The limitless appeal of U.S. citizenship among the world's poor and dispossessed stands as one of the 20th century's most telling commentaries. What do the waves of immigrants yet on the horizon mean for the land of opportunity?

Other than the post-World War II increase in births-the so-called "Baby Boom"-there has been no more important demographic phenomenon in 20th century America than immigration. Throughout the century, people moving to the U.S. from abroad have added to the size of the native population and have greatly impacted the country's demographic, geographic and economic structure.

But at the close of this century, U.S. immigration policies are under fire as perhaps never before in the nation's history. Many argue that the United States is lax in enforcing immigration laws and that immigrants are taking jobs from native Americans. This argument is hardly new. In June 1896, Francis A. Walker (formerly in charge of the U.S. Census Bureau) wrote in the Atlantic Monthly: "... the people of the United States ... have no right to carry their hospitality one step beyond the line where American institutions, the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, are brought into serious peril." Ironically, Walker's words came immediately prior to the greatest sustained flow of immigrants the U.S. was to see up until 1990s. Since the time of Walker's article, more than 44 million persons have been admitted to the United States as legal immigrants. The highest rates of immigration (computed as immigrants per 1,000 resident U.S. population) were recorded during the first two decades of the century. Although the average level of immigration then was not so far below that of the present, the domestic population base was far smaller. In those decades, the immigration rate of seven or eight per 1000 was about twice the current level.

In general, to the extent that immigrants differ from any native population, they will add to a host country's population's overall size and growth rate, as well as influence the age and race/ethnic structure of the population. This alone may trigger emotional responses among some natives, although most modern writers would eschew the language used by Francis Walker on this point: "The appearance of vast numbers of men, foreign in birth and often in language, with a poorer standard of living, with habits repellent to our native people..."

Typically, immigration immediately adds to the working age population more than it does to the ranks of either children or the elderly. In 1997, for example, persons under age 18 accounted for one in four native born Americans versus only one in 10 immigrants. Slightly more than 10 percent of each group were aged 65 and older. In terms of race and ethnicity, almost all native-born residents of the United States were either black or white; among those born elsewhere nearly one in four reported their racial background as being Asian. Similarly, slightly less than one-tenth of natives were of Hispanic origin versus nearly half (44 percent) of immigrants.

These numbers are simply a snapshot comparing current demographic data for the native- versus foreign-born population now living in the U.S. To get a truer picture of immigration's role in the country's demographic dynamics, one must consider that immigrants add to the population mix not only through their own presence, but also through their demographic behaviors after arrival. One needs to think not only of immigrants' contributions to numbers and growth rates, but also the effect of immigrants' (native-born) children.

It is difficult to measure these effects retrospectively (for example, we don't keep track of births to immigrants or to their children separately from all births); we can conclude that 20th century immigration to the United States has generally tended to increase the share of the population of working age and in this sense increase the labor force to population ratio. This in turn has positive economic consequences by lowering the so-called dependency ratio-the number of non-workers who must be supported by each worker. One fear which Francis Walker expressed-decline of native fertility to prevent children from having "social contact and economic competition" with those of "habits repellent to our native people..." - has never come to pass. With the two-child family now apparently the (native-born) American norm, future immigration will play a crucial role in future population dynamics here. The U.S. Bureau of the Census provides a population projection of the country from 1995 through 2050 under assumptions of zero immigration; these figures can be compared with their "middle" series which has identical assumptions about birth and death rates, but also includes annual immigration of 880,000 persons per year. By comparing the population of 2050 with and without immigration we can get some insight into how future immigration might affect total population and, by extension, how previous immigration may have influenced the current perspective.

Overall U.S. population is forecast to increase by 47 million persons without immigration but by nearly 130 million with immigration. Since (by assumption) there would be a total of 48.4 million immigrants over the 55-year period, the indirect impact of this immigration will be more than 80 million persons. We can imagine that the net impact of the present century's recorded immigration may have a similar effect on current population size and structure.

Why They Come

Individuals migrate to the United States largely for economic reasons or for family reunification (which ultimately reflects the motivation of the original mover, which most likely is economic in nature as well). A large body of evidence on the economic impact of migration to receiving nations such as the United States argues that on balance, the impact is positive, although there may be adverse effects for those native-born persons who directly compete with immigrants in the labor market. Our own research, published in 1994, concluded that working-age immigrants work to almost exactly the same degree as do their native counterparts. The general finding is that current (and by extension, previous) immigrants pay more into the economy in terms of taxes and consumer expenditures than they take from it in terms of transfer payments such as welfare payments. True, the children of immigrants impose costs on school systems (as do all children!), but it has also traditionally been the case that it is the children who play the crucial role in the eventual assimilation of their family. Immigration also has played a major role in changes in the distribution of the American population during the 20th century. As a rule, immigrants initially tend to settle near their port of entry; even with the dramatic changes in means and speed of transport, this remained as true at century's end as it was at its beginning. The port of entry, in turn, tends to be chosen largely for its geographic proximity to port of embarkation, usually in or near to the country of origin. During the previous immigration peak at the beginning of the century, immigrants were overwhelmingly of European origin--of 14.5 million immigrants between 1901 and 1920, nearly 90 percent were from the other side of the Atlantic. From 1981 to 1996, there were nearly as many immigrants admitted--a total of 13.5 million--but their national origins were far different. Only 12 percent were from Europe; a third were of Asian origin, and nearly half were from North America.

Given the realities of geography, European immigrants would naturally gravitate towards eastern and northern ports, and indeed, this is precisely the case for early 20th century arrivals. Current immigrants from Asia are far more likely to arrive on the Pacific coast, while migrants from Mexico and Central America initially arrive overland in Southern California or in Southwestern states. Migrants from the Caribbean are somewhat attracted to Gulf coast destinations, although many still initially settle in the urban northeast. To a considerable extent, then, the changes in the regional distribution of the American population during the century have been considerably enhanced and magnified by the changes in the places of origin and areas of destination of our immigrant population.

Impact Abroad

All of the foregoing looks at immigration from the perspective of the United States; from an economic perspective it's clear that the nation has benefited considerably from its newest residents. But what about the places where our immigrants left?

On one hand, it could be argued that it is the "brightest and best" who are most likely to leave so that the gain to the U.S. is the loss to Mexico or Vietnam. This "brain drain" argument certainly has validity--migration does represent a transfer of human skills from a poorer to a richer country (and the costs of acquiring at least some of these skills were borne by the poorer country). But there is no reason to suggest that the economic gains realized by the immigrant would in fact have occurred had he or she never departed. How much of the real gains of migration are eventually repatriated to the place of origin depend greatly on the choices made by individual migrants. Decisions about permanent versus temporary intended residence and about migration with or without family members have much to do with the share of earnings and savings returning to the mother country in the form of remittances. In some countries, such remittances represent the major source of imported capital and, as such, can be viewed as being a return to the country's initial investment in the person who chooses to emigrate.

The Look Ahead

Continued immigration in the U.S. seems both likely and highly desirable from an economic perspective. Nonetheless, opposition to immigration on nativist or protectionist grounds will undoubtedly persist as the intellectual descendents of Francis Walker are still with us. In response to the recent doubling of highly skilled foreign workers admitted to the United States (under the so-called H-1B visa program), presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan issued a press release on July 2, 1999 stating: "To allow Silicon Valley to import scores of thousands more foreign workers every year, to take the jobs of the future that would otherwise go to Americans, represents a betrayal of the American middle class by a selfish slice of our corporate elite. Unfortunately, that corporate elite has both Beltway parties snuggly [sic] in its wallet pocket."

Others may follow the line of Don Lescohier who argued in April 1919 (also in the Atlantic Monthly) that the business community might cling "... to the policy of providing a labor-surplus for each employer, which will enable him to ... keep down the rate of wages", despite all evidence to the contrary and the present (and future) needs for more skilled workers.

Rather than opposing immigration, one should welcome it with the awareness that immigration has always added to America's social diversity as well as its economic prosperity, and there's little reason to worry about that changing in the century ahead.

William J. Serow (Ph.D. Duke) is professor of economics and serves as director of FSU's Center for the Study of Population. He joined the university faculty in 1981 after 11 years at the University of Virginia. He is author of The Impact of Immigration on the United States (with Bob Weller and David Sly), as well as more than one hundred other articles and books on demographic and economic issues, especially regarding the aging of populations. He can be reached at 850-644-1762 or at wserow@coss.fsu.edu.

"A great nation is any mob of people which produces at least one honest man a century." H.L. Mencken