The Economist (som flere burde lese, uansett politisk ståsted) hadde en en-sides glimrende oppsummering av studier av effekten av innvandring på arbeidsplasser. Konklusjon: Innvandrere tar arbeidsplasser på kort sikt i økonomier med høy regulering, men ikke på lengre sikt og i relativt deregulerte økonomier. Med andre ord: Innvandrere er mer av et gode i USA enn i Europa. Eller, slik artikkelen sier det:
In many parts of Europe, for example, governments try to protect workers by making it more costly to fire them. But workers that are expensive to fire are also dear to hire. Immigrants—often recruited on temporary visas, beyond the embrace of unions and sometimes outside the law altogether—become more attractive by comparison. Because they cannot become ensconced in a job, they are more likely to be offered one. In the short run, this kind of immigrant competition undercuts wages and raises profits. In the long run, however, higher profits should tempt new firms to enter the market, compete for workers and bid wages back up.
In Europe, sadly, the long run never arrives. The entry of new firms is inhibited by regulations to protect old ones. Mr Angrist and Ms Kugler show that the higher the barriers to entry in a country are, the worse is the impact of immigration on the job prospects of its citizens. Intended to shield small players from competition, these regulations instead provide for stagnation. Perhaps Europe’s politicians should worry less about repelling immigrants, and more about unshackling the firms that might employ them.