An "opposite" conclusion would be one which instead of finding a huge impact finds No impact or a small one. Such a study would be gone over with a fine tooth comb and any flaw in methodology or fact revealed. You did not do that kind of analysis for this one which is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, it is precisely the studies which you believe or want to believe which should be MORE closely scrutinized.
In the last twenty years apparently 11-12 million Illegals have arrived hence I see no reason to assume the next twenty years will be different.
Dishonesty? I said I read the Heritage Foundation report and found it credible, asking you "what assumptions do you not find valid?" You suggest that granting "earned citizenship" to millions of illegals and increasing annual legal immigration quotas could result in no impact, or a small one? That defies logic. I suggest a new comb.
In fact, it is precisely the studies which you believe or want to believe which should be MORE closely scrutinized.
I did scrutinize it. And you? One more time... what assumptions in the Heritage Foundation report do you find not credible? Or do you just dismiss it's findings because you don't want to believe them?
In the last twenty years apparently 11-12 million Illegals have arrived hence I see no reason to assume the next twenty years will be different.
Ahhhh, but my question, and the Heritage Foundation report we were discussing, was not about illegal immigration. The 100 million estimate (and its subsequent estimate of 66 million to reflect the Bingaman amendment) was projecting the number of legal immigrants over the next 20 years. There may very well be an additional 11-12 million illegals on top of that number.