in New Jersey. The state is not one of the "big four" immigration states (California, New York, Florida and Texas). But New Jersey, which ranked fifth (with 967,000 foreign-born residents in 1990), did have one noteworthy feature: It ranked first in terms of diversity of its immigrant population. The two largest groups, Italians and Cubans, made up 7.3 percent and 6.5 percent of the immigrant population respectively. This is in stark contrast to California, where the more than one-third of the immigrants come from Mexico. In Texas, Mexicans account for nearly 60 percent of all immigrants.
Diversity in the immigrant population makes it more difficult to stereotype newcomers, Espenshade said. The undocumented population in New Jersey is also diverse; at an estimated 116,000, the number represents 12 percent of the immigrant population and just 1.5 percent of the state's total population. Rather than entering the country illegally, most have simply overstayed their visas. Thus, the image of a tide of illegal aliens sneaking across the border does not resonate here, Espenshade said.
Also, immigrants to New Jersey are better educated than newcomers elsewhere, and that advantage holds up among every national group, except for Europeans. The education gap is particularly large among Asians.
In comparison with other states, New Jersey lacks a grassroots movement to curtail immigration. This was borne out by the results of a Gallup Poll commissioned for the study in September 1994. The poll found 40 percent of the state's residents would like to see the number of immigrants reduced, and just over half felt the number was about right (three percent believe the number should be increased). This compares to a nationwide statistic of nearly two-thirds of Americans who believe the number of immigrants should decrease.
Concerns about jobs
Respondents' views toward immigration were closely linked with their socioeconomic and demographic status. "Older, less-educated, central-city and Catholic residents are more likely to want fewer immigrants, whereas married individuals and members of minority groups are more tolerant," wrote Espenshade in his report. To his surprise, he found that second-generation Americans were less tolerant toward immigrants than those whose families arrived earlier to the United States. Concern over competition for jobs may be one reason, he said.
Those who wanted to reduce immigration levels believed that new arrivals could displace native workers or drive down wages. However, one element of the study suggests that this does not necessarily happen. Kristin Butcher of Boston College and Anne Morrison Piehl of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government examined the gaps in wages and employment in the 1980s between seven demographic and skill groups and a reference group of native-born white male workers. They found that foreign-born workers in New Jersey experienced rising relative wages, and their results suggest no adverse effects on native-born workers. However, the researchers cautioned that New Jersey experienced a booming economy in the 1980s, and groups that fared well here may not have done so well elsewhere.
The study also found that immigrants coming to New Jersey have skills more nearly equal to native-born workers than do immigrants nation-wide, and N.J. immigrants seem to be easing into local labor markets.
While they may not adversely impact job-seekers, immigrants do cause some slight increases in taxes, particularly at the local level. Both immigrant and native households cost state and local governments more than these households pay in taxes, but immigrant households get a slightly greater return. Espenshade said the tax bill in a native-born household to support services to immigrants is about three to five percent higher than it would be otherwise.
The big-ticket item is the cost of educating immigrant children. "Because education makes up such a large part of the local budget, and because immigrants tend to have more children, they are drawing more education benefits," Espenshade said. One book chapter examined the different ways that schools give immigrant children instruction in English, noting that some children born in the United States need this service as well.
Reaction to the book has been positive so far, Espenshade said. "For the most part, people have felt we were right on target. We've been able to articulate what people believed but had not been able to say themselves."