收紧移民政策与本地就业—结果可能与你想的不一样！新西兰移民政策

1. 引言

在这个选举年，移民问题再次成为热门话题。随着各政党不断强化自身论述、寻求差异化定位，移民议题重新成为象征性的政治战场。然而，这类讨论往往“声音大于事实”。近期，克里斯托弗·卢克森总理表示有意“收紧”移民政策，使得相关辩论进一步升温。这与国家党过去 40 年一贯的亲移民立场形成鲜明对比。

政治叙事的核心，是一个反复出现的论点：减少移民将改善新西兰人的就业机会。这一观点几乎每逢选举便会被重新提出，但长期以来并未得到证据支持。事实上，美国最新研究显示，激进的移民限制措施反而可能提高本地工人的失业率。

2. 最新美国研究显示：严格的移民政策会伤害本地工人

2026 年 4 月，美国经济政策研究所（Economic Policy Institute, EPI）发布了一份题为 《在大规模驱逐行动下，美国本土出生工人的失业率上升：特朗普严苛的移民执法正在伤害所有劳动者》 的详细分析。

这项研究对新西兰当前的讨论具有高度参考价值，因为它提供了一个真实、规模庞大的“自然实验”：移除大量移民劳动力是否真的能让本地人受益？

2.1 主要发现：美国本土出生工人的失业率上升

EPI 的分析显示：

· 在 2024 年拜登政府时期，美国本土出生工人的平均失业率为 4.0%；

· 在当前大规模驱逐计划下，2026 年的三个月平均失业率上升至 4.3%，未季调数据更达到 4.6%。

这一上升发生在数十万无证移民被驱逐出劳动力市场之后。

所谓的“美国人就业大爆发”并未出现。

2.2 为什么驱逐移民会增加本地人的失业？

EPI 指出多个关键机制：

· 移民不仅是劳动者，也是消费者。 驱逐移民会减少消费需求，从而减少所有人的就业机会。

· 移民与本地工人往往是互补关系，而非替代关系。 当移民建筑工人、护理人员或餐饮服务人员消失时，本地的主管、经理和技术工种也会受到影响。

· 劳动力短缺会削弱企业运作能力。 企业会缩短营业时间、减少产能，甚至被迫关闭。

最终结果是：本土出生工人的就业机会净减少。

2.3 NBER 与布鲁金斯学会的进一步证据

EPI 的结论与其他研究高度一致：

· NBER 工作论文 35129（Cox & East, 2026） 在 ICE（移民执法局）逮捕增加的县区：

o 无证移民就业大幅下降

o 低学历本地男性就业同步下降

o 没有证据显示本地人填补了空缺岗位

· NBER 工作论文 34790（Cravino 等, 2026） 大规模驱逐的结构模型显示：

o 部分工人短期工资略有上升

o 长期来看，本地工人的实际工资下降

o 生产力与经济产出减少

· 布鲁金斯学会（Chloe East, 2024） 系统性综述指出：

o 驱逐移民会减少本地就业

o 压低工资

o 使地区经济萎缩

国际证据高度一致： 严格的移民政策会伤害本地工人，而非帮助他们。

3. 为什么收紧移民政策无法改善本地就业？

美国的经验并非特例，而是反映了适用于包括新西兰在内的发达经济体的基本经济规律。

3.1 移民会扩大劳动力需求

一个常见误解是：劳动力市场是一块“固定的蛋糕”——移民少一个岗位，本地人就多一个岗位。 现实恰恰相反：

· 移民通过消费增加需求；

· 移民使企业能够扩大经营，从而创造更多岗位；

· 移民往往填补的是本地人不愿意做而非不能做的工作。

减少移民会缩小经济规模，从而减少所有人的就业机会。

3.2 互补性比替代性更重要

在许多行业，移民与本地工人承担的是不同但相互依赖的任务。

新西兰的典型例子包括：

· 建筑业：移民工人让本地工程师、电工、项目经理能够保持全职就业；

· 医疗与养老护理：移民护理人员让本地护士和医生能够高效运作；

· 餐饮与旅游业：移民承担高流动性岗位，使企业得以维持运营，从而保留本地管理岗位。

减少移民会破坏这些互补关系。

3.3 劳动力短缺不会自动吸引本地人加入劳动力市场

新西兰长期面临结构性问题：

· 地理位置不匹配

· 技能不匹配

· 人口老龄化

· 某些群体劳动参与率偏低

减少移民无法解决这些根本性问题。

3.4 严格政策会降低生产力与投资意愿

面对劳动力短缺，企业往往会：

· 缩短营业时间

· 拒绝新订单

· 推迟扩张计划

· 被迫提前自动化

· 将业务迁往海外

这些都会减少新西兰人的就业机会。

4. 结论

“收紧移民政策会增加本地就业”这一观点缺乏证据支持。 美国最新研究，包括 EPI 对大规模驱逐行动的分析，清楚显示：激进的移民限制措施会提高本地工人的失业率。NBER 与布鲁金斯学会的研究进一步强化了这一结论。

新西兰若走上同样的道路，可能会重蹈覆辙。尽管政治话语正朝着更严格的方向发展，但经济基本面并未改变： 移民对新西兰的繁荣、生产力与劳动力市场稳定至关重要。

随着选举临近，公共讨论更需要基于证据，而非假设。移民政策应当被优化、完善，而不是以伤害移民与本地人为代价的方式被收紧。

Tightening Immigration Policy and Local Employment – It’s Not What You Thought

1. Introduction

Immigration has become a hot topic in this election year again. As political parties sharpen their messages and seek to differentiate themselves, immigration has reemerged as a symbolic battleground. Recent comments by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, signalling an intention to “tighten” immigration settings, have intensified the debate. This represents a notable rhetorical shift from the National Party’s 40 years proimmigration stance.

At the centre of the political narrative is a familiar claim: that reducing immigration will improve employment opportunities for New Zealanders. This argument resurfaces every election cycle, despite not being supported by evidence. In fact, new research from the United States shows that aggressive immigration restrictions might increase unemployment for local workers.

2. What the Latest U.S. Evidence Shows: Restrictive Immigration Policies Harm Local Workers

In April 2026, the Economic Policy Institute published a detailed analysis titled “Unemployment has increased for U.S.-born workers in the face of mass deportations: Trump’s draconian immigration enforcement is harming all workers.” The findings are highly relevant to New Zealand’s current debate because they examine a realworld, largescale test of the idea that removing migrant workers creates jobs for locals.

2.1 The headline finding: unemployment for U.S.-born workers has risen

The EPI analysis shows that under the Biden administration in 2024, unemployment for U.S.-born workers averaged 4.0%; Under the current massdeportation programme, the threemonth average for 2026 has risen to 4.3%, and 4.6% on a nonseasonally adjusted basis.

This increase occurred despite the removal of hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers from the labour market. The promised “jobs boom for Americans” simply did not occur.

2.2 Why deportations increase unemployment for locals

The EPI analysis identifies several mechanisms why removing migrant workers harms local employment:

· Immigrants are also consumers. Deportations reduce demand for goods and services, which reduces jobs for everyone.

· Immigrants and locals often perform complementary tasks. When immigrant labourers, carers, or hospitality workers disappear, the jobs of local supervisors, managers, and skilled tradespeople are also affected.

· Labour shortages reduce business activity. Firms scale back operations, reduce hours, or close entirely.

The result is a net loss of employment opportunities for U.S.-born workers.

2.3 Supporting evidence from NBER and Brookings

The EPI findings are consistent with a broader body of research:

· NBER Working Paper No. 35129 (Cox & East, 2026) Counties with increased ICE arrests experienced:

o significant declines in employment for undocumented workers

o job losses for loweducated U.S.-born men

o no evidence that locals filled the vacated roles

· NBER Working Paper No. 34790 (Cravino et al., 2026) A structural model of mass deportations shows:

o small shortterm wage increases for some workers

o longrun reductions in average real wages for natives

o lower productivity and reduced economic output

· Brookings Institution (Chloe East, 2024) A comprehensive review concluded that deportations:

o reduce local employment

o depress wages

o shrink regional economies

3. Why Tightening Immigration Does Not Improve Local Employment

The U.S. experience is not unique. It reflects wellestablished economic principles that apply across advanced economies, including New Zealand.

3.1 Immigrants expand labour demand

A persistent misconception is that the labour market is a fixed pie — one job lost by a migrant is one job gained by a local. In reality:

· Migrants increase demand by consuming goods and services.

· Migrants enable business expansion, which creates new jobs.

· Migrants often fill roles that locals are unwilling, not unable, to take.

Removing migrants shrinks the economy, which reduces job opportunities for everyone.

3.2 Complementarity matters more than substitution

In many industries, migrants and locals perform different but interdependent tasks.

Examples relevant to New Zealand:

· Construction: Migrant labourers and carpenters enable local project managers, engineers, and electricians to remain fully employed.

· Healthcare and aged care: Migrant carers allow local nurses and doctors to operate efficiently.

· Hospitality and tourism: Migrants fill highturnover roles that locals avoid, enabling businesses to stay open and employ New Zealanders in supervisory and managerial roles.

Removing migrants disrupts these complementarities.

3.3 Labour shortages do not automatically draw locals into the workforce

New Zealand faces structural constraints:

· geographic mismatches

· skill mismatches

· an ageing population

· low labourforce participation among certain groups

Reducing immigration does not resolve these issues.

3.4 Restrictive policies reduce productivity and investment

Businesses facing labour shortages:

· reduce operating hours

· decline contracts

· delay expansion

· automate prematurely

· relocate offshore

All of these reduce employment opportunities for New Zealanders.

4. Conclusion

Tightening immigration will increase employment for local workers is not supported by evidence. New Zealand risks repeating these mistakes. While political rhetoric is shifting toward restriction, the economic fundamentals remain unchanged: immigration is essential for New Zealand’s prosperity, productivity, and labourmarket stability.

As the election approaches, it is important that public debate is grounded in evidence rather than assumptions. Immigration policy should be refined and improved but not tightened in ways that harm both migrants and New Zealanders.

I hope this provides useful food for thought in the months ahead.

Peter Luo, Express Immigration (NZ) Ltd