immigration

At the heart of the debate over illegal immigration lies one key question: are immigrants good or bad for the economy?

According to a study by George Borjas, a Harvard economist, immigration reduced the wages of American high-school dropouts by 9% between 1980-2000.

What worried them most, in other words, was the fiscal (财政的) burden of immigration.

The irony is that for all the overexcited debate, the net effect of immigration is minimal

The American economy used to thrive on immigration but now it's a different story.

The consensus among economists is that immigration should not be encouraged

The general public thinks differently from most economists on the impact of immigration.

In what way does the author think ordinary Americans benefit from immigration

Why do native low-skilled workers suffer most from illegal immigration?

What is the irony about the debate over immigration

Immigration in the developed world is the highest it has ever been, and it is making a useful difference.

Public opinion polls show that people in most rich countries already think that immigration is too high

Italy, which has a much weaker tradition of immigration, has witnessed a sharp increase in immigration in recent years.

One solution is obviously to import foreign workers via immigration.

We urge congress to increase farmland conservation, as we push for immigration reform.

The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes,no state should be allowed to do so either.

That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.

On a five to three vote,the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Aministration.

In Arizona v.United States,the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.

But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status,it could.

The United States is the product of two principal forces-the immigration of European peoples with their varied ideas, customs, and national characteristics and the impact of a new country which modified these traits.

Accommodating this new world of people in motion will require new attitudes on both sides of the immigration battle.

But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could.

Looking beyond the culture war logic of right or wrong means opening up the middle ground and understanding that managing immigration today requires multiple paths and multiple outcomes.

On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.

That framework has contributed mightily to our broken immigration system and the long political paralysis over how to fix it.

That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.

The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either.

The complaints are unlikely to stop without an overhaul of immigration rules for farm workers.

The shortage is compounded by federal immigration raids, which remove some workers and drive others underground.

We might then begin to solve our immigration challenges.