cannot wait for congress, i will do it anyway. that's not the way democracy works. the problem with daca and dafa would besimilar which for a illegal immigrant parents of foreign born kids is that the president is not allowed to make law on his own. regardless of the substance of the issue -- if present obama issued an executive order saying the sunshine chine everyday and everybody should be happy and it worked, it still wrong, it still unconstitutional. is -- up next is steven or democratic line. i have sood morning, much anger and so many problems with immigration. they should shut that department down. they are the worst people.

so muchople have done damage to this country that it's unbelievable. i came here in 1972 and they play by the rules and i came on a student visa. i got married and raised my two kids and i play by the rules. that are running for the presidency, i don't like either one of them. both of them are liars. both of them are cheats. they are no good. donald trump is the worst. his wife came to the country on a tourist visa and she worked here illegally. i know the law of immigration. visa and on a tourist you cannot work in this country. that's just illegal. i could not work either. host: let's let mark respond. guest: there are several things

you mentioned -- the first party was talking about was the bureaucracy in the immigration system. i resist this game of picking the bureaucrats. when there are problems like , our dmvn in the dmv in virginia works ok. other bureaucracies like the post office and the people are not the problem. it's the policies and institutions that is set up in the people higher up is where the problem is. people who complain about uscis is the agency that does the green cards and that sort of thing for immigrants, the people who work there are not bad. it's just that they are being given an impossible task that cannot really be accomplished properly. in a sense, what do you expect? thesist beating up on people in the field because it's not they're doing. to donaldg back

trump's plan, according to the "washington post," they looked at the feasibility and the cost cost of diverting at least 5 million undocumented 51igrants would be between point $2 billion-66 $.9 billion in enforcement costs over the next five years. how feasible logistically and in terms of financially is his plan? guest: it's clearly feasible. he did not say 5 million people. they are picking a number. they are saying about half. he specifically said everyone who was arrested will be removed. president obama's enforcement priorities now is they just let go lots of a rest of illegal aliens. they are not asking congress for the money to be able to detain and import additional people.

they are not even using all the detention facilities and funding they have now. this is scare tactics. it's eminently feasible. one of the elements that he talked about that there is broad system -- annd online system that is free. they checked the social security . it's voluntary and a lot of people use it. we use it at my think tank. rolling that out for all employers will not cost much at all because we have already bought the computers. we have the infrastructure should there are many things where there is not a lot of extra cost. -- bottom line is controlling immigration is part of being in the country business. you spend the money that's necessary to do what you have to do.

objections to be intended to make immigration control seem impossible. it's not impossible. host: up next we have james from pot tucker, rhode island, good morning. caller: how are you doing? i am for the immigration policy 95%. it's all the fault of congress. they cannot come up with a reasonable plan to work this out so everybody untroubled's case, at least he has a plan and hillary don't. which is rhode island a sanctuary state, never mind a city. i talk to these people all the time and they are nice people. a lot of them don't work and -- i haveenefits

heard this first hand -- they say it's better to sit home and collect a check because they get just as much money as working 40 hours a minimum wage. that's one thing. the other thing is, the 1.i have against trump's immigration plan as i know some people personally who have been here, kids that my kids play with that has been here 10 or 11 years. they only know the american way. if you send them back to guatemala or venezuela. it will be a prison sentence to them because life out there is devastating. you want to talk about a change of life. that is the only problem i have with transplant about the immigration. host: let's give market chance to address that issue. first of all, kids who did actually come here very young and have spent their

entire childhoods here, i am for amnesty to them potentially even upfront as part of some kind of deal that has enforcement in it. it's the broader amnesty that cannot be considered until after we fix the problem. you mentioned splitting up families and this is a buzzword the other side uses. nobody is putting up any families goes people can always go back and join their family members. -- because people can always go back and join their family members. he said it was congresses fault. it's congresses fault but it's also excessive administration. congress has to make the law but there are kinds of ways you can enforce or not enforced the law. this is something both republican and democratic administrations and republican and democratic congressman are all responsible for. such a mess that everybody has a piece of it. he made another point about welfare. the important thing to

understand here is while i'm sure there are people who get a check and don't work, that happens whether they are immigrants or americans but most people on welfare are actually working and getting welfare as a supplement. that's the point to welfare so the issue is not black-and-white. you there you are sitting around all day watching reality tv and getting welfare check or you are working. households, immigrant households, the vast majority that are collecting some form of welfare have somebody in the works. the reason for that is our immigration system brings in people who don't have a lot of education and who have kids. our welfare system is designed to subsidize people who work and have kids and our poor. we are importing people who will inevitably be using welfare because -- it does not matter how many jobs they work -- they can never feed their own children because they are so

poorly educated that in a modern economy, their skills don't pay a lot of money. they can get a job but they cannot earn a lot of money and they will end up on welfare. it's not so much an illegal alien because they don't collect much welfare. we have a legal immigration system that is importing lots of people, hundreds of thousands every year, who cannot be -- feed their own children. why are we doing that? it makes no sense. host: donald trump seems to be addressing illegal and legal immigration. he says he would want to implement an ideological certification for those seeking to enter the country to make sure that they love us. how do you do that? guest: he called it extreme vetting, it's another one of these trump labels. we already do that basically in

both regular immigration and once an immigrant is here if he wants to become a citizen. you sign something that says i do not believe in polygamy. card, want to get a green you attest that not only are you yourself not a polygamist that that you do not support polygamy. ideologicalthis value screening all along. we have to test that you are not an anarchist even if you don't have a bomb to throw at someone. if you say you are, you are not allowed to come in here and that was a problem from 100 years ago. now it's a different challenge. it's radical islam. the political parts of islam, not the religious parts. it seems to be perfectly plausible for somebody who will settle here -- you would not say you are a muslim -- it would be for anyone who is an immigrant, you have a statement that says i believe in freedom of speech or

i believe that people can change their religion are not go to any religion -- basic value questions. some people will lie, of course they are. if they lie and are found later that they lied, they can be deported. it also sends a message to people abroad. some guy in pakistan was not a terrorist but a traditional old-school muslim and he reads this thing when he is thinking about immigrating to join his , it says i believe that anyone can leave any religion they want, i believe that people can insult religious figures even if i don't like it. he may read that and say america is not for me. i will not go. we don't want people who believe in that stuff. host: is the idea to keep out butle could be dangerous they could lie on the form. doesn't that invite profiling question mark guest: not necessarily. about keeping out

people who are dangerous like terrorists or supporters of terrorism. -- we do that anyway. the point is to keep people out who reject the basic principles of the constitution even if they are not killing anybody. i don't want people moving into our society who think it's ok to throw gays off the top of a building and kill them even if they are not doing it themselves. people with those kind of retrograde values should not be allowed to even join our society. does not matter whether they will kill anyone or not. we already deal with that question. up next we have 10 from illinois on our democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i want to make a comment about donald trump.

i am a u.s. citizen. let me give you an example, if you want to make america great, you have to start from the top. married to an american. he is married to a foreign lady and that's the first example. [indiscernible] they don't talk about foreign companies employing americans. all of the fallout that donald trump makes [indiscernible] host: that is a lot to unpack. i'm not sure what he was asking about policy. toald trump is married immigrants, to have his three wives seven born abroad. that's fine with me. i don't care one way or another.

that's the deep part of immigration that everybody agrees with. if you marry someone from abroad or adopt a baby from abroad and you are a u.s. citizen, as long as it's legitimate everybody agrees that kind of immigration should happen. it's an important point. we take one million people per year as legal immigrants. one million every year and hillary wants to double that. of that our husbands, wives, and little kids of u.s. citizens. foreigners who married or are adopted by an american citizen. i am for that and everybody is for that ms still a lot of people. even if we had no immigration, we are still talking 400,000 immigrants per year and that's not ending immigration. that's more than any country in the world as it is. the debate about legal immigration is not about yes or no, if we are going to have it

or not, it's are we going to keep it at the high level it is now or will he bring it down to a more sustainable level. host: we are talking to mark sirkorian about the donald trump immigration plan he lazed out -- he laid out wednesday night. on of the plan was focused border security and stopping the flow of immigration. wallenterpieces building a . there is a piece in today's "new york times" that points out --

how do you stop that even if you build a wall? guest: you don't stop it. the important thing to understand is that these are drug tunnels. they are not bringing in illegal aliens but i'm sure do -- but i'm sure someday. i have seen pictures of some of these tunnels and a pretty involved. of will not spend that kind money to bring in busboys and dishwashers, this is for drugs and it will never stop. this is the misconception people have about building fencing or walls. can not about something you set it and forget it, it's a tool that you use but you have to have personnel and technology behind it. there are other things we will probably need to do. more ofer patrol needs

the ground penetrating radar. it's radar where you can check on the ground and we use them in south korea because the north koreans are constantly digging tunnels under that border. the idea that this is something we can fix once and for all and that's the end of it is simply false. it's something we will always have to keep up with. part of it is people trying to tunnel under or climb over. that's not an argument not to do it. when you drove here, you lock your car in the garage. i locked my car but it does not mean that no one can break in. are sophisticated car thieves that can pop my car lock in a second but a lot it anyway because 99% of the people out there who might want to still my car don't know how to do that so my car is less vulnerable when i locked the door. --s not involved although it's not involve liberal -- it's not invulnerable. ost:

the line is mike on our republican line from woodbridge, virginia. forget one thing that we about fixing the immigration system. when you commend your documents, you pay everything up front and you pay your fees. when they don't give you the visa, you don't get your money back. instead of going there to lose money, they would rather give their money illegally and go there. [indiscernible]

is it fair that we treat them this way? let's get mark a chance to respond. was saying is you pay your fees up front and you for thehave to pay medical depending on your visa and if you get turned down come you don't get the money back which is true. the point of the visa fees is to cover the cost of processing the visa. it does not mean you will get the visa. you are paying to apply, not paying to be approved. ifre is no way around that our visa process is going to be based on fees because that's the way it is. there is not a lot of taxpayer money that goes into it, it's mainly funded by the fees people pay. the fees have to cover the work even if the work involves turning you down. host: a couple of contrasting views about donald trump's

immigration plan as he laid out this week -- this is the opinion page of an new york times. guest: let me guess, they are against it. host: they break down several of the points that were made in his speech.

what's your response? guest: you have to detain illegal immigrants before you send them back. if you don't, they got nothing to lose. there is no reason for them to show up to a hearing, for instance, if they will lose the hearing because it's in their interest to run away. if the get caught, they will end up in the same place. if they don't get caught, then they get

at that requires more detention space than so be it. in the washington times today she takes her critique to hillary clinton's plan. for the foreign nationals that believe they can overstate their views. mister obama and mrs. clinton had sent an unmistakable signal to the rest of the world that the u.s. won't protect its borders or enforce its basic law. that only encourages them. do you agree with that. i think she is even

understating it actually. hillary clinton doesn't have much of an immigration plan. if you're going to the website look at immigration we will do it on the trump site also. it has detailed kinds of specifics about what they want to do with the speeches up there hillary and the site is kind of clichés and step. the only thing she is really concrete about is that she will not deport any illegal immigrant today or in the future who has neck into the country or who has lied to our state department. none of those people well ever be deported until they are convicted of a violent felony. so literally it is putting out an invitation. sneak into america or finagle a visa and then overstay it and you will be able to stay as long as you don't kill someone or sell dope. a lot of colors that want to express their view.

from glenview, illinois. >> good morning. i have a couple of points hopefully i can get through them. i think of the immigration issue shows it's a great example of why it would be a disaster in voting for him is just such a mistake. no matter how much somebody likes this -- dislikes hillary clinton. he does not want it seen as a softening but obviously it is a softening. as you pointed out the 11,000 or 12,000 where he originally said they are gone they are out of here he is speaking from his gut. he believed that when he said it. i have to do with his ignorance on that just on some the other issues about how they got to the way it is right now.

let's let mark respond to that. i think the color is right. i think when donald trump said we can deport all 12 million illegal aliens he probably did believe that. when you go into the bar at the end of the day they're saying you have to deport all of these people. once things that to them is not the way it works. kind of like that insurance commercial what he ended up putting forth was a suite of policies that actually can work and fix the problem even if it's not can be a magic wand of making them disappear overnight. he is an undocumented

immigrant. good morning. thank you. there are two things. the last thing i spoke time i have a new baby. it often covers the area of real estate particularly housing and mortgage markets. i'm honored to serve as a moderator for this afternoon's panel covering the connections between immigration and real estate. i suspect that every panel took the view that there theirs was the most crucial and obviously connected to immigration. my i think the impact of immigration on real estate is probably the most important impact in terms of the

economy. the construction sector has been a major employer and it's also part of our history that our signature structures if you think about the brooklyn bridge in the empire state building they are for those of you in washington that runs through georgetown may be the most impressive the transcontinental railroad all with the signature accomplishments. whether it was irish or italian or others. i don't do good be an exaggeration to claim that they were built by immigrants. they constitute one and for construction workers and outright majority they are foreign-born. nearly half of them are

foreign-born. these are highly skilled the instruction. into an out of the united states. we heard earlier but the negative net immigration i would suggest that this is a direct result of the housing bust. immigration directly impacts the demand for real estate when i mentioned the phrase is phrases like little italy or chinatown you immediately know what i mean. it doesn't require explanation paints a very picture in one's mind of neighborhood dynamics. of course immigration was also a direct contributor through the housing which in my opinion ultimately gave rise to a movement for higher quality housing. setting the stage in the 1930s .

and of course was a precursor. you could make that. it would be a little less historical. it again coincides with that. we have a three distinguished speakers here. our first speaker would be jacob the professor a policy and government that is the one with the good coffee from immigrants to americans the rise and fall of sitting end.

his numerous journal publications particularly there had contributed immensely to our understanding of housing dynamics during the recent crisis. our final speaker is the professor of real estate. as well as the professor i was fortunate when she was assistant secretary for policy development. i had been more fortunate that she has been sharing the insights and work. ..

humidity is no contest, i mean, there's a difference between being damp and being human and if it anyone is unclear, come home with me or can we going to talk about part of a project i worked on that's looking broadly at the impact of immigration on communities across the united states, so i have only a short amount of time to talk today so i will do two things, we will start out by talking about the conceptual framework and i will tell you about the data that came up and some of the things we have to do with the data to understand what the impact is of

immigration on local communities and i'm looking specifically what is the impact of immigration to a local community on the housing market. what happens to the prices, what happens to many-- manufacturing in that community when immigrants move into natives leave or do they arrive? i found a way to get traction on those questions using data for counties in the united states between 1972 may 2010, so that's what we will talk about. the stuff i will talk about today is beyond the work of quite a few other people, some of hugh-- who are with us today. we heard about immigration in the labor market earlier today and i am sort of following up a couple other studies of immigration in the housing markets that look that water levels, state-level data or metropolitan area data. i'm going down to the level of the county today. let's talk about immigration and housing. basic story of supply and demand, i mean, we teach this; right? there's a demand for housing in

a supply for housing and you can draw-- call these little cards in different ways, but the basic idea is immigration increases the number of people who need a place to live, so the impact on housing market is straightforward. you have accommodation more houses being built, so in cup-- impact on the construction sector and increased prices and depending on how easy it is to build new structures in the location, you might have more effect on the price size, but that's what we call a direct effects. in addition to these direct effects of immigration on housing markets, there could be what we might call indirect effects, so the arrival of imminent-- immigrants in the community, some people might perceive that is less desirable. some refer to it as native flight. natives might look at it as immigrants coming in and decide they don't want to live there and that would reduce the demand for housing in that neighborhood there could also be effects occurring if natives are

displaced in the labor market. the indirect effects could also be positive. it could be better opportunity for the local residents and there could also be positive impacts on local quality-of-life. we will talk about some of these things. i will end up telling you the positive impacts look like their importance in the one thing immigrants have done is to go into declining neighborhoods of cities, neighborhoods that as of the 1970s or 80s would have been declining and have now stabilized in large part because they are depopulated with immigrant families. we will talk about housing prices and it's important to take a second to think about whether it's good to have higher housing prices. if you own your home, yes, higher housing prices means more wealth for you. that's unambiguously a good thing. if you are a renter or someone trying to turn into a homeowner, higher prices are a mixed bag,

so it may mean more money out of pocket, but generally speaking we think you are paying more money because what you are renting has become more valuable so that's a bit more of a consultative thing. if we were doing this analysis from a strict cost-benefit perspective, we would refer to these things as transfers, the price going up and yes, it does mean that people's wealth has gone up, but at the expense of the renters who might see their rent go up. to push straightforward and the analysis i did, i got population and housing data at the county level from just about every county in the united states from 1972 mike 2010. i had to pop out alaska. alaska really doesn't have counties. some counties shift boundaries over the time and those are also out of the analysis and i ended up with 3109 counties with independent cities and places like virginia etc. and so forth. what i will do is ask the

question, what happens in these counties as a function of the population in those counties and i will look at the impact of foreign population on the native population and home values and i will try to control for a number of characteristics such as housing stock and county fixed effects and year fixed effect to try to sort of take out any kind of long-term differences between counties, so i don't directly compare say manhattan with small counties in rural iowa. the county affect means i'm doing this analysis and studying overtime what happens to a community as immigrants enter the community. i have a couple of slides here that really get into the weeds. there's a lot of detail about functional forum like how do i want to model this. i'm going to wave my hands that here and if you could read fast you will see it's all there. the short version is that i looked to see what kind of model best fits the data and i went with that.

it ends up being a a sick linear model, surprise surprise. we will see what is the impacts of immigration on housing-- prices and the result will be something on the order of when one immigrant moves into the county housing prices change by xx is measured in dollars and cents, so it makes it into event everything is adjusted, so it's pretty easy to explain. i will also incorporate data from county business patterns to look at what's happening to the manufacturing employment across counties. county business patterns and places that don't have a whole lot of manufacturing employee it meant would be excluded and that leaves me with about 2000 counties. a lot of people who do this work , you run into this problem that you see immigrants move into a community and housing prices go up. is that a case of immigrants causing housing prices to go up or is it a case that immigrants are moving to places that are assessable and they are not going to places where the

population is declining where the housing market is in a downward spiral. i am pursuing a strategy of trying to get around that chicken and egg problem identifying the source of immigration into a county that really has little to do with economic positions on the ground. is a well-established pattern that immigrants tend to move to counties where there are already immigrants in the population, so i will use a strategy that has been used for at least 20 years in economics and immigration to sort of predict where immigrants will go as a function of where immigrants were distributed as of 1970. you can attribute this back to some of that was done in the late '80s and early '90s. there's a lot more detail about it here on the slide and you can get the whole story if you read fast. basically, it's the same strategy that has been used repeatedly in a lot of published work on immigration. i'm doing something similar with manufacturing.

instead of looking at something like housing prices and how come its manufacturing jobs and i only have data that for 1970 to 2010. for housing i'm using data for 70, 80, 90, 2000, 2010 examining that over time. we are ready to get to some results and here's what the results look like. the first thing i will show you is that i can predict where immigrants will go as a function of where immigrants were in 1970. i have what i call that shift share base forecast. this is my variable that predicts where immigrants will locate as a function of where immigrants live in 1970. you asked the question, where will we find say immigrants from honduras in the year 2010 and you go back to 1970 and there were not necessarily whole lot of immigrants from honduras in 1970, but what counties in the united states where they're located in and the prediction is that you'll find a particular

concentration of hondurans in the counties that have a lot of hondurans as of 1970. we find this is not a perfect predictor. i mean, we talked a bit about immigrants going to new destinations, so one of the phenomenons we see is that immigrants in the past 10 or 20 years have gone to places like the southeast and the intermountain west, places that did not have large populations-- as of 1970p this forecast kind of messes up with those types of counties, but it's good about forecasting the growth of the immigrant population in places like california, the northeast and places like florida and parts of the midwest that were a bit more urbanized. so, it works but he well. strategy does what it's supposed to do and here's the results of interest for this particular panel. when i look to see what is the impact of immigration on the housing market i get that little

proficient at their the top that is 0.116. interpretation, when one immigrant moves into a county on average housing prices in that county go up by 11.6 cents. sounds like a pretty small number and its appraisal number, but i'm going to go through a little calculation with you in a while that will show how this 11.6 cents turns into about $3.620. that's the total impact of immigration on housing and wealth in the united states taken from this analysis. i have quite a few different control variables in there that are may be less interesting for the purposes of this discussion, so you could take a picture of the strut-- slide and present-- cruise them at your leisure later on. when an immigrant moves in to a county, this analysis suggests that the nativeborn population increases, so it's not that an increase in the immigrant

population chases the native born away. natives are actually drawn to counties that receive immigrants and we want to interpret this as evidence that immigration into a county actually increases the amount of economic opportunity and that county consistent with the idea that there is not a finite amount of jobs to be had in a place particularly and they service sector. you need people to serve in order to have employment opportunities. it suggested that if you bring a thousand immigrants into a county, you get 423 extra natives, so some of those natives are the children of foreign born, so if you do an adjustment based on the childbearing rate of the immigrants, the net impact on the native population is about 270. a thousand immigrants into a county forecasts 270 additional natives will move into that county. manufacturing analysis, so this is showing the strategy of predicting where immigrants will

go as a basis of where they were in 1970 and continues to work in this analysis. here's what we get, when you get a thousand foreign-born individuals moving into a county , the number of manufacturing jobs increases by about 46. immigration-- now this is in the context of an economy where manufacturing jobs in general have been declining, but this says that the loss of manufacturing jobs is lessened in counties that receive more immigrants. so, this is in context with a percent of the workforce in manufacturing and just under 70% of the population workforce, so this suggests that the number of manufacturing jobs created and/or preserved actually exceeds the number of foreign-born people who expect to take those jobs. second slide on implications here, adding a thousand immigrants draws in 270 natives.

that something we talked about a bit already. here is the way we want to think about the housing price results. if a thousand immigrants move into a community, the forecast here is that median home values will increase by about $116. now it's time to do a bit of back of the envelope calculation. the average immigrant resides in a county with 800,000. most immigrants live in larger urban areas where there are more housing. if you think about it, one immigrants moving into a county with 800,000 housing units, they are raising the median price by 11.6 cents. 11.6 cents times 800,000 is $90000, so you can think of this as every immigrant moving into the community and basically their dowry to the community is the effect of that community's housing wealth which amounts to a grand total of $90000. now, $90000 per immigrant and we have approximately 40 million

immigrants in the united states, just take those dumb as a multiply them. 40 million times 90000 is $3.7 trillion impact of immigration on housing wealth. i should be clear about this, this is counting both owner occupied and rental housing, but that's what it is and it's once again a fairly straightforward story that there are more people who want housing units. i should mention that this analysis here is not really looking at the impact on the construction sector, which would be added onto this. additional housing-- we would expect them to sort of reduce the impact on prices are carefully just look at the impact on prices this is the implication you get, $3.7 trillion. thank you. [applause]. >> i would also like to thank

alex and cato for having us here today and i think what's interesting about-- actually, all of the panelists have slightly different slices and definitions. i should say one of the things that i want to emphasize and i think it is true in the panel at large here is that when we are talking about immigrants we are talking about immigrants of what authorization without so porsche, so in this panel it's really talking about people who have come from other places. it's my hope that my talk although a gathering like this it may be impossible, but maybe i will share one new fact or one new piece that is emphasized in a way you haven't seen before. whether i succeed or not you can tell me during the break, but there really interesting facts for how many-- we might think about immigrants and the housing market and as our moderator opened up today is one of the aspects and where i have done most of my work is in the area of understanding immigrant

housing demand said understanding how it may or may not be similar to nativeborn housing demand, so that's where i will focus most of my attention and in the nice thing is my colleagues are called from entry in terms of where our expertise and research agendas have gone. is to pause at these first three teachers and thinking about immigrant and housing market. number one, housing market is not a national phenomenon. housing markets are local, so we think about them as a collection we had to keep in mind immigration trends can change rapidly. we saw a lot of that the data this morning. the word immigrant is not a homogeneous category by any means so we have to keep that in mind and there's multiple dimensions at which i will only show if you those dimensions understanding immigrant housing demand to your. i will show some trans immigration flows across us. the maps are somewhat large on the screen behind me.

this is a nice screen that uses-- hates laser pointers, so i can't show you anything in particular, but let me show you what these will be and you can look through the shades. the first map is the foreign-born population as a percent of the total and the different shades were different quintiles, so five equal buckets that are created and where there is the largest concentration 1980, so not surprising that immigrant gateway brownville texas, new york, miami, california etc. are the darkest shades and as we know over time there's been migration across the us and so what i did not do is change the quintile bucket so that dark shades-- things just get darker over time. i am not change the definition. in 1990, you still thought was mostly in the southwest and again california, florida new york, but by 2000 and 2010 there is substantial migration

throughout the us, so nothing to knew their. the percent latino foreign-born population, one dimension of perhaps there could be differences can also be shown in the same way and perhaps not surprisingly because up until recently the migrants or foreign-born from latin america the largest group and a mass-- the map is pretty much race on the previous where the dark shade starts off as traditional gateway, but by 2,002,010 the migration has spread. the asian population has a similar kind of spreading, but if you want to look closely back in 1982b in the top quintile you only had to have a population of 4.4% asian immigrants, so this is very much compressed, but the one i find most interesting in this series of maps is to think about where are the new immigrants as a percent of total foreign-born population, so if

you look in 19801990 you see that most immigrants with lots of dark shades and when you shift the 2000 and 2010 you see most immigrants that are new or no longer in immigrant gateways, so places like california, florida, texas and so forth are very light shades. that says a lot about the political background and so forth because if you are in places where there's lots of new info-- immigrants there might be challenges or opportunities and so that is something to keep in mind. one of the things until really, i mean, i guess most of my career has been focused on immigrant in the housing market and it was because i thought that immigrants had completely been ignored, so as a young aspiring one needs to make your mark in and so i showed up in the 1990s and realized they had been marginally ignored and i'm not sure why, but one of the

narratives i had heard was that they were transient, they come in and they come out so they are not really like permanent contributors to housing demand in one place because you never know if they will stay. one fact that i've been surprised that, but again might -- everyone might not be a set immigrants are now no longer more mobile than native populations and in fact, are less mobile across state borders in which they arrived. immigrant populations are much more stable and nativeborn populations. this was quite shocking to me when i started to look at the data. it's different from the current population survey and when i started doing my work as you can see, just the underlying mobility of the immigrant population was close to 20%, quite high. native population closer to 15 including both inter- move-in-- interurban moves or interstate moves, but it's the end the

green line is below the others. so, this is one fact that when i actually got to the data-- i knew it was happening, but i did not realize how much it had happened. this is overall mobility and if you look at what distance moves whether you looking at interstate moves and these are facts people been writing about. it's just the overall mobility has been declining in the us. overall mobility of immigrants has declined faster and that's important to keep in mind. that intercounty nobility rape or immigrants is about a percentage point or more or less than natives. immigrants when they come into the community they are there for the duration and that is something i don't get a lot of or i did not realize, but again some of you may have known this by looking at this data before. some of the differences have to do with things like people skill level, low skilled workers are much less likely to migrate to long-distance moves.

this is interstate migration and if you look a the skills you can seek low skilled workers scale starts around 2% drops down to 1% in these one year migration. if you look at the high skilled workers kind of started for immigrants around 3.2% and it declined down to about two and a half percent. than another way of kind of cutting the immigrant population and this is been imported my work on housing is to think about the arrival cohort, from fewer to five years you can see mobility rate is much higher than the other cohorts in this is just interstate. we could look at others and as you have been in the country for a while especially if you look at the 10 plus cohort then you will be only 1% move across state lines. these are the different issues we need to think about. i will move quickly and look forward to q&a in our opportunity to discuss later, but in addition to the mobility patterns one of the things-- i

have done is a lot of my career and i cite one of the papers and noted that they really are critical components, these immigrant populations are to housing markets. they are also integrating more rapidly than past generations of immigrants, so this is important fact to keep in mind. if we are trying to measure in housing demand changes jake already gave you the supply and demand shifts so i don't have to redraw the picture took the order of speaking worked out quite well. basically, you can think about it in terms of shifts in population of people. immigrants are people that bring family and they demand housing units. there is also the type of kind of housing demand that is important to think about and when as you can dig about our people going to be owning or renting and that's what, i mean, by a shift in housing. also, they might or reorganize families in different ways which would be things like ships-- let me pause and i will that the

second. i will look at just the setup cities and not all metropolitan areas, but for analytical convenience because i had a couple of papers where he took this particular sample to show differences. the established gateway, everyone knows what those are, san francisco, la, new york, chicago and miami. and then there's the emerging gateways, which are the places like the denver's, las vegas and atlanta etc. and then there is small natural areas and so in this sample there is a total of 80 metropolitan areas where we can track trends over time. the first thing is the shift in population. the shift in population you can see that from 2000-- this was the last decade and a half the percent of immigrants and establish gateways are almost stable from 33% to 34% and much of the change of the established gateway in the previous map happened in the 80s and 90s. that emerging gateways have

increased from 16 to 21% in the small metros from night to 11.8% and overall immigrant population has grown to about 16.3% in the us. again what is different especially in those established gateways is who the new immigrants. here i defined immigrants as been in the country less than 10 years and you can see how that is declined rapidly in established gateways and declined slightly in the other places. the recent entry among immigrants, if you look at those you can see a more rapid decline coming from other countries. now i will go to homeownership. this is one of the markers that we report out all the time. homeownership, i will give a definition that might seem obvious, but it support if you're thinking about housing demand to understand homeownership is like when we report unemployment and with a definition. here's the number of occupied housing units headed by the owners divided by the number of

independent household heads and you will see the difference when we talk about the head ship ray. it does not capture the number of potential households that could exist in a housing market. so what happened to the trends in the us is i just spent all these charge-- charts with the us-born immigrants and we all know what happens in terms of the housing crisis and how homeownership rate has fallen from 68% down to 63% in this sample and you can see it has happened in all of the places. if you look at immigrant homeownership over this period, in every case immigrant homeownership from the year 2000 to 2014 has risen. it went up. it came down and now tired than it was. it is lower than us-born households, but us-born households are now a decade and a half later at a much lower

rate of homeownership. 's support to keep that in mind. if you look at a aim it-- asian immigrants and latino immigrants the home ownership of asians are higher than latinos in the trends are pretty similar in terms of the year 2000022014, in many cases for latinos not established gateways, but other places homeownership is higher-- i guess only emerging-- they are pretty similar for asians starting at the beginning to the end they are also higher. that is one measure of housing demand. another way to think about housing demand is how me potential household could be out in the housing market unit, rental or owner-occupied. this is the ratio of identified household heads divided by all adults. this ratio is one where we have evidence and people's perception is immigrants are more likely to have multiple adults living together. whether it's grandparents living with family or whether it's bringing in extended family members and so forth.

when you look at head ship rate of immigrants they have much lower than natives over a mac of time, 1980, 90, 2000. at its most basic level occupied housing units is a way of measuring housing demand. the most surprising picture to me actually, was this one and it was the immigrants want. is the us-born household one. the head ship rate of the us-born households have a fallen since 2000. the first part of the decade they fell because of increase in challenges with housing for ability. then, you have the crisis and the baby boom-- i'm sorry, the millennial generation becoming young adults, but not leaving. then you have the recovery. ..

affordability turns. this is a really interesting fact, that they headship now is almost the same. asians and latinos have similar headship rates. let me conclude with things. talking about the literature as well as what we have seen here in terms of the data. so the immigrant rates of home ownership rise compared to those of native born households five to ten years of entering the country. so it doesn't take that long for immigrants to look a lot like the natives. however, prior to the most recent period, immigrant families ten to be larger households, but as you saw the gap has fallen tremendously.

immigrants tend to have higher home ownership where there are more vibrant immigrant networks, and you can measure that which we don't have times to talk about. english prophecy lead -- proficient si. just to conclude, because i'm out of time, i think we can say quite clearly, based on the first presentation and this one, the contributions that immigrants to housing demand has always been important. what is really interesting now is you can make an argument it's really no different than native housing demands. you don't have to think, how are immigrants making choices in the housing market. it's all of that. and we can talk about the spillover into the neighborhoods and so forth as well but i will end here and turn it over to my colleague. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you for inviting us here today. it's my pleasure to follow the two distinguished speakers and my comments are come. complimentary, the work is how immigrants affect neighborhoods and my paper ex-immigration in the neighborhood, and in that paper we test for whether immigration affects residential segregation. in neighborhoods. so how do we proceed? we test for native preferences because through nate testify preferences we determine if immigration affects segregation. we directly measure native flight and white flight and then look at immigration more by the

components of immigration, characteristicses, and finally we discuss the implications for access to opportunity and social integration. to get ahead of our findings, in general we find that immigration does lead to more segregated neighborhoods. and that, therefore, that raises u-s of social integration which i will discuss towards the end. so the question we're asking is whether -- do neighborhood housing prices rise or fall with immigration, and i will explain why we're asking that question. wore asking other questions as well, but this is the key one. first of all, we're asking the question because it has been asked and answered. it hasn't been citied and answers. the question that has been asked and answered it what impact immigrants have on housing prices in msas and counties.

you heard earlier and then you heard from gary painter that immigranters are like others of us and when you increase demand, supply doesn't react completely, then the result could be higher housing prices. and that is in the literature for metropolitan areas and thanks to the work of jake vic -- victor, for county asks demand increases prices. in fact paper with my co-author establishes a very neat relationship of a one percent increase of immigrants to a metro area increases housing prices by one percent, which is totally consistent with what we heard earlier. we're asking something different. we're asking the impact of segregation and that's not supply and demand, and that is whites is the impact on immigration on neighborhood rents and prices so give you a sense of the order of magnitude

here, jake was talking about counties with average population, households of 8line thousand, almost a million. we're talking about census tracks of 4,000. 4,000 versus order of magnitude different. using census tracks as the neighborhood contracts. and the question we are addressing, then, is whether movement in of immigrants leads to higher housing prices or lower housing prices. we know immigrants cluster due to advantages of proximity to people in the same national, ethnic or linguistic group and we heard rules. but because immigrants cluster this not not imply higher housing prices in neighbors, and rent. doesn't imply higher rent in nameds as long as there are mobile native price arbitragers and housing prices may not go up at all in neighborhoods as people move to other areas

within the msa, overall the press us may to up and do but not necessarily. but ms as expand. pricing can go up or down or not be affect it at all. however, negative association between local housing prices, census housing prices, and shared immigrants, is an unequivocal, sign of native preferences for segregation. house prices cannot be lower in a locale unless there's perceived negative compensating differential. otherwise, opportunityistic natives move in until the price gap is breached. so, our strategy. we test for how changes in neighborhoods immigrant share are related to changes in house values in census tracks. if native perceive immigrant enclaves as less desirable

places to live a regulartive negative association between immigration density and housing values will be observed, all else equal, but not everything else is equal. for example, the are reverse causality potential explanations for a negative relationship between prices and immigrant and migration. it may be reversed causality that is causing this. immigrants may be moving to affordable places so it's not that housing prices are falling due to immigrants coming in but immigrants are attractedded to where the housing is affordable. but we exclude that explanation of reverse causality by setting up an instrument similar to what jake does, predicting future where immigrants are likely to be not based at all on the characteristics of census tracks.

we also are looking at constant quality house prices. so we're abstracting from changes in housing price quality. we're just looking at the pure index of prices for the neighborhood. although we too have evidence of the other results as well, which i will point to and return. to so i guess our pointer is not working. but here's our methodology. not what we're looking at. directly looking at that -- instrument teal with that. we're not looking at reverse causality. that meanings changing

>> compared to b and c. this is gravity model and i'll skip through it and because of time constraints. the results are very similar to

the results with controls. let me go actually to the results again and make one point. so the results are highly consistent about minus .2 and this is linear relationship and about an increase of zero to 30%,, decline six% of prices. notice when we do not have controls in column one and this is ols, not just variables, the impact is twice as large, which to me indicates there's reverse causality and admit variables and i'll come back to multimix craigs of this. where is this link strongest? we lock look at initial conditions and this impact is -- movement out of white flight and native flight is stronger.

so initially higher priced neighborhoods and initially whiter neighborhoods. then we look at a direct measurement of native outflowsful white flight, native flight. we do this with instruments and without, and again, to move ahead very quickly, the results -- here they are but to summarize them, the results in columns one and five are -- look positive, actually consistent with positive impact. so it looks as though when migrants, immigrants come in, actually we have an increase in other -- but columns one and five are, turns out, results are driven by the top five percent of sepsis tracks where the

population -- total population more than doubles. so we exclude the extremely fast-growing, likely outlying census tracks with new development, we find the other 95% that we -- and also with median regression we find that immigrant arrivals are associated with absolute decreases in native populations, especially white populations. so now let unbundle the results. is it the foreignness of immigrants that causes this segregation and the answer to that in short is, no. we test by different source of where immigrants are coming from, and the results are all over the place. there's no consistency negative but then we also sort immigrants by educational achievements and particularly dropouts, and we

also look at -- so we look at dropout rates and look at ethnicity and race and these results are very much driven by ethnicity and race of immigrants, african-americans status in a black -- very large negatives, nonwhite immigration is positive. so, the results are -- most importantly the dropout rate drops extremely significantly negative. so, the table shows regression, the same variable, and in sum, then, with all these results natives are willing to pay a premium to live in native dominant neighborhoods and a level of native population in general, and areas with higher initial density of white residents, or higher housing prices, the impact on prices is

stronger, and these results are driven more by social and economic status rather than foreignness per se. so, let me ask the bigger question. different question. will immigration always lead to lower local neighborhood housing prices and, therefore, higher levels of segregation? the answer is, absolutely not. first of all, our results are driven mostly by neighborhoods where -- that are whiter and higher priced to begin with. so immigration had little impact on relative home values in areas where socioeconomic sorting had already taken place. that is, in areas that were already minority and already low house prices, native -- in factums was not associated with a decline in prices.

this is consistent with local revitalization in relatively poor minority neighborhoods associated with immigration, and is exactly what we heard from jake. we also are -- our results are driven by native prefer reins and those may change over time as we move to a majority minority nation, and finally the growing areas, the new developments in general, growing areas, attracted growing share of the city's population, both native and immigrant so they're not subject to this flight. so now let's discuss implications broadly. the concern here is despite the fact we have urban revitalization so the concern is less, and sorting has already happened and these data are from 1990 and 2000. to maybe we are in a different period. the different period with urban revitalization is still associated family with

concentration of -- nationally with concentration of post. we know that from other work that poverty -- neighborhood poverty has become more concentrated and sorted by income, has increased in america, this i true across the board for immigrants and nonimmigrants and we also know that social mobility of children is heavily impacted by characteristics of the residential neighborhood where they grow up, and we also know now that housing affordability -- this is completely consistent with the work that gather painter pointed to -- that housing affordability is slowing down mobility across the board. so the question is, whether immigrants, low income immigrants, as well as low income nonimmigrants, will be increasingly segregated in areas which lack opportunity. and that's the conclusion. and i thank you. [applause]

>> before we open it up to questions, there was a fair amount of overlap between the papers so i wanted to give each of the panelists if they wanted to make comments on the other papers quickly. you're under no obligation to do so. well, nobody wants to -- gary -- >> you know, because the papers by jake and susan were similar, you probably -- struck the audience that maybe they appear to be conflicting conflicting ay can speak it to but since i didn't write either one of them, one thing that strikes me is in work that jake has done with different colleagues on segregation and there's been a bunch of papers out there that actually show that white households play a premium for homo -- homogenousity, and maybe

jake can comment. >> you said what i was planning to say, so we are thinking -- you did a great job. so, the work i did establishes that housing price us within a county will increase with immigration, but counties are big places and i don't have the dat to be able to say, do they go up uniformly across the county? take a county like los angeles county, very large, lots of different of parts and don't always move in lock step so i think susan's work points out that an important phenomenon to bear in mind is that part of the price increase phenomenon may be a situation where you have these increasing price hurdles to move in to the predominantly white and native neighborhoods. that's important phenomenon. >> and i know we economists can sometimes get focused on the

aggregate and seems to me an important message, like you hear in real estate, location, location, location, it matters and the level of aggregation makes a big difference. i want to ask a couple of questions of the audience. my first question, there are differences we're seeing between cities, areas relatively -- well, economists say in elastic supply or difficult to build, or then my second question, and i'll give these two questions to everyone, is, was there something different about the recent boom and bust? i think jacob state's data goes back and look. what we have seen was not broken down by the '80s look like the '90s and the 2000's. so first one, do supply conditions seem to matter and was this time around different?

>> i'll try to be careful as academics tend to and stay i haven't actually addressed that directly. so i want to be cautious about implication. we know that high skilled workers -- what die know given work i've done here not presented here -- is that only kind of high school workers are likely to make the long distance moves to the unelastic places. and so that is a fact that you do observe there. but one of the things just to keep in mind linking to this morning is that when the immigration, if you will, was cut off in terms of new immigrants moving into the u.s., instead of as doug mentioned we have a net negative mexican migration, one thing that is happeninger is there's not nearly as many new arrivals and that is another kind of damper on mobility overall. >> jake, i you've want to add

anything. >> in terms of the impact you see on prices i might have mentioned this but bears repeating -- there are some misses where it's easy to build and that might be a function of availability of land but also has a lot to do with regulations. zoning laws in some parts of the country make it very difficult to expand the stock of housing inch those parts of the country you'll see more price impact than construction people when new people move to the community in other parts of the country where there's more available land and easier regulations you'll see more of a quantity impact in price in terms of things being different, using census data from 2000 and 2010, the bubble and the bust kind of fall not entirely within that interval but the fact i was using data ten years apart meant the dynamics and the buildup and the drop kind of were missing from my data, but nonetheless

you could definitely see that a lot of the communities that were heavily impacted by the housing bust, like the inland areas of california, for example, south florida, these are areas that had a large immigrant population and a lot of the home owners who were caught up in that were foreign born. >> so i will comment on the wealth. done some work on that. absolutely wealth of immigrant households was hit more because especially hispanics households had more of the wealth in housing. i'd like to take you question one step farther because we're doing these studies which rely on data in place, we're not looking at what is happening right now. of course has implications what is happening right now. it's interesting that housing prices and rents are increasing relative to cpi and to wages and

income, and very rapid rate, and faster than they ever had and more consistently than -- so we're in terms of rents we're far higher than we were in 2006, far higher than in 2000, and they keep on increasing, although they're likely to increase at a lower rate this year relative to inflation and wages are increasing somewhat this year. so, there's a better balance there. but this is in the absence of an increase in immigrants. so, the issue for affordability and the issue for the ability to move and mobility for immigrants and for low-income populations -- aren't always low-income prop legislation ises but across the board for low-skilled population this is a challenge will be our challenge as nation for integrating populations with low skills and for low skill populations that are native. so maybe if i can rephrase that one way, i think some of the concern one often hears about

immigration and housing markets, is it a displacement in competition, and as we heard earlier, we have been reminded the net immigration has been negative, yet we still see very strong increases in representses, suggesting -- rents suggesting it's something else. i don't know if i see a microphone around here so until i do i'll continue asking questions myself before we -- >> there's a question. keep nit the form of a question. >> i'm dan griswold at george mason university. immigration and crime has been in the news justing this week and actually i think it was gary that mentioned the national academy of science study last year documented that immigrants are connected with lower crime

rates and that came out and said immigrant neighborhoods have lower crime rates than comparable nonimmigrant neighborhoods. i just wondered if that was factored in at all? obviously lower crime neighborhoods, everything equal, the housing prices will be higher because they're more desirable neighborhoods. have you factored in at all the immigrant pact immigrants have -- positive impact on crime rates and what would that do to your analysis if it was factored in. >> in short it is in our analysis, and in spite of that, which is absolutely accepted fact, we do find these results. >> and i'll put in there, i did an analysis -- i had precinct level data on crime for new york city from the period 1990 to 2010, 2012 or so. a period where crime dropped dramatically in new york city, and lots of people had their pet

explanations for why but christianologists are puzzled about this. if you look at the precincts in new york where crime dropped the most, they happen to be connected to the neighborhoods where the foreign-born population increased the most. so i think there is a really -- it's not just that foreign-been people themes are not coming to the united states to commit crimes. they're coming here to work. it's a function of stablizedding neighborhoods where the vacancy rates have been hood. you has parts of the bronx, there was drug use that was rampant, you had all sorts of problems, even with all sorts of social ills, and the reoccupation of those neighborhoods, the cleaning up of those neighborhoods, had a profound impact on them. to susan's point, they still might not be places places wherr might middle class household wants to live, but they have turn around and that an important part of the story. >> in my open work i looked more

at how the process, the dynamic you described, will lead to changes in home ownership rates and what i found in a fairly complicated model not cited here is that places like south l.a., for instance, if crime fell, would see huge increases in black home ownership in those places as well. so what was happening in the african-american from community is that once people moved to middle class and so forth they were going to the inland empire to buy as opposed to these neighbors. so the margin of having lower crime rate will affect house prices and affect the type of choice you make with your housing. so that's where my work has interacted with the question. >> questions here in the back. >> i'm david crossland. my question relates to the role

of real estate agents inch early '70s i was a civil rights lawyer and brought the first housing suit against a large real estate company which was steering black prospective buyers into lower middle income, white neighborhoods, causing white flight out of those neighborhoods. jacking up the prices officially in those neighborhoods -- initially in those neighborhoods-causing an increase in the overall market, i suppose, for real estate and those white flight owners then bought other houses elsewhere for more. to what extent do you see or have you considered the role of real estate agents and steering people into foreign nationals into all-white or homoeenous neighborhoods for the purpose of playing on their fees and causing them to flee those neighborhoods and therefore make more money for the real estate agents.

>> it's become a more complicated world so i think that some degree of discrimination continues to go on. was involved in a case with a doj a couple years ago involving a landlord in koreatown in l.a., and so i got to know a lot about the real estate market in koreatown where there is a lot of steering and a lot of discriminatory behavior, but in a lot of cases the immigrant groups themselves are trying to preserve the ethnic identity of their buildings or their neighborhoods. so, while there may be some situations where there are certain immigrant whose have a difficult time being shown units in a particular neighbor there are otherles immigrants on the other side of the coin, so it's very complicated. >> we have time for one more question. i'll note our -- the microphone is coming up -- ill know our authors will be around at bit so if you want to ask about

arbitrage and ols, susan will be happen to give you a lecture. >> i wanted to ask about redevelopment and gentrification. i think the speakers kind of mentioned it kind of in the middle of all their data, but it seems to me just anecdotally around here there were some immigrant neighborhoods that were in the last -- i don't know -- 30 years or so redeveloped and have now become sort of the young professional neighborhoods, and it seems to me that the prices in those neighborhoods have changed not because of the population position but because of the redevelopment that preceded the shift in population. >> no doubt about it. there's a sea shift going on, city -- inner city neighborhoods across america, and often these are immigrant neighborhoods, where prices are rising with redevelopment.

it's hang right now and that is going to change the whole scale. whether that makes our results actually no longer applicable because now we're talking about revitalizing neighborhoods where there are immigrants, it certainly makes it -- we do talk about new development and neighborhoods we're sorting quote-unquote has already happened is completely consistent with your saying. in the meantime, new immigrants coming, simply low income house holds generally who are looking for housing increasingly are being pushed out to enclaves that are poorer in the suburbs or smaller poor cities. >> thank you. i want to thank the audience and thank our panelists, too. two of the panelists came from the other side of the country so i really appreciate that, and philly is not quite the distance but i appreciate you coming down.

so thank you, and we'll turn it over to the next panel. [applause] nod are. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] our live coverage this cato institute conference on immigration and economics just between panels now. we expect it to continue in a few moments. with a panel on entrepreneurship and the final discussion in the 3:00 eastern hour will look at how immigration affects economic and political institutions, all of today's panels, including today's morning discussion, will be available on our web site, c-span.org, starting later on today. a couple of programming notes on the c-span networks. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern

discussions on the november election and economic prosperity, featuring senior advisers to donald trump's campaign, and tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. on c-span, a look at america's foster care system, featuring film producer and social entrepreneur peter samuelson,. the house and senate returning to legislative work this coming tuesday, the day after labor day, september 6th. agent items include must-pass federal spending spending and ao expected to fund zika virus research and prevention programs and pentagon programs. the house may consider impeaching the irs commissioner, john. a story from the ail a short time ago.

blue cross blue shield is lobbying congress to protect an obamacare insurer fund that has been slammed by republicans as a bailout for companies. the company which insures more than 100 million people nationwide is contributing a memo to -- distributing a enemy me to lawmakers warning against some g.o.p. attempts to block the money from going to insurers this fall. recently some or proposing to stop schedule 2016 reinsurance payments to health plans, claiming these payments are a bailout. the company wrote in the memo, this would result in higher premiums and less choice for consumers. the memo reads. that from the hill today. again, we're live at cato institute. a conference on immigration and economics and another panel set to begin in a few moments on entrepreneurship. our live coverage here on c-span 2.

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone can take your seats, he'll get the panel started. i'm the vice president for research at the cato institute and in this hour we're going to be talking about immigration and entrepreneur scheyer. immigrants are diproportionately entrepreneurial compared to native americans, those goes to both sides of the skill spectrum. at lower skill levels you see immigrants more likely to start their own businesses, often out of necessity, that is, they have fewer formal employment opportunities with limited language skills, et cetera, fewer social networks to plug into, to get regular employment

so more likely to go into innocence in small scale fashion. at the top end, we have people drawn into our vibrant startup system from all over the world, and as you'll hear, a disproportionate share of high-tech businesses feature foreign-born founders or cofounders, and so that both poles of the skill spectrum immigrants are figuring importantly and making an outsized contribution to business formation. the panelists will discuss why ask the root of the case the fact that being an immigrant is in the nature of things to be entrepreneurial. what are entrepreneurs? people who take risks in pursuit of financial gain and that what immigrants do.

they hurl themselves out of the country's they were born into and away from everybody they know and good to a foreign country and search for a new life. that's an entrepreneur act and they tike that mind zed with them here in the united states. to fill us in more about these connections, we have two speakers with lots of relevant expertise. i will introduce we have -- from the public policy institute of california, and meg from colgate university. let me introduce magnus first sense he well be spoking first. his areas of expertise including public safety, immigration, entrepreneurship and education, his recent work examines crime trends in california, recidivism, california's jail pot and construction needs. he holds appointment as research

fellow, a community scholar at the julian research institute at michigan state and research associate at the center for comparative immigration studies at uc san diego. he serves on the editorial board of industrial relations, prying to joining us he was prefer at the university of texas at dallas and received his ph.d from uc san diego. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our next panelist. [applause] >> thanks. and thanks to alex and cato for including me in this program here and giving me this opportunity to share a little built about the work i've been doing on immigrant entrepreneurship, and a little discouraging with the introduction, he summarized what i'm going to be saying here so not a whole lot of new stuff coming out, but at least i get to go into some details. let me start off with

introduction and motivation here to this topic of entrepreneurship. i'm going to start off with a quote from a highly respected labor economist who said the entrepreneur is the single most important player in the economy. and it wasn't really anything new, that notion to be hospital. that was something that goes back to adam smith. and basic idea is the entrepreneur plays a very important role in small businesses, in young firms, and in business startups and these are really the key engines when it comes to job creation, innovation and economic growth. so, nothing too controversial there. and also as brink pointed out, it's not -- there's this common perception that immigrants are particularly entrepreneurial as well. and that is true if we look at business ownership, business startups, as well as innovation,

and there's a strand of research that supports this and some will be cited a number of times in the next hour or so. so there's that component of it. that speaks a lot about the contributions of entrepreneurship, or immigrant entrepreneurship in the u.s. economy. there's another aspect of it as well that i think is potentially very important and that is the labor market integration of immigrants themselves, coming here to this country, might face some hurdles and barriers into formal employment, and then this self-employment, business ownership, providing an opportunity to then get upward mobility in itself. and given that we have seen here today a lot of examples, a lot of data that points towards the changes in the economy that the u.s. has experienced since basically late 1970s where information technology is getting more prevalent.

we have technology skilled bias change as economists describe it as and it's creating limited opportunities for low skilled workers itch want to take a look at the low-skilled self-employment

from 1.4 million in 2004 to 1.4 million in 2014. we see an increase from 2006 2000 to 2006, when it goes from ten million to 11-1/2 million. then starts to drift down, and it starts to come up a little bit in 2014, but you have a noticeable drop there from the peak to 2014 and there's not much change between 2000 and 014. for u.s. born. with these changes -- we already heard that immigrants are overrepresented in self-mid-but they're encriesingly so as well -- increasingly so as well in 2000, relatively recent, we're looking at 16 years ago, one in eight of the

self-employed folk nears the u.s. were foreign born, and then when we fast forward to 2014 the most recent year we have data for we have slightly more than one in five. so that's a continuous consistent growth in the shares. so immigrants are increasingly important to self-employment and business ownership in the u.s. break this down and look at it in the period before the great recession, because we have seen big structural, big changes happening with the great recession, what i'll do is break this down, these changes, and the period before the great recession and the period after. what we see is going between 2000 and 2007, we see strong growth in both the number of u.s. born self-employed and the number of immigrants. almost 1.4 million u.s. born self-employed were added in that period of time and almost one million immigrants. that's significant by itself because we're talking bat population that represented 16%

of the u.s. work force. they edded a little bit more than 40% of the self-employment numbers to the u.s. over that period. and it's potentially a period of economic growth. now we go to the not so good time after the great recession, we see a drop of almost 1.3 million u.s. born self-employed, and we see a continued increase in self-employment among immigrants, about 270,000. overall, if we look at that period since 2000, the growth in self-employment in the u.s. is essentially an immigrant phenomenon. they account for 90% of the growth in self-employment. this is definitely something that is extremely noticeable and very surprising to me to see it so stark. 1.3 million almost compared to at bit over 100,000 u.s.-born self-employed were added over the period of 14 years. all right.

if we then shift and look at, well, there are different skill segments here. ryle focus on the low-skilled side of things. we see since the fret recession, out of those 270,000 immigrants, self-employed, we add here, a pig number of those are actually those with less than high school. about 117,000. that is the biggest increase among immigrants and the biggest increase of any group because among all u.s. born we still dropped. which is less than high school -- college graduates. another reason to think low-skilled self-employment is worth looking at, if we look at the share of self-employed, the percentages have dropped out here, the range instead of actual percentages. but what it would show is more than 50% of the lower-skilled self-employed are actually foreign born. more than half. and we are talking bat

relatively small number of self-employed compared to college practiced whats but clearly immigrants are overrepresented in that group and if we had -- overrepresented in each group as well. if we shift our focus and look at earnings, and before even getting to earnings, have a sense of some of the characteristics of the low-skilled self-employment -- self-employed among immigrants, what do we see? we see a couple of things that stand out, and large proportion, the majority are not naturalized. noncitizens among the self-employed. low-skilled foreign born self-employed, do not have citizenship. 72-1/2%. the majority are from mexico or central america, and importantly, the majority also only speak limited english. so these are the most report not speaking inning already or not speaking it well. and they live -- half of them

live in two states, california and texas. so they're geographically concept traited as well. we move on to median earnings. we see that the earnings are relatively low as well. 17,700 per year, compared to immigrants who earning a wage salary of 20,000, compared to u.s. self-employed is lower. 21,300. that shows you some differences there of the characteristics that might very well contribute to these differences. want to take a look at what contributes to the differences, what are the factors and maybe we can identify some of the hurdles that are most relevant and it wont bev particularly surprising. here's one thing. i'll estimate these over the last regressions using total income and the log of total income as my variable means we can almost -- you see that first immigrant coefficient of .069.

basically tells us that self-employed game thursday is in drew near -- aim comparing u.s.-born self-employed to immigrant self-employed. immigrant self-employed have 7% lower earnings than foreign -- than the u.s. born. i'm also separating this out by gender and there are differences between men and william and there's actually not an earnings disadvantage among women. if we then just simply take into account, account for the limited english proficiency among the foreign-born population here, that sift into an earnings advantage. with that, immigrant men actually have higher earnings than the u.s. born low-skilled self-employed, and noticeable advantage for women in that position. if we then add demographic characteristics we control for these as well. then what we see is that arranges advantage for immigrants actually is even

greater. but part of this is driven by longer work hours. once we take that into account, the advantage drops down, and then importantly, today you about that geographic concentration. win we take that into account as well we don't find any evidence there is statistically significantly higher earnings month low-skilled immigrants, self-employed, compared to low-skill u.s. born self-employed. nonetheless we have roughly the same kind of earnings. what if we compare low-skilled self-employed immigrants to immigrants who are low-skilled and work in the wage salary sector. we start off with seeing and earnings gap. men have a six percent lower earnings for u.s. born and for women the gap is greater in the neighborhood of 30%. if we start by controlling how

long you have been in the u.s., whether you have naturalized, we actually see those differences are greater once we account for that. adding in the demographic characteristics the gap has not changed that much. there's not that big of difference between wage salary immigrants and self-employed immigrants among the lower-skilled. and one of the things if we looked at the data and the number of hours worked per week, we could see that even though we often think that the self-employed work more hours, this sample here we have a greater proportion of wage salary low skilled immigrants who work 40 hours or more than those in a similar position who is self-employed. once we account for that, the lower earnings are partly due to the fewer hours worked. and then lastly, taking into account the geographic distributional differences, what would come out -- they have low

earnings, so we still see lower earnings among those who have chosen self-employment compared to on sir verificationally similar -- observationally immigrants who earn wage salary. so, just to wrap up, then, here, and conclude, what do we see here? importantly, immigrants increasingly contribute to entrepreneurship. i think that we have had a sense for long period of time in data has shown that immigrants have higher rates of self-employment, business startups and soing for, and the data supports this and says that while it's even more so in recent times. as i said, immigrants account for more than 90% of the growth in self-employment since 2000. and while we saw in the u.s. over this period between 2000 and 2014 a loss of almost 1.3 million u.s. born self-employed, -- actually sin the great recession, immigrants actually added number of

self-employed by about 270,000. and importantly then it is -- even though i stressed the low-skilled side here the increase is over all groups. we have seen a notice able increase there. so altogether if we just look at these very descriptive statistics they certainly point towards the contribution of immigrants, but whatever that magnitude is, of the immigrant contribution to economic and job growth is quite clearly the data suggest they would be quite significant. if we shift to the low skilled side, the good news is we don't see that low-skilled self-employed immigrants have any lower earnings than similar observationally similar u.s. born low-skilled worker. that's the good news. on the other hand, don't find evidence that self-employment increases economic well-being,

so what frank was saying, think that what this is continue with is that it's more of a push back in that context. there's no i higher arranges, as i said, and most in fact if we actually look at how much do they earn, they have quite low annual earnings. 55% of these foreign-born workers who are reporting being self-employed earn 20,000 or less, and that would be very difficult to live off that kind of annual earnings. the key obstacle for success here is limited english proficiency. that's a big part. and if we take this and look at it in the context of the relatively limited work that's been done on the low-skilled self-employment these findings are consistent with the earlier work, and these are using as well some work i've done myself. these are updated data and using different data and we find similar rules.

so seems to be quite robust relationships. overall, i think it's fair to say that it's very difficult to find some negative effects, much of a downside to immigrant entrepreneurship, but having said that, the success that we have actually finding across the various literature has looked at immigrant entrepreneurship in terms of economic contributions, into the vacations and so forth -- innovations and so forth it's concentrated among me high-skilled and we have a number of papers pointing at that. that's it. thanks. [applause] >> thank you, magnus. our next speaker is meg bloom. she is an economist, data scientist, policy analyst and entrepreneur. currently serving as a visiting professor at the economics don't of colgate university. he research beens ended and unintended consequences of

government policy and the professor got her ph.d from the rand graduate school. please join me in welcoming meg bloom. [applause] >> good afternoon, thank you for having us here today. the work i'm going to be talking about today is actually covered in a couple of publications that came out over the past year, and so i first need to acknowledge the funders and then also say that the usual caveats apply. ... >> one of the reasons we are talking about entrepreneurship,

the contributions of immigrants in the us workforce is because while we do know from what we have seen this morning there do not seem to be negative impacts in the long run we have also seen work that says increases in productivity, how those increases could be within firm increases especially with immigrants with complementary skills to those working in those firms, another way immigrants can contribute to the us economy in particular is in particular these high skilled entrepreneurs through job creation, through their own startup companies. this is going to be the focus of my talk today. look at business ownership, look at