Talk:Economic results of migration

Untitled

This article needs alot of work - it currently reads like an undergraduate essay written by someone whose English isn't great. Also, given that it is an economics-based article, the economics seems a bit vague and imprecise, and should include topics such as the effect of migration on wage inflation, unemployment, labour market dynamics, etc. I've never studied this topic in much detail so I'm not the best person to make these changes, but I'll try and do something when I have some time. Wilston (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs work

As mentioned above, poorly written. Slight story-telling edge to written English. --Yorkshire001 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Cebula's comment on this article

Dr. Cebula has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This article overlooks many of the factors that have been found to systematically influence domestic migration. Among these are measures of economic freedom and the overall cost of living. The latter variable must be measured in terms of geographically comparable data. The use of implicit price deflators to create "real" income measures is a waste of time and in fact avoids a meaningful measure of inter-regional living costs differences.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Cebula has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Cebula, Richard & Nair-Reichert, Usha & Coombs, Christopher, 2013. "Gross In-Migration and Public Policy in the U.S. during the Great Recession: An Exploratory Empirical Analysis, 2008-2009," MPRA Paper 55449, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans' edits / WP:NPOV

User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my addition of {{POV}} hatnote. The revert also undid a change to the lead that noted that both the costs and benefits of immigration can vary enormously (per case [e.g. type/origin of immigrant, their destination, count of immigrants, etc.]).

I do think that the latter is essential information here and that a WP:NPOV bias can be found very clearly in the article.

We do not edit based on what we wish to be true and are expected to provide neutral information on issues that shines light on varying aspects of the issue at hand.

For the issue mentioned named first there are also many additional refs such as:

• "consequently, the net impact of immigration on the fiscal positions of individual states may vary widely"

• "These benefits and costs vary by type of immigrant — well-educated vs. uneducated, rich vs. poor, single vs. family, old vs. young, from countries in which there is a substantial amount of militant hostility against the U.S. vs. from other countries, and so on — often in complex ways." [...] "And these benefits and costs also vary by our legal and political system’s reaction to the immigration. For instance, the more medical, educational and welfare benefits are available to immigrants, especially as soon as they arrive, the higher the costs and the risk that we will draw people who are less productive and more interested in those benefits"

• "Immigration policy is multidimensional, and hence the supporters and opponents of different types of immigration policy vary."

• "The results of these studies vary greatly depending on whether the unit analyzed is the individual, family, or extended family. Immigrants represent one-tenth of the overall American population, so the tremendous variety of ages, life situations, and economic circumstances makes modeling their impact challenging."

• ""Over the long term, the impacts of immigrants on government budgets are generally positive at the federal level but remain negative at the state and local level – but these generalizations are subject to a number of important assumptions," the press release says, indicating that "immigration's fiscal effects vary tremendously across states.""

• "Taxpayer effects are a central part of the total economic costs and benefits of immigration, but they have not received much study. These effects are the additional or lower taxes paid by native-born households due to the difference between tax revenues paid and benefits received by immigrant households. The effects vary considerably by immigrant attributes and level of government involvement"

• These are just some sources that I found, more do exist.

I added the tag because I don't think that even with these sources I can single handedly correct the bias of this article according to which immigration is apparently the best thing ever, blue sky - rainbows and cups of gold with "brain drain" actually being "brain gain" etc. etc.

Furthermore 3 previous commentators here also noted a poor quality of the article, and I'm not sure if any of them also referred to missing information relevant for NPOV / a potential bias of the article.

Relevantly Snooganssnoogans also changed 3 other articles in a way that I find to be in violation of WP:NPOV (and WP:RS):

• He removed some content in the section #Germany of Immigration and crime, saying "contextless data, some of it unrelated to immigration, and sourced with tabloids. Reliable sources show different picture". However the content was statistics on crime by immigrants in Germany so it's not contextless, all of it is related to immigrants and the European migrant crisis and nothing of it is sourced with reliable sources: Die Welt, Focus (German magazine) etc are WP:RS. And Germany's police / Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany) certainly is as well. The removal is a clear violation and should be undone.
• Similarly he also removed content from Immigration and crime in Germany (mostly the same as above), saying "the problems here are: (i) the sources used are misrepresenting the data; (ii) the data added to the text is meaningless (immigrant crimes will increase if the number of immigrants increases); and (iii) this has been contradicted by DW and the German Gov". This should be undone for the same reasons as above. → the sources, which are RS, are not misrepresenting the data - they might be only according to him / his (biased) view. The data is not "meaningless" (again that's just his view) - we don't remove content based on personal counterarguments. Note that the increase of immigrant crimes is out of proportions with the increase in immigrants. For instance we didn't get 30% more people within a year in Germany while the number of total crimes increased by ~30% (11,9% for cases of theft). At best such counterarguments could be added in a proper way to the article text next to this content. If RS contradict we should state this in the article / don't limit it to the side which supports our own view.
• And lastly he also removed content from Opposition to immigration, saying "Data without context in the immigrant crime section, please use academic research or data put in context + that CIS report has been challenged, nitpicked data given undue weight, please use academic research". The should be reverted for the reasons stated above. Data is with context. RS are used appropriately and include academic research to which RS are not limited. That the CIS report "has been challenged, nitpicked data given undue weight" should also be added next to the relevant content instead of having that content removed.

--Fixuture (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to talk. I hope that we can solve these differences. I staunchly oppose some content that you added (e.g. CIS report, misleading German immigrant crime data), but am willing to work out acceptable language and sourcing on other content.

1. I'm fine with saying "that both the costs and benefits of immigration can vary enormously" while noting, consistent with the academic literature, that migration on the whole provides both net economic benefits to the sending and receiving countries. The statement "that both the costs and benefits of immigration can vary enormously" should be sourced to one of the six reliable references that you've added to this section (not the Washington Times report though, as it's not reliable), not the ones that had been used previously.

2. This article is jam-packed with reliable sources, reflecting the best knowledge on the economics of migration. If you believe that this article fails to, say, represent all the high-quality econ studies that purportedly show brain drain to be a big problem, please add those missing studies. Don't just add a POV tag. I would be perfectly fine with more of the best knowledge on brain drain vs gain, as it's also of professional interest to me.

3. I'm unsure which commentators you're referring to. I re-wrote this article from almost scratch in May 2016, so after the other talk page comments were written.

4. The problems with the edits on the "section #Germany of Immigration and crime" (first bullet point) is that: A. We generally tried to avoid just bringing up random data (group X commits Y number of crimes) in the article as it's meaningless unless put in contexts such as do the immigrants commit disproportionate numbers of crimes, do some types of immigrants commit disproportionate numbers of crimes, do immigrants cause an increase in crime etc. B. It would be interesting to know if immigrants commit more crimes over particular periods, but the source don't show that, as they don't take account of increases in immigration. C. An increase in the first half of the year was offset by a decrease in the second half, making it undue to only mention the first half.[1] D. The overall theft rate is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article is about immigration and crime, so we should only concern ourselves with the theft rate for immigrants. E.

5. I think that #4 addresses most of the concerns with the reverts on "Immigration and crime in Germany".

6. As for the Welfare section, the CIS is renowned for its shoddy reports on immigration[2] [3]. It's malpractice to cite them. It's also problematic to bring up random studies or data points when we have survey studies on the fiscal effects of immigration, such as Kerr and Kerr (cited in the 'Economic results of migration' article) who find that the net fiscal impact of migrants varies across studies but that the most credible analyses typically find small and positive fiscal effects on average, and that "the net social impact of an immigrant over his or her lifetime depends substantially and in predictable ways on the immigrant's age at arrival, education, reason for migration, and similar". Or when NAP's 'The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration' (2016) report can be cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Glad you're open for discussion.

I'm fine with saying "that both the costs and benefits of immigration can vary enormously" while noting, consistent with the academic literature, that migration on the whole provides both net economic benefits to the sending and receiving countries.

I have one issue here: "migration on the whole providing both net economic benefits to the sending and receiving countries" also varies per case, is one main issue of the noted variation and should be reflected in the sentence. Much of the European migrant crisis for instance doesn't have economic benefits for both countries - besides reflecting the trouble of travel and its causes of migrants that's why it's called crisis.

This article is jam-packed with reliable sources, reflecting the best knowledge on the economics of migration. If you believe that this article fails to, say, represent all the high-quality econ studies that purportedly show brain drain to be a big problem, please add those missing studies. Don't just add a POV tag.

The important thing here again is the variation per case / type of migration. It depends on the countries, the immigrants (age,language,culture,education,....), migration-policies, the integration system, the duration of stay, etc. etc. Also I'm not sure how one would objectively and accurately be able to measure a "brain drain" of a country, let alone factor in long-term impacts (e.g. a highly educated migrant may be able to get an appropriate job in another country where his skills can cause benefits to society while he would not get an appropriate job in his origin country at all, however populations with his education/skilly in the origin country might cause the development of an appropriate economic sector that adopts them or they could build it up from the bottom so to say by having no other choice than that or setting up startups or organizing). The statement on brain drain certainly needs to be fixed. And I guess I have to do so (by the use of sources). I added the POV-tag mainly because I didn't want to edit the article myself and let someone else correct its bias/slant.

I re-wrote this article from almost scratch in May 2016, so after the other talk page comments were written.

Didn't know that, but the previous talk page entries don't really matter much here anyways.

A. We generally tried to avoid just bringing up random data (group X commits Y number of crimes) in the article as it's meaningless unless put in contexts such as do the immigrants commit disproportionate numbers of crimes, do some types of immigrants commit disproportionate numbers of crimes, do immigrants cause an increase in crime etc.

Well this "random" data was intended to correct the bias that didn't factor in such findings but painted a shiny POV of it. Basically if you have it all say x and there's data that shows why x is not always the case that should be noted either by directly including info on the latter or by stating that this varies in some way or another.

B. It would be interesting to know if immigrants commit more crimes over particular periods, but the source don't show that, as they don't take account of increases in immigration.

Well that issue is resolved by simply appending to it that it didn't factor in increases in immigration. If data on increases in immigration exists it could/should also be added to that statement in percentage. But concerning the impact this has on these findings' significance: Germany didn't have a 30% increase of immigrants over 2015 but had a increase of over 30% in cases of crime (11% increase in thefts) over 2015.

C. An increase in the first half of the year was offset by a decrease in the second half, making it undue to only mention the first half.

I don't think that the decrease is significant to it but data of the full year could be added.

D. The overall theft rate is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article is about immigration and crime, so we should only concern ourselves with the theft rate for immigrants.

The overall theft rate is relevant here because a) it has been put into that context b) it shows how the findings' 30% increase isn't just miniscule/neglectable cases of crime which some might argue or think when reading this.

As for the Welfare section, the CIS is renowned for its shoddy reports on immigration[2] [3]. It's malpractice to cite them.

Well, ok. But I want to note that one could add info on the institute alleging this when balancing it with the relevant claims of the sources you linked.

To conclude I guess I can't add the POV tag but should further improve the article instead. Also it should be made way clearer that the economic impacts of immigration vary by various factors - this should also be made clear in some way in the lead.

--Fixuture (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

---

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic results of migration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104235245/http://web.stanford.edu/~ruix/JMP_Xu.pdf to http://web.stanford.edu/~ruix/JMP_Xu.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Economic results of migration into Immigration. I think the content of Immigration#Economic effects strongly overlaps.HudecEmil (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Merged HudecEmil (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)