Posted on 05/10/2013 10:20:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The immigration debate has taken a sudden and nasty turn with the publication of a new report by The Heritage Foundation claiming that reform legislation will end up costing American taxpayers $6.3 trillion. The Heritage Foundation, one of the most respected conservative organizations in the U.S., has sullied its reputation by lending its name to this tendentious piece of propaganda.
First, the study grossly exaggerates the "cost" of immigration reform by assuming that all of those who gain legal status will claim welfare and other social service benefits as soon as they become eligible. While it is true that Hispanic immigrants new to the U.S. are, on average, substantially poorer than the native-born population, they do not remain so. What's more, low-income immigrants access welfare benefits at lower rates than the native-born and receive, on average, benefits that are significantly less than native-born recipients, according to a study by the Cato Institute.
More importantly, the children of Hispanic immigrants move into the social and economic mainstream quickly. There is no reason to believe they will become welfare-dependent, because they quickly close both the education and earnings gaps with other Americans. A study released by Pew this week shows that Hispanic high school graduates are now attending college at higher rates than non-Hispanic white graduates -- a major change from the past.
Education is the single largest cost attributable to the U.S.-born children of immigrants (as well as those foreign born who came here as young children). But education, unlike food stamps for example, pays off in higher earnings for those children when they reach working age -- and in the higher tax revenue they will contribute. Studies that factor in the contributions of the second generation against the costs to taxpayers of their early years show a net positive impact.
In every other sphere, Heritage maintains that economic analysis should be "dynamic." In other words, such analyses should take into account the consequences of policies on the economy as a whole. But when it comes to the economic effects of immigration, Heritage eschews that approach.
The study ignores the effect the new law will have on expanding the economy, increasing the labor force, boosting the return on capital to U.S. businesses and raising the incomes of most Americans. Immigrants create jobs directly and indirectly. They consume goods and services, which fuels job creation. Many become entrepreneurs and small-business owners who hire others. And they keep jobs in the U.S. that might otherwise migrate to cheaper labor markets.
But the Heritage study is not only problematic because of its economic assumptions. Heritage is now trying to distance itself from one of the co-authors of its study, Jason Richwine, who has written for at least one white nationalist publication. In his doctoral dissertation, Richwine also wrote that immigrants have lower IQs than the native-born population and that, "No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against." The premise of the statement is that "Hispanics" are a defined, homogenous group and that IQ is almost entirely heritable. Neither is true.
Hispanics are not a racially or genetically homogenous group. They include individuals whose ancestors are European, African or Indian -- or some combination of these groups. Intermarriage rates between Hispanics and non-Hispanics are growing rapidly; more than a third of all Hispanic women are married to non-Hispanic whites, and the rate increases with education and generation. The Hispanic population is becoming "whiter" because a larger proportion is made up of the offspring of intermarriage. But I doubt this will allay the fears of Richwine and others who fret about the browning of America and falling IQs.
Richwine's research on the subject of immigration and IQ follows a long tradition going back to the eugenicists and nativists of the previous century. In 1924, proponents of legislation to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe unfurled a chart in the U.S. Capitol rotunda showing the cost to taxpayers of supporting "social inadequates": the Italians, Jews, Poles and others who were accused of degrading the American gene pool. The predictions of these nativists didn't come true -- nor will Heritage's predictions of a permanent and expanding underclass fueled by immigration reform.
As a conservative and a longtime admirer of The Heritage Foundation, I am saddened that it would risk its reputation for sound economic analysis by promoting faulty research aimed at scaring rather than informing the public.
-- Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Linda doesn’t mind that LEGAL immigrants are forced to accept SLAVE WAGES, due to her desire to flood the labor market with ILLEGALs!!!
Linda Chavez is acting like a foreign agent.
Traitor would be another word.
Scare tactics?
If it’s true, it’s true.
Name calling shows desperation to cover TRUTH.
Your putrid, spurious and unprofessional slander of the work of the Heritage Foundation is what is saddening. Scare tactics?! That would be you madam.
Linda better check her "facts" before running her mouth. The net positive impact shows as the second generation moving back into their parents basement with a six figure debt load they can't handle as a fry cook in the local greasy spoon.
Regards,
GtG
Those are FACTS. Many illegals kill legal American citizens. It wouldn't happen if the law was enforced.
The death of our citizens is a much higher cost that the money. Don't forget the number of Americans out of work or paid much lower than what they would be getting if the market wasn't flooded with foreign invaders.
Chavez needs to take a preschool course in Economics and maybe they'll have a felt coloured dinosaur that can help her understand the concept of “SUPPLY AND DEMAND”
Linda Chavez is acting like a foreign agent.
****************************************************
Maybe that’s because she likely IS A FOREIGN AGENT. My definition of “foreign agent” is one who gets paid, directly or indirectly, from funds from foreign sources and or one who promotes foreign interests, regardless of the source of the funding, over the interests of US citizens.
Chavez is all that BIG TIME!X
If the overwhelming majority of illegals weren’t Hispanic Linda, how different would you position be?
Racism? You bet.
BUMP
The Immigration Debate Has Taken A Sudden And Nasty Turn...
Now that Linda Chavez has weighed in.
She remembered to include everything except “and you can’t criticize me because I have a “Z” at the end of my last name”.
Branding Americans “racists” to further their agenda
Jan. 24 2010
In 2007, former Bush nominee and columnist Linda Chavez published an article in which she accused Americans who stood in opposition to the Bush/McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill as racists. Alleging racism is the favorite tactic of the open borders crowd, as it is often used by those who find themselves on the wrong side of the argument.
Let us refresh our memory...In 2001, Linda Chavez was nominated by President Bush for the Secretary of Labor position. Her nomination fell apart when it was discovered that she had long employed an illegal alien as a housekeeper. In her ensuing unofficial role, she often acted as a cheerleader for Bush and his desire to turn the U.S. into Mexico.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2436234/posts
Town Hall and Linda Chavez are eager to flood the country with Democrats so we don’t have to have political disruptions every 4 or 8 years when the party in power changes. With 11 then 30 then 50 then ??? new Democrats, that will be a thing of the past until the Hispanic Party splits off from the Democrat Party which will result in the differences in two parties being whether English or Spanish is to be the primary language and maybe government will commence periodic changes of rulers by coup and mob.
Linda Chavez is a Bushie. Don’t pay her no mind.
There are already studies that agree with Heritage’s take here. One from Numbers USA has stated that within 20 years roughly 49% of legal immigrants are on one form of welfare or another. Why will the illegals be any different?
Linda is being entirely parochial. Heritage is putting out valid and alarming data on costs, so they have to be trashed.
Linda’s a neocon.
By Ron Fournier
AP Political Writer
Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2001; 5:23 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON –– Linda Chavez withdrew Tuesday as President-elect Bush's nominee to be secretary of labor, saying that "search and destroy" politics had made her a distraction to the incoming administration over the haven she gave an illegal immigrant from Guatemala in the early 1990s.
snip
Mercado said she did chores for Chavez, who gave her money on occasion as an act of charity. Chavez "knew I was not legal in this country," Mercado said Monday. "She knew I didn't have my green card." She added that Chavez offered once or twice to help her gain legal status.
Remember when Chavez was considered “conservative”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.