Featured Post from University of Massachusetts Amherst

Immigrants in U.S. Earn 10.6% Less Than Native-Born Workers, But Biggest Driver is Job Access, Not Wage Discrimination

UMass Amherst labor expert finds access to high-paying jobs—not unequal pay for the same job—is the biggest driver of immigrant wage gaps

Jul 16, 2025

3 min

Donald Tomaskovic-Devey


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


Immigrants in the United States earn 10.6% less than similarly educated U.S.-born workers, largely because they are concentrated in lower-paying industries, occupations and companies, according to a major new study published July 16 in Nature, co-authored by a University of Massachusetts Amherst sociologist who studies equal opportunity in employment. The research—one of the most comprehensive global comparisons of immigrant labor market integration to date—analyzes linked employer-employee data from over 13 million people across nine advanced economies in Europe and North America.


The U.S. results, drawn from a unique combination of Census Bureau, earnings and employer data, reveal that only about one-quarter of the wage gap is due to pay inequality within the same job and company. Instead, the majority stems from structural barriers that limit immigrants’ access to better-paying workplaces.


“These findings are important because they show that most of the immigrant wage gap isn’t about being paid less for the same work—it’s about not getting into the highest-paying jobs and firms in the first place,” says Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, professor of sociology and founding director of the Center for Employment Equity at UMass Amherst



Key U.S. Findings


  • First-generation immigrants with legal status in the U.S. earn 10.6% less than comparable native-born workers.
  • 3.4%, a third of that gap, is attributable to unequal pay for the same job at the same employer.
  • No data was available on second-generation immigrants in the U.S., but other countries showed persistent but smaller gaps into the next generation.


The study suggests that efforts to close immigrant wage gaps should focus on increasing immigrants’ access to better jobs and firms. Promising approaches include:


  • Language and skills training
  • Recognition of foreign credentials
  • Access to professional networks
  • Employer anti-bias interventions


“Improving job access is essential,” says co-author Andrew Penner, professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine. “This means addressing the barriers that keep immigrants out of the highest-paying firms and occupations.”


As of 2023, immigrants constituted approximately 14% of the U.S. population, totaling over 47 million people. There are approximately 1 million new long-term permanent residents annually. U.S. immigration policy encompasses diverse pathways, including family-based migration, employment-based visas, the Diversity Visa Lottery and humanitarian protection. Immigration has been a defining feature of the U.S. population since its founding, with distinct waves shaped by economic needs, political developments and global conflicts.


“For almost 250 years, we have been a nation of immigrants, and this pay gap indicates that we can do more as a country to help people following the paths of our forebears realize the American dream,” Tomaskovic-Devey adds.


Global Comparison


The study includes 13.5 million individuals in nine immigrant-receiving countries: the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.


The U.S. had one of the smallest pay gaps (10.6%) among the nine countries studied. By contrast, Canada showed a 27.5% gap and Spain a 29.3% gap. The most favorable outcomes for immigrants were in Sweden (7% gap) and Denmark (9.2%).


The authors identify two main sources of the immigrant-native pay gap:


  1. Sorting—Immigrants are more likely to work in lower-paying industries, occupations and firms.
  2. Within-job inequality—In all countries immigrants are paid less than natives doing the same job for the same employer, but these gaps are relatively small.


Across the nine countries, three-quarters of the 17.9% average wage gap for immigrants was due to sorting; just one-quarter stemmed from unequal pay within jobs. In the U.S., this pattern was consistent: structural job access—not wage discrimination—was the dominant force.


The study also exposes persistent disadvantages for immigrants from certain world regions, including Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Across all countries, immigrants from these regions faced larger wage gaps than immigrants from Western or Asian countries.


The international research is the latest in a series of high-profile publications from a team spanning over a dozen countries in North America and Europe that has been investigating the dynamics of workplace earnings distributions for the last decade.

Connect with:
Donald Tomaskovic-Devey

Donald Tomaskovic-Devey

Professor of Sociology and Executive Director of Center for Employment Equity

Donald Tomaskovic-Devey is an expert in understanding the processes that generate workplace inequality.

Employment EquityLabor MarketsIncome DistributionsEconomic SociologyOrganizations and Inequality

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Massachusetts Amherst

4 min

Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.  Read the original article here. In the run-up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on President Donald Trump’s spending and tax bill, Republicans scrambled to revise the bill to win support of wavering GOP senators. A provision included in the original bill was a 10-year moratorium on any state law that sought to regulate artificial intelligence. The provision denied access to US$500 million in federal funding for broadband internet and AI infrastructure projects for any state that passed any such law. The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium was widely viewed as a win for AI firms that had expressed fears that states passing regulations on AI would hamper the development of the technology. However, many federal and state officials from both parties, including state attorneys general, state legislators and 17 Republican governors, publicly opposed the measure. In the last hours before the passage of the bill, the Senate struck down the provision by a resounding 99-1 vote. In an era defined by partisan divides on issues such as immigration, health care, social welfare, gender equality, race relations and gun control, why are so many Republican and Democratic political leaders on the same page on the issue of AI regulation? Whatever motivated lawmakers to permit AI regulation, our recent poll shows that they are aligned with the majority of Americans who view AI with trepidation, skepticism and fear, and who want the emerging technology regulated. Bipartisan sentiments We are political scientists who use polls to study partisan polarization in the United States, as well as the areas of agreement that bridge the divide that has come to define U.S. politics. In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative poll that sought to capture what Americans think about AI, including what they think AI will mean for the economy and society going forward. The public is generally pessimistic. We found that 65% of Americans said they believe AI will increase the spread of false information. Fifty-six percent of Americans worry AI will threaten the future of humanity. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans told us AI will make them more productive (29%), make people less lonely (21%) or improve the economy (22%). While Americans tend to be deeply divided along partisan lines on most issues, the apprehension regarding AI’s impact on the future appears to be relatively consistent across Republicans and Democrats. For example, only 19% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats said they believe that artificial intelligence will make people less lonely. Respondents across the parties are in lockstep when it comes to their views on whether AI will make them personally more productive, with only 29% − both Republicans and Democrats − agreeing. And 60% of Democrats and 53% Republicans said they believe AI will threaten the future of humanity. On the question of whether artificial intelligence should be strictly regulated by the government, we found that close to 6 in 10 Americans (58%) agree with this sentiment. Given the partisan differences in support for governmental regulation of business, we expected to find evidence of a partisan divide on this question. However, our data finds that Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on AI regulation, with majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (54%) supporting strict AI regulation. When we take into account demographic and political characteristics such as race, educational attainment, gender identity, income, ideology and age, we again find that partisan identity has no significant impact on opinion regarding the regulation of AI. State of anxiety In the years ahead, the debate over AI and the government’s role in regulating it is likely to intensify, on both the state and federal levels. As each day seems to bring new advances in AI’s capability and reach, the future is shaping up to be one in which human beings coexist – and hopefully flourish – alongside AI. This new reality has made the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, justifiably nervous, and our polling captures this widespread trepidation. Lawmakers and technology leaders alike could address this anxiety by better communicating the pitfalls and potential of AI, and take seriously the concerns of the public. After all, the public is not alone in its trepidation. Many experts in the field also have substantial worries about the future of AI. One of the fundamental political questions moving forward, then, will be to what degree regulators put guardrails on this emerging and transformative technology in order to protect Americans from AI’s negative consequences. Adam Eichen is a doctoral candidate in political science at UMass Amherst. Alexander Theodoridis is associate professor of political science and co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst. Sara M. Kirshbaum is a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer of political science at UMass Amherst. Tatishe Nteta is provost professor of political science and director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst.

View all posts
Powered by