The future of immigration

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Stanford economist Ron Abramitsky argues that many common beliefs about immigration are myths: immigrants often improve their prospects dramatically, but not through instant rags-to-riches mobility. Using large historical data sets, text analysis, and family linkages, he finds enduring patterns of upward mobility, cultural assimilation, and lower incarceration risk for immigrants and their descendants, with refugees showing especially strong language outcomes.

Main Topics: How immigration is studied with historical data (Priority: 5/5): Abramitsky explains how economic history methods use public records released after 72 years, census linkages, genealogies of millions of families, and text analysis of speeches and interviews to reconstruct immigrant experiences over time. Defining immigrants and the study’s scope (Priority: 4/5): The discussion clarifies that the research focuses on voluntary immigrants and their children, not slavery or all forms of forced migration, while acknowledging ambiguity in who counts as an immigrant across generations. The myth of immediate rags-to-riches mobility (Priority: 5/5): Abramitsky rejects the idea that immigrants quickly become wealthy, noting that many continued in manual labor, while still emphasizing that immigration greatly improves economic prospects relative to origin countries. Cultural assimilation and citizenship behavior (Priority: 5/5): The conversation shows immigrants making measurable efforts to become Americans through citizenship applications, intermarriage, moving out of enclaves, and adopting American-sounding names, with patterns similar across eras. Crime, incarceration, and public narratives (Priority: 5/5): Abramitsky presents forthcoming research showing immigrants have never been more likely than the U.S.-born to be incarcerated since 1870, and that historical anti-immigrant rhetoric closely resembles today’s political language. Refugees versus economic immigrants (Priority: 4/5): Using Ellis Island oral histories, Abramitsky finds that refugees—those fleeing war or revolution—tended to develop better English outcomes than economic immigrants, likely because they had stronger incentives to stay and succeed. Policy implications and time horizon (Priority: 5/5): Abramitsky argues policymakers often evaluate immigration too narrowly and too soon; a longer-term lens reveals strong gains among immigrants' children and descendants, as well as broader economic benefits.

Key Arguments: Immigration is fundamentally about people moving to opportunity, and the biggest anti-poverty effect comes from allowing people to cross borders. The popular 'rags to riches' immigrant story is misleading; many immigrants improved relative to where they came from but did not rapidly become wealthy in the U.S. Immigrants have historically and currently made sustained efforts to assimilate culturally, even in the first generation. Immigrants from nearly every sending country are more upwardly mobile than the U.S.-born, and this has been true for over a century. The children of immigrants often outperform the U.S.-born economically, regardless of whether the original immigrants came from Europe a century ago or Latin America/Asia today. Immigrants have never had higher incarceration rates than the U.S.-born in U.S. history since 1870; today they are much less likely to be incarcerated. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is not new; historical elites used demeaning language similar to current political discourse. Refugees may do especially well in language acquisition because they have fewer reasons to return home and stronger incentives to adapt. Short-term political judgments miss the long-run contributions of immigrants and their descendants to the economy and society.

Data Points: Immigrant population in the U.S.: 45 million - People in the United States who report a country of origin other than the U.S. Historical U.S. immigrant population share: 14% - Immigration share in the age of mass migration, and approximately the same share today European share of immigrants in the 1900s: 90% - Most immigrants during the Ellis Island era came from Europe Non-European share of today’s immigrants: 75% - Today most immigrants come from Central America, Latin America, Mexico, and Asia Congressional and presidential speeches analyzed: 8 million - Large-scale text corpus used to study anti-immigrant sentiment over 150 years Immigration-related speeches in corpus: 200,000 - Subset of speeches specifically about immigrants Ellis Island oral histories: About 1,500 - Retrospective immigrant interviews used to study motivations and language outcomes Incarceration history series: Since 1870 - Time span covered by the reconstructed incarceration data set Immigrant country-of-origin incarceration comparison: Never more likely than the U.S.-born - Main finding from Abramitsky’s forthcoming 2024 paper on immigration and crime Economic immigrant return migration: About one-third - Share of economic immigrants who go back and forth/return to their home country in every wave Family prospects comparison: At least double or more than double - Immigrants’ incomes and prospects relative to what they would have had in the old country Time threshold for public records release: 72 years - After this period, government records become publicly available for historical linkage

Pivotal Quotes: "At the end of the day, it's about people who want to move to opportunity relative to what they had." — Ron Abramitsky: Opening framing of immigration as opportunity-seeking rather than abstract policy debate "The streets were not paved with gold. Second, they were not paved at all. And third, I was the one expected to pave them." — An Italian immigrant (quoted by Ron Abramitsky): Illustrates the myth-versus-reality gap in immigrant experience "There has never been a period in U.S. history since 1870 where immigrants were more likely to be incarcerated than the U.S. born." — Ron Abramitsky: Key evidence countering claims linking immigrants to crime

Implications: Listeners should treat immigration debates as long-term, data-driven questions, not short-term political talking points. The evidence suggests immigrants and their children often integrate, succeed, and contribute more than stereotypes imply.