Under the Specter of COVID-19: A Look at Immigration’s Economic Impact in the United States

In March 2020, countries around the globe closed their borders to restrain the spread of COVID-19. The measures included closing airports, implementing travel bans for countries with high rates of infection, and imposing restrictions to business travelers, tourists, new immigrants, and asylum seekers. As countries start to loosen national lockdowns and travel regulations for tourism and business, many are not opening their borders for migrants. One of the main arguments is that migrants will add to the number of people looking for jobs in the domestic job market, competing with nationals for already scarce opportunities.

The impact of COVID-19 extends beyond the health crisis. It has affected not only global mobility but reduced productivity and economic activity to the point of near global stagnation. According to World Bank, we are experiencing “the deepest global recession in decades.” As countries see unemployment rates increasing, many assume that the competition for scarce jobs held between nationals and immigrants can be adequately resolved by stopping migration movements. In Australia, Kristina Keneally from the opposition Labor Party, wrote an article calling for a reduction in hiring foreign workers because they take “jobs Australians could do.”

Following a more extreme approach, the United States issued a “Proclamation Suspending the Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the US Labor Market Following the Coronavirus outbreak,” which froze four types of visas until the end of the year: H-1Bs for highly skilled workers, H-2Bs for less skilled workers, J visas for au pairs, temporary summer workers and some academics, and L visas for professionals who are moved within the same company. The Trump administration began with anti-migrant rhetoric and, following COVID-19 and the current economic crisis, has only expanded its policies against migrants and migrant rights.

One question remains to be answered. Are immigrants a legitimate threat to citizens in the national labor force?

As countries see unemployment rates increasing, many assume that the competition for scarce jobs held between nationals and immigrants can be adequately resolved by stopping migration movements.

To understand the issue, it is important to remember that labor and capital are the main factors of production that influence the growth of a nation. Many economists agree that migration expands the workforce and consequently increases the aggregate GDP of a nation. It is also agreed that the economy does not have a fixed number of jobs where one unemployed national corresponds to one foreign-born worker.

Why? Firstly, they are not interchangeable as “most foreign-born workers differ from most native-born workers in terms of what occupations they work in, where in the country they live, and how much education they have” as pointed out by the American Immigration Council. Secondly, immigrants are also consumers, taxpayers and sometimes the very entrepreneurs who create job opportunities for nationals daily. In a brief by the Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise Institute produced in 2015, it was found that “every 1 additional H-1B visa awarded to a state was associated with the creation of 1.83 more jobs for U.S. born workers in the following seven years.”

When the U.S. administration imposed further restrictions on foreign-born workers, big tech companies were the most affected. The consequence of which will negatively affect American jobs since this gives companies reason to outsource their operations to Canada, India and China as highlighted in a paper by Brita Glennon of the Wharton School. According to OECD, “Migrants boost the working-age population. Migrants arrive with skills and contribute to human capital development of receiving countries. Migrants also contribute to technological progress.” In 2010, California received more than 64,000 H-1B visas for new workers from 2010 to 2013 and more than 118,000 new jobs for US-born workers would be created by 2020. Although, considering changes in US migration policy, these numbers may no longer hold.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, essential work such as farm-work or ordered deliveries, mainly performed by immigrants, allowed Americans the privilege of staying safe in their homes.

It is important to remember, that migrant workers risked their lives working on the front lines. For instance, in the United States 40% of medical and life scientists are foreign-born. According to the American Immigration Council, “eight companies that are currently trying to develop a coronavirus vaccine — Gilead Sciences, Moderna Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Inovio, Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Vir Therapeutics, and Sanofi — received approvals for 3,310 biochemists, biophysicists, chemists, and other scientists through the H-1B program.”

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, essential work such as farm-work or ordered deliveries, mainly performed by immigrants, allowed Americans the privilege of staying safe in their homes. Companies founded by people of migrant descent, like Amazon, Zoom, and Google, made life easier during the pandemic. Other notable contributors include Jeff Bezos, a second generation Cuban-American, Eric Yuan is a second generation Chinese-American, and Sergey Brin, originally from Russia. Additionally, more than half of big American tech companies were founded by immigrants or their descendants.

As countries start to reopen their borders and think of ways to recover their economies, the choice to allow immigration becomes a moral imperative. Contemporary research and history have shown the importance of migrants in the economic building process. Immigration diversifies national knowledge, rejuvenates the work force, creates new jobs, brings technological progress, increases diversity, further develops countries, and improves income distribution.

The United States was built by the calloused hands of foreign-born workers. It would be a grave mistake not to reevaluate the exclusionary federal policies enacted against immigrants today.