We are now into President Trump’s second term and are beginning to see the effects of his executive orders, as well as consider their long-term implications. Professor Anna Maria Mayda, director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration at SFS, explores these developments in her co-authored chapter, “Immigration and border policies,” featured in the new book The Economic Consequences of the Second Trump Administration: A Preliminary Assessment. Mayda discusses her chapter’s findings, their broader political significance and how the Master of Arts in International Migration and Refugees program equips students to engage with these complex issues.
Q. Your chapter outlines the economic costs of reduced immigration to the U.S.—lower GDP, fewer startups and shrinking labor supply. Why do you think policies restricting immigration persist politically, despite these macroeconomic outcomes? What does this reveal about how immigration policy is shaped and influenced in the U.S.?
A. An increase or a reduction in immigration to the U.S. produces both aggregate effects (that is, the effects on the “size of the pie”) and income-distribution effects (that is, the effects on the “slices of the pie”). The chapter focuses, for the most part, on the aggregate effects of reduced immigration to the U.S. This makes sense because the aggregate effects are what policymakers should take into account when they set immigration policy. Immigration policies are not the right policy tool to redistribute income within the population (other tools such as tax policies are).
At the same time, the income distribution effects of immigration policy, the way individual voters and regions within the country are affected, has an impact on the way people vote and, ultimately, on immigration policies. For example, although the fiscal impact of immigration is either null or positive at the aggregate level, it is uneven within the U.S. The article I wrote with Mine Senses (Johns Hopkins) and Walter Steingress (Bank of Canada) shows that with the arrival of immigrants between 1990 and 2010, some U.S. counties gained and others lost in terms of per capita public revenues and expenditures of local governments. Voters in counties that experience a reduction in per capita public revenues and expenditures are likely to turn against immigration. Note that those counties could be compensated for the negative effects, for example by redistributing to them some of the gains of the counties that experience an increase in per capita revenues and expenditures. In practice, though, not enough redistribution takes place through the current system of intergovernmental transfers.
Q. You highlight how diminished immigration flows could reshape labor markets, innovation and public finances. If Trump-style immigration policies persist beyond this administration, what are the potential long-term effects on U.S. economic leadership and global competitiveness?
A. In this scenario, where Trump-style immigration policies persist, the United States is definitely going to experience a reduction in welfare in the long run. Both low-skilled and high-skilled immigration have been key to sustain U.S. economic leadership and global competitiveness. Low-skilled immigrants are crucial for the functioning of sectors such as agriculture, construction, hospitality and child and elder care by filling vacancies for jobs that American workers are not willing to take. High-skilled immigrants are also key inputs into U.S. patenting activity and entrepreneurship, as many papers in academic literature have documented over and over again.
Q. Highly educated immigrants often enter the country through academic or professional pathways. How do you see the skilled labor market evolving in response to recent shifts in immigration policy, particularly those citing national security or ideological concerns as justification for restrictions on migration?
A. Some people think that fewer skilled immigrants will mean more jobs for skilled American workers. Actually, the opposite is true. Think about all the foreign-born CEOs and high-level managers in U.S.-based firms, as well as the inventors in U.S. labs and universities. A reduction in their number because of ideologically motivated policy measures will definitely lead to a less vibrant U.S. labor market and economy. The United States has been able to attract the best minds from all over the world thanks to the strength of its universities (such as Georgetown) and labor market. We should be thankful for that rather than enact policies that undermine these dynamics.
Q. You’ve noted that recent executive orders have affected foreign students and scholars through changes in funding, visa policies and immigration enforcement. What role do you think universities should play in responding to such policy shifts? How might academic institutions support the continued global exchange of talent and ideas?
A. U.S. universities have played an outsized role in attracting the best minds to this country. The policy shifts of this administration—in terms of funding, visa policies and immigration enforcement—undermine the ability of U.S. universities to keep doing so. U.S. universities should intensify their efforts to explain to this administration and U.S. public opinion how crucial skilled immigrants have been for the growth of the U.S. economy, through a steady flow of academic papers, reports and conferences on the topic. In general, public opinion tends to be much more favorable to high-skilled immigrants, compared to low-skilled immigrants, which means that reminding people about these facts is likely to be effective.
If in the worst case scenario, these policies do not change, then U.S. universities should consider expanding their presence outside of the United States through programs in satellite campuses and partnerships with foreign universities. This would, of course, be a net loss for the United States but it would allow U.S. universities to keep operating at the highest levels.
Q. As the new director of SFS’s Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) and Master of Arts in International Migration and Refugees (MIMR) program, how can graduate programs like MIMR equip students to think critically and constructively about legal status, integration and second-generation immigrant rights?
A. Graduate programs like MIMR can equip students by teaching them the real facts about immigration, beyond any type of rhetoric. At a time when voters around the world are becoming extreme in their positions, it is very unlikely that academic analyses and reports are going to change the minds of ideological voters who are at the extreme of the political spectrum. But communication of the facts about immigration can shape the positions of voters in the middle, who are usually the ones who decide elections. Our program can enable students to be critical thinkers who can grapple with the facts and apply this knowledge to engage meaningfully in the field of migration.