The surge in immigration will help bolster the U.S. economy by about $7 trillion over the next decade by swelling the labor force and increasing demand, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.
The stronger growth will be good for the federal government, lifting revenues by about $1 trillion more than otherwise over the period, according to the non-partisan agency. Wages, however, will rise more slowly, in part reflecting the increase in the number of lower skilled workers, in the CBOâs estimation.
âIncreases in the population boost the demand for goods, services, and housing,â the CBO said in its budget and economic outlook for the next 10 years. âThey also expand the productive capacity of the economy by increasing the size of the labor force.â
The increased migration stems mainly from people entering the U.S. illegally and from those released by Customs and Border Protection officials with humanitarian parole or with a notice to appear before an immigration judge. After a lag, many of those migrants join the labor force.
...
The CBO report underscores some of the economic advantages that can be gained from increased immigration â a point that Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell made in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview broadcast on Feb. 4.
âThe U.S. economy has benefited from immigrationâ over time, Powell said, while stressing that he wasnât telling Congress what should be done regarding the issue.
The CBO projects that the increase in immigration will lift the growth of inflation-adjusted gross domestic product by an average of 0.2 percentage points a year from 2024 to 2034, leaving it roughly 2% larger in 2034 than otherwise.
In its report, the CBO raised its estimate of the labor force in 2033 by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net inflows from outside the country.
The expanded workforce will put downward pressure on average inflation-adjusted wages, according to the agency. That effect is projected to partly reverse after 2027, but wages are still expected to be slightly lower than otherwise in 2034 in the CBOâs estimation.
Wages are depressed in part because many migrants are expected to work in lower-paying jobs, thus lowering the average salary. But an increase in the supply of labor also plays a role, according to the report.
SEE ALSO:
Directorâs Statement on the Budget and Economic Outlook for 2024 to 2034
DENVER (KDVR) â The influx of migrants coming to the United States continues in cities and states across the nation, and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston is continuing to push the issue in the nationâs capital.
Thursday, Johnston was joined by some familiar faces to press the issue in Washington. Denverâs mayor has been calling for more resources for migrants over the past few months, along with other mayors across the nation.
Members of Congress joined Johnston to call on their colleagues to do better.
âDenver, like many cities in America, is a vibrant, thriving city full of generous folks who want to see everyone succeed. We are also a city right now that is facing a humanitarian crisis and fiscal crisis unlike anything weâve seen in the last 25 years,â Johnston said on Capitol Hill Thursday.
The Mile High City is hitting an inflection point â since December 2022 the city has received 37,714 migrants from the Texas-Mexico border. Johnston and most of Coloradoâs Democratic congressional delegation stressed to the nation that Denver is reaching its breaking point with funding for the crisis.
âWithout some intervention or support, the city of Denver is looking at a $180 million budget in 2024 to meet the needs of folks that are arriving in our cities in cold like this,â the mayor explained. âWe are not willing to let folks be homeless on the streets of our city with kids in tents in 10-degree weather. But without some support, that $180 million would look like a 10% cut of our entire budget across the city.â
Johnston called on the federal government for better pathways to citizenship including faster work authorizations, more federal resourcesand proper guidance for states and cities.
Colorado members of Congress backed the Denver mayor up, calling for Congress to put aside partisan games to get a better federal system in place.
âWe have the Senate and the House with different leadership and different majorities. You have to be able to come together and pass it in both chambers and find compromise like we do in Colorado,â said U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen.
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet has long been an advocate for immigration reform, saying the nation cannot fault what local governments are doing to address migrants when the federal government has not done its part.
âWhat an irrational system to be one where people are coming here and then there is no ability for them to work,â Bennet said. âItâs as if the country is insisting that you be on the public dole, insisting that you canât support your family. Thatâs not the situation Denver wants, thatâs not the situation Colorado wants.â
Bennet said work authorizations have to be a part of any package Congress passes, but getting any agreement in Congress is easier said than done these days.
Just problems, and money is the only solution right?
There's plenty of work for them...make them work for their supper and get their lives sorted.
Right now, the latest data shows that we have 9.5 million job openings in the U.S., but only 6.5 million unemployed workers.
We have a lot of jobs, but not enough workers to fill them. If every unemployed person in the country found a job, we would still have over 2 million open jobs.
I'm pretty open minded when it comes to immigration, but this situation is getting out of control.
The irresponsible responses from of republican states shipping people to democratic cities...and the lack of a response from the feds to attempt to coordinate any of this?
How or whether we should control immigration is one thing, and while I do believe most of the people coming up from the south are interested in building a better life,
I'm not sure US taxpayers should be on the hook for essentially funding their migration and providing public housing.
Shouldn't they have the means to support themselves before entry?
DENVER (KDVR) â Denver Mayor Mike Johnston told FOX31 the migrant crisis could cost the city $180 million this year, and now heâs asking city departments to slash up to 15% from their budgets to cover the cost.
Johnston sat for an exclusive interview with FOX31 and talked about what this means for city services.
Just hours after Johnston broke the news to the city council, he explained the details as FOX31 rode with him around downtown Denver on a tour of cleaned-up encampment sites.
âFor people that arenât familiar with the budget, $180 million is about 10 or 15 percent of the city budget,â Johnston said.
So where will these cuts come from?
âAs a department head, your goal is always how to find the things you can cut that donât directly impact services as much as possible. We donât want to close down rec centers or stop picking up trash or paving the streets or take officers off the streets, so we gotta prioritize that,â Johnston said. âSo what theyâll do now is take a hard look at their budgets and see what their options are, and weâll go back and look at them and see what we can do without trying to directly impact the city as much as possible.â
$180 million: Thatâs more than the entire budget for the Parks and Recreation department and more than the entire budget for the cityâs housing and homelessness efforts all combined. And the news comes as the influx of migrants grows.
As of Tuesday night, more than 4,800 migrants were being temporarily housed by the city. More than 37,000 have been transported to Denver in the last year, and the cityâs already paid $38 million to respond to the crisis.
If things donât change, 2024âs bill will be a behemoth.
How will Denver manage the migrant influx?
In New York, theyâre seeking legal remedies, like going after the bus companies that bring migrants to the city. Is Denver pursuing anything similar, perhaps versus the governor of Texas, who has bused migrants to the city?
âWeâre not pursuing legal action to sue them. Weâre trying to figure out how to work together,â Johnston said. âYou know, Iâve reached out to the governor of Texas to say we understand that you donât think Texas can manage all of this inflow on your own. We agree â Denver canât handle it all on our own. Letâs partner together on how to manage this system in the same way we have for other asylum seekers. So weâre looking at how to solve the problem, not how to pick a bigger fight.â
The other crisis: The city is out of room. Every room that can be used for sheltering migrants in the city and county of Denver is now full. There is no space for new migrant arrivals and no staff or resources to support them if and when they come.
The mayor said without the help of neighboring cities, budget cuts might have to go even deeper if the crisis worsens â and it is not letting up. Seven more buses of migrants arrived in Denver over the weekend.
Options going forward include offering arriving migrants a ticket out of town or hoping they have friends or family to stay with while theyâre here.
Rhetorical question: why are all the solutions to undocumented immigration solved by punishing the immigrants? Maybe we should look upstream and punish those overwhelmingly US-born business owners who use the labor provided by these workers - you know, the carrot-danglers...
What about downstream? Why do these folks pack up and leave with their families in the first place. What efforts can be done to help those countries provide better for their citizens? Maybe they don't want them either and encourage them to go to the US. We always look to treat (punish in this case) the symptoms of the infection instead of getting to the root of it.
Rhetorical question: why are all the solutions to undocumented immigration solved by punishing the immigrants? Maybe we should look upstream and punish those overwhelmingly US-born business owners who use the labor provided by these workers - you know, the carrot-danglers...
just an observation:
because looking upstream would be counter productive and politically foolish (for local politicians) to go after business owners for political rules/laws?
they didn't make those rules and i doubt that they support them
we know that the immigrants don't, they just want a job/better life
business want to hire and produce goods/services (clearly a win/win situation)
from a business/political stand point who is it that benefits from restricting/punishing these people?
who is influencing the rule makers and the rule enforcers?
unions? homeland security? both of the current parties have flip flopped on this issue and everybody suffers
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Dec 20, 2023 - 11:52am
Lazy8 wrote:
They should get a pass. The immigrants should get a pass (visa). I'm pointing out that the impulse (I'm being punished? You should be punished too!) is misguided: the punishment is the problem, not who it's aimed at.
That's not going to happen in an authoritarian-leaning state like Texas. They will scream and scream about those awful brown people (hell, they rant about the DOCUMENTED immigrants), but won't say a thing about enforcing laws for employers who hire undocumented workers. That's why this was a rhetorical question, Marty. They want to punish poor people of colour and continue to give the business owners a pass.
They should get a pass. The immigrants should get a pass (visa). I'm pointing out that the impulse (I'm being punished? You should be punished too!) is misguided: the punishment is the problem, not who it's aimed at.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Dec 20, 2023 - 11:01am
Lazy8 wrote:
They haven't gotten to work yet.
The answer is to open a path for them to enter (and work) legally, not to put more people on the anvil.
That's not going to happen in an authoritarian-leaning state like Texas. They will scream and scream about those awful brown people (hell, they rant about the DOCUMENTED immigrants), but won't say a thing about enforcing laws for employers who hire undocumented workers. That's why this was a rhetorical question, Marty. They want to punish poor people of colour and continue to give the business owners a pass.
Rhetorical question: why are all the solutions to undocumented immigration solved by punishing the immigrants? Maybe we should look upstream and punish those overwhelmingly US-born business owners who use the labor provided by these workers - you know, the carrot-danglers...
This approach has been in place since the 1980s. Employers are required to verify work eligibility using form I-9. Very harsh penalties if they don't.
Because punishment is how we solve social problems. Merciless punishment.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Dec 20, 2023 - 9:56am
Rhetorical question: why are all the solutions to undocumented immigration solved by punishing the immigrants? Maybe we should look upstream and punish those overwhelmingly US-born business owners who use the labor provided by these workers - you know, the carrot-danglers...
Homeland Security Wants To Protect Us From Foreign Bands
A new proposal to more than triple visa entry fees for performers will harm American audiences and culture.
In a proposal published in the Federal Register last month, DHS wants to, among suggested fee hikes for many dozens of categories of entrance to the U.S., raise the entrance fee for what is known as a "P visa," for temporary stays in the U.S. to perform, from $460 to $1,615, a more than threefold increase.
The "O visa" for longer-term working stays for performers would jump slightly more, from $460 to $1,655. The two visa categories have in addition to their costs, naturally, a lot of other complicated rules.
The homeless population in this town has exploded over the past five years of so. They used to hangout around just a few places near the city center; now they're all over town. Another symptom of Late Stage Capitalism.
Speak for your own pecular capitalist system, your your own peculiar brand of welfare statism and other policy choices.
Why are US mortgage payments tax deductible? Because home ownership is divine?
Why does the US Central Bank have an employment mandate? Because America is the most drug-addled society on the face of the earth and going through the day without 'stimulus' is unthinkable? Because more macroeconomic volatility is a good thing? Because you don't care about the most vulnerable?
What is the purpose of your immigration program? More opportunities for promiscuous sex? Cheap labour for entitled get-rich-quick Americans? Because Democrat voters refuse to believe in resource constraints?
As for the current round of inflation..... why did US-lead NATO agree to provide NATO membership to the Baltic States and Poland in the 1990s? Because Americans are righteously myopic and love the Great Man of Stature approach to international relations?
