The document discusses the history and current state of immigration to the United States. It notes that while immigration has increased significantly over time, the annual number of green cards granted has remained between 650,000 to 1.1 million in recent decades. Currently, Asian immigrants, especially Chinese and Indians, receive the majority of green cards. Indians who receive green cards have higher incomes and education levels compared to other immigrant groups and the native-born population. The author argues that skilled immigration from countries like India and China benefits the U.S. economy by filling jobs and supporting innovation, but that the U.S. remains overly reliant on lower-skilled immigration to perform jobs that native-born Americans are increasingly unwilling to take. The

1. US Immigration Debate: Trump or Trumped
Shantanu Basu
The United States (US) is a nation built on immigrants. Surprisingly, this basis of the American
nation has divided it between the Democrats and Republicans, between Whites and non-Whites,
affluent and indigents, employed and unemployed, male and female, America and its body-
shopping exporter human suppliers, indeed the most contentious issue of the US Presidential
Campaign 2016.
Starting with a modest 8385 persons obtaining lawful permanent resident status in 1820, the
number expanded to 1051031 persons in 2015. However, it is not as if such manifold increase in
numbers has seen a consistent northward trend. In the decade of 1980-89, ‘green card’ holders
doubled and crossed a million. In 1992-2000, the numbers were again scaled back to under a
million per fiscal. In 2005-15, the annual numbers hovered just above a million. Going back into
history, 8385 migrants in 1820 to 812870 in 1904 marked a 97-fold increase. Likewise, post-
World War II witnessed a six-fold rise, from 108721 in 1946 to 641346 in 1988 (before it
crossed over into the million plus range). Since then the annual grant of green cards has
stagnated between 650000 to 1.10 million per annum, the lowest since America became an
independent nation1. The predominance of Latin American and Asian immigration in the late
20th and early 21st centuries starkly contrasts with the trend seen in 1960 when immigrants
largely originated from Europe. In the 1960s no single country accounted for more than 15% of
the total immigrant population2.
Asian card holders constituted 39-41% of all green cards issued in 2013-15. For every European
green card holder, there were four Asian holders. China, India and the Philippines constituted
7%, 6-7.5% and 5% respectively while Mexico, the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa
claimed 15%, 25%, 7-12% and 9-10% of all green cards respectively3. California, Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and
Washington attracted the maximum number of green card holders4.
Are all Indian and Chinese green card holders’ fresh imports? Forty two percent of Indians
received employment-based green cards against 29% Chinese, if one were to deem this as the
solo ‘original’ category. Twenty three percent of Indian holders fell in the family-sponsored
category against 20% Chinese. While 32% Indian card holders were relatives of US citizens, the
1 Dept. of Homeland Security: Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2015,
Table 1 extracted on Jan. 21, 2017 from https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table1
2 Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova: Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United
States, Migration Policy Institute, extracted on jan. 22, 2016 from
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states
3 _____________________: Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status By Region And Selected Country
Of Last Residence: Fiscal Years 2013 To 2015, Table 2., extracted on Jan. 21, 2017 from
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table2
4 ____________________: Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status By State Or Territory Of
Residence: Fiscal Years 2013 To 2015, Table 4 extracted on Jan. 21, 2017 from https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-
statistics/yearbook/2015/table4

2. Chinese outdid Indians at 38%. Finally, only 2% Indians fell in the diversity category against
11% Chinese5. However, what is most interesting is that from 2006-15, 493292 Indian nationals
have been granted naturalized citizen status against 341281 Chinese, i.e. 44% more6. In fact, new
naturalized Indian-Americans accounted for 7% of 7388464 conferred compared with 4.50%
Chinese. Surprisingly, small Latin American and Caribbean nations like the Dominican Republic
(3.50%), Jamaica (2%), Cuba (3%), Haiti (2%) have appreciable shares, perhaps out of
proportion to their respective populations. Against all these nations, including India and China,
stand 1113940 Mexican-Americans and 418894 Filipino-Americans, i.e. 15% and 6%
respectively.
How do Indian and Chinese American migrants compare with other migrant communities?
Chinese immigrants had much higher incomes compared to the total foreign- and native-born
populations. In 2013, the median income of households headed by a Chinese immigrant was
$57,000, compared to $48,000 and $53,000 for overall immigrant and native-born households,
respectively. In 2013, 19% of Chinese immigrants lived in poverty, a rate similar to all
immigrants but slightly higher than the 15% posted by the native-born population7. In contrast,
Indian immigrants have much higher incomes compared to the total foreign- and native-born
populations.
In contrast, the median income of households headed by an Indian immigrant was $103,000.
Only 6% of Indian immigrants lived in poverty. About 70% of Indian immigrants ages 16 and
over were in the civilian labour force, compared to 67% and 63% of the total foreign- and native-
born populations, respectively. Indian immigrants were more than twice as likely to be employed
in management, business, science, and arts occupations (73%) than both the overall foreign-born
(30%) and native-born (38%) populations. Indian immigrants were as likely as the native-born
population to be uninsured (12%), but much less likely to be uninsured than the overall
immigrant population (32%). Indian immigrants were more likely to have private health
insurance (80%) than both the total foreign- and native-born populations (50% and 67%,
respectively)8. Seventy percent of Indian Americans aged 25 and older had college degrees in
2010, by far the highest rate among the six Asian-American groups studied and 2.5 times the rate
among the overall U.S. population. This probably owes to the H1-B visa program, which allowed
highly skilled foreign workers in designated specialty occupations to work in the U.S. In 2011,
for example, 72438 Indians received H1-B visas, 56% of all such visas granted that year9. Not
surprisingly, Indians received 86% of all H1B visas with China a poor second at 5% in 2014.
5 ___________________: Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status By Broad Class Of Admission And
Region And Country Of Last Residence: Fiscal Year 2015, Table 11, extracted on Jan. 21, 2017 from
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table11
6 ___________________: PERSONS NATURALIZED BY REGION AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH: FISCAL
YEARS 2006 TO 2015 extracted on Jan. 21, 2017, from : https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-
statistics/yearbook/2015
7 Kate Hooper and Jeanne Batalova: Chinese Immigrants in the United States, Migration Policy Institute, extracted
on Jan. 21, 2017 from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/chinese-immigrants-united-states
8 By Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova: Indian Immigrants in the United States, Migration Policy Institute, extracted on
Jan. 21,2017 from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states
9 Drew Desilver: 5 facts about Indian Americans, Pew Research Center, extracted on Jan. 21, 2017 from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/30/5-facts-about-indian-americans/

3. What does the above mumbo-jumbo of statistics inform us? First, that the US is not far different
from many other former colonial nations of Europe when it came to cheap labour. Hence the
high rates of migration, legal and illegal, ranged from former offshore sugar to cotton colonies.
The first wave of immigration that came from Europe till 1945, post-War, needed cheap labour
to build infrastructure and operate their factories and expanding utilities in a ‘cost-effective’
manner. The radical change in the complexion of migration to the US after 1945 and even more
in the post-decolonisation years after 1960 created the wealth that is America’s today. Second,
the White US population is fast ageing, birth rates are declining and social security for the Baby
boomer generation is expected to bankrupt by 2030. Third, the virtual dismantling of employee
trade unions by various subterfuges such as at-will employment has opened the labour market to
wage undercutting, the prime beneficiaries of which are non-Indian and Chinese immigrants,
legal and illegal.
Fourth, the cost of manufacturing and services has steadily increased over the decades, owing to
30-35% corporate taxation, uncontrolled avarice of the health insurance and pharmaceutical
sectors, rising wage demands of native-born, etc. All these made manufacturing and services in
the US extraordinarily expensive and mostly uncompetitive, save for high technology. Trade and
tariff barriers have evidently not helped much either, leaving monuments like Detroit and Flint in
their wake. Fifth, economic deprivation, has given rise to immense social tension that is
frequently spilling into streets and schools, in the form of frequent fatal shootings. It is travesty
that 76% of America’s wealth – a whopping $67 trillion – was held by just 10% of all families in
the US in 2013. The top 50% of the country accounted for 23% of total wealth, with an average
of $316,000 per family, leaving just 1% of the total pie for the entire bottom half of the
population. The average held was $36,000 for families that fell in the 26th to 50th percentiles. In
in the lowest quarter, they had zero wealth and in fact, were $13,000 in debt on average. And all
this from a report from the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO)! The wealth of families at
the 90th percentile grew by 54% between 1989 and 2013 while those at the 50th percentile
experienced a paltry 4% rise during the same period and those at the 25th percentile actually saw
their wealth drop by 6%10.
Sixth, the complete dependence on cheap migrant labour has engendered a Gulf-like anathema
for ‘dirty’ jobs among native-born. I was witness to similar occurrence in Australia in 1999-2000
where low-paid ‘menial’ jobs went abegging while able-bodied workers of both sexes indulged
in window-shopping in fancy malls since social security doles were much more lucrative and
tax-free than ‘menial’ salaries. Getting over this mind set takes a whole generation, if not more.
Seventh, to tar all immigrants with the same ‘menial’ brush contradicts statistics mentioned
above. There is a self-evident qualitative divide between European, Chinese and Indian
immigrants and those from many other underprivileged parts of the world. Failure to recognize
these would have disastrous consequences for America’s economy and reputation. Yet India
must remain beholden to Mr. Trump for ending exploitative body shopping by Indian I-T
companies by pegging the minimum annual salary of Indian expatriates to USD 100000, a 30-
40% rise from today.
Eighth, qualified migrant communities such as Indian-Americans have supplanted American
Whites in critical areas of America’s economy and are competing, on equal terms, with native-
10 Jeanne Sahadi: The richest 10% hold 76% of the wealth, CNN Money, extracted on Jan. 22, 2016 from
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/18/pf/wealth-inequality/

4. born for the best of careers. As the stock of native-born managers steadily ages and dwindles till
2030 and beyond, qualified migrant communities will step forward as appropriate replacements
without much threat of substitutes. Ninth, owing to migrant visa/green card eligibility, migrants
traditionally are older than native-born Americans when they enter the work place. The median
age of immigrants was 43.5 years, compared to 35.9 years for the native-born. This would only
exacerbate the twin skilled labour and social security crises, American government, industry and
services will face, unless replacement skilled migration is permitted by the Trump
Administration. After all, innovation needs skills, not just numbers.
Last, but not the least, skilled migrant communities with their skill sets is the most lucrative
benefit the Trump Administration’s realpolitik should target, considering the changing
demographics of their nation by 2050, adverse economics and a severely debt-ridden economy.
Immigrants from ten countries represented close to 60% percent of the US immigrant population
in 2014. Therefore, correcting the long overdue fatal skew in US immigration policy for menial
service and against innovation-driven and highly-skilled migrants whose technological
innovations are the key to reducing America’s historical dependence on cheap migrant labour.
To Trump or be trumped by migration then remains the central question. (1839 words)
The author is a senior public policy analyst and commentator