Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.23.2007 11:10 am

Immigration is good for the economy and the budget

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

A reader named Ed, responding to my pro-immigration column today, brings up the argument that immigrants are a burden on the taxpayer. He writes:

When you combine low wages with lack of education and the inability to speak our standard language, the burden on social services becomes huge. What looks like a huge bargain for business has huge social costs to the taxpayers including medical, education, housing, prison, ect. Where is your analysis in regards to this?

As it happens, Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute just published a paper on this very question. He uses figures from the Congressional Budget Office, which was studying an earlier version of the immigration reform bill. Griswold writes:

Specifically, the CBO estimated that federal spending would increase $53.6 billion during the period 2007-16 if the legislation became law, primarily because of increases in refundable tax credits and Medicaid spending. The additional spending would be more than offset in the same period by an even greater increase in federal revenues of $65.7 billion, mostly due to higher collections of income and Social Security taxes but also because of increased visa fees.

He also  cites some research in Texas:  

 A 2006 study by the Texas comptroller of public accounts reached a similar conclusion. Examining the specific fiscal impact of the state’s 1.4 million undocumented immigrants, the study found that they imposed a net fiscal cost on Texas state and local governments of $504 million in 2005. The fiscal cost, however, was dwarfed by the estimated positive impact on the state’s economy of $17.7 billion.

Bottom line: Like anything else, immigration comes with costs and benefits. It looks like the benefits easily outweigh the costs.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
8 comments

Comments are closed.

Immigration is fine if it is within limits that we all agree on and if it is done legally. Why have immigration laws at all if our country doesn’t enforce them? In that case, they are rendered meaningless. What does illegal immigration say to legal immigrants? Largely, that they were chumps for doing things the right way since we don’t enforce our immigration laws thereby denuding said laws of all importance.

Immigration, most likely, is vital and important but we shouldn’t allow it willy-nilly. If you want to come here, stand in line. Don’t just rush across the border and beware the “coyotes”.

— Roy T.
3:29 pm May 23rd, 2007

ROTFL…

So a libertarian think tank says that the 54 BILLION-with-a-B dollars that immigrants will cost in tax dollars will be “more than offset” by increased income tax and VISA FEES? As if immigrants actually PAY taxes and they actually think they’ll collect 66 BILLION-with-a-B in VISA fees?

I think the words I’m looking for here are “embarrassingly ridiculous”.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that libertarians and free market extremists will go to in order to defend the corporate culture of greed.

Here is where it all falls off the earth for you Mr. Nicklaus, and those who are constantly shilling for corporatism:

You said :

Major American industries like agriculture, construction and information technology would shrink without ready access to immigrant workers.

A shining of example of the Big Lie theory is when libertarians and free market extremists and corporations say that we NEED immigrants because they will “do the jobs that American’s won’t do” - so that Corporate America can exploit them for cheap labor.

The lie here is that there is no such thing as a job that American’s “won’t do”, but there are jobs that American’s won’t do for .75 cents an hour.

Now… under a truly “free market” economy - the law of “supply and demand” dictates that because nobody will do the job for .75 cents an hour - businesses should have to raise the wage in order to attract workers.

Nicklaus and the rest of the professional corporate apologists don’t have any trouble with “supply and demand” when it’s the American consumer that has to pay up (see Big Oil) - but when it’s Big Businesses turn to play by the same rules - all of a sudden the “free market” isn’t working for them.

All of a sudden it’s okay for businesses to BREAK THE LAW by hiring ILLEGAL immigrants in order to circumvent what has always been a very AMERICAN ideal. Supply and Demand.

Now they are tired of that nagging little word “ILLEGAL” and are trying desperately to legalize the exploitation of these people, and their impoverishing of the American worker.

Good Luck selling THAT to the American People.

And before you even begin to start spouting your mantra that paying more for labor means higher costs to the consumers - let me just put forth this novel idea :

It’s an outright LIE to suggest that Big Businesses lowered costs because they were paying less for illegal labor. They pocketed the difference and blew out the profit margins. While it’s absolutely correct to suspect that they will try to raise their prices if they are forced to play by the rules of a TRULY free market - it’s important to point out here that they will be doing so after profiting illegally from exploited labor and POCKETING THE DIFFERENCE. In essence - charging us TWICE because they had to play by the same rules that consumers play by.

As you can read in the news - it’s not playing very well with ANY of the voting public.

Thank goodness.

Mac
http://www.brownsludge.com

— BrownSludge
3:34 pm May 23rd, 2007

The problem I see with the Griswald’s study is he bases his conclusion on what US immigration policy and welfare subsidation should be, not how they are now. Congress is hell bent on passing this stink bomb on to the Whitehouse in the next couple of months. They won’t be nearly as eager to pass the drastic reforms to federal revenue distribution needed to make Griswold’s dream come true.

I think Robert Rector and Christine Kim’s analysis uses a more realistic scenario that reaches the opposite conclusion:

http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/SR14.cfm

— Go_Fish
4:05 pm May 23rd, 2007

What does illegal immigration tell legal immigrants like me? It tells us that the current law’s immigration quotas are way too low. People come here illegally because they might have to spend many years here waiting for a visa unless they already have families in the US. With an American college degree, I at least had access to temporary work visas, but most farmers aren’t that lucky. Even with a degree and a job offer for the same salary as an American worker, things are not easy for immigrants. I’ve been in this country legally 10 years, and I still have a few years to go until there’s a permanent visa number available for me. I still have to get permission from Homeland Security to switch jobs!

By helping the illegals become legal immigrants what we’d accomplish is to increase their wages and work conditions, making it EASIER, not harder, for citizens to compete with them. Deporting them all is a pipe dream, why don’t make them compete with you in more even terms. Kick one out, and they’ll be back withing the week. They’ll come in legally using one of the many tourism agreements the US has with many countries and just won’t leave.

Immigration detractors claim those illegals are costing the US millions in revenues. Trying to crack down on their employers will just lower their wages and turn some of them into crime. They will not leave. Make sure they are paid at least minimum wage, and we’ll all be better off in the long run. Europe is facing a similar issue with African immigrants, and they are reaching the same conclusion.

If they want to come into the US, they will, and nothing will stop them. Try talking to one of those illegals sometime. You might learn something.

— Jorge
7:32 pm May 23rd, 2007

This article oozes with dishonesty and here’s why.

David Nicklaus attempts to compare today’s immigration policies with the early 20th century by stating: “The annual inflow of immigrants, legal and illegal, amounts to about five people for every 1,000 U.S. residents. The rate was twice as high in the early years of the 20th century”

What Nickalus omits is that US population was 75 million in 1900 compared to 300 million today and much of the US was unsttled land in 1900. In 1980, the US population was 226 million meaning in just the last 27 years, the US has grrown by the equivlant of its entire 1900 population of 75 million.

By focusing on immigration per thousand US residents, Nicklaus is trying to downplay the magnitude of recent immigration. The US has taken in 40 million immigrants in the last 30 years. And that, my friends, is unprecedented in human history, a simple fact that Nicklaus and many in the media try hard to avoid and choose not to report.

— truecitizen
11:57 am May 25th, 2007

Dear True,
Nearly everything we’re experiencing today is unprecedented in human history. Certainly our level of prosperity is. Your backward-looking arguments certainly aren’t going to change my mind: Our immigration policy needs to be humane, and it needs to meet the needs of our economy.

Thanks for writing.

David Nicklaus
Business columnist
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

— truecitizen
1:19 pm May 25th, 2007

To Nicklaus:

I didn’t expect it would change your mind. Mass immigration is a media agenda. Again, the US has absorbed 40 million legal and illegal immigrants in 30 years, more immigrants in a shorter period of time than any nation in history Yet, the media doesn’t report it. Why?
The dictionary defines the word moderate as tending toward the mean or average amount. The word extreme is defined: existing in a high degree, exceeding the ordinary and the farthest possible point from the center.

By these definitions, recent immigration levels are certainly extreme But, you in the media seek to impose extreme immigration levels while pretending it is moderate.

Even though your media colleagues won’t report it, present day Americans have been the most generous society to immigrants in world history. But, that generosity is now being exploited and abused to our detriment.

I say Americans have earned moderation, while you obviously don’t.

— truecitizen
1:23 pm May 25th, 2007

our syndicated column which appeared in our local paper, The Kokomo
Tribune, was most interesting. However, I do want to comment on a couple
of points. Early on you make a point that our immigration “rate” was
twice as high in the early years of the 20th Century. I fail to see what
relevance this fact is at all concerning the present situation. Probably
the “rate” was even higher in the earlier years of the 19th Century. So,
your point is meaningless, really.

Secondly, we are talking mostly about people who are violating the laws
of the United States, illegal aliens. What is being proposed is jumping
these folks ahead of all of those who are following the law. This is
grossly unjust.

As to whether we “need” more workers, I have my doubts. What is our
ultimate population goal? Has anyone thought about this? What will the
natural resource base of this country finally support on a sustainable
basis? I don’t hear anything about environmental concerns and population
growth around the world in your argument. In other words, I think you
view is myopic.

— Kent Blacklidge
7:57 pm May 29th, 2007