Hiding In Plain Sight

Robert Samuelson points out that there is a trend in poverty data that is being ignored completely. It is hiding in plain sight because nobody seems to want to discuss it. Call it the elephant in the room. I disagree a tiny bit with his wording of the problem, but it really deserves a hard look.

The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the 11.3 percent in 2000, the recent low. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.

It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3 percent poverty rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics accounted for all of the gain.

Consider. From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000, but is down over longer periods.

Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes largely untold. Government officials didn't say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.

Samuelson's point – that a flood of low-skilled immigrants, primarily illegal, is skewing the data is seriously worth a look. (He necessarily speaks in terms of Hispanic immigrants because that is the way the data is broken down. But I would point out that the flood of illegals is not completely made up of Hispanics. Nevertheless, his basic point appears to be correct.)

Samuelson's main idea here is that the discussion of both poverty and of the effects of (primarily illegal) immigration on poverty cannot be honestly discussed if the data is being ignored. He's right. There is a lot of emotion, there is a lot of passionately held beliefs that may or may not be based on facts, there are a lot of advocates for and against illegal immigration. But if facts are ignored there will be a lot more heat than light generated in any discussion.

I've maintained that there is no reason why we cannot have secure borders and a very liberal legal immigration policy into this country. All it takes is the political will. And some honesty in interpreting and discussing the data.