I'd link it for you but it is difficult to do on my Treo. Google "Willing Workers" + Cato and you will get the study used by the Bush Administration and the OBL. On page 14 it concedes that each new illegal costs the taxpayer a net $89,000.
So now you know.
Actually, the study you quoted presents a little different picture. You were not able to look closely ( I use a Treo too, so I understand you citing the inability to provide all the details, but you did provide the link, and I did go to it, and I thank you for it) at the study, but it really is not quite the picture you propose. Actually, the NUMBERS line up this way: The 1997 NRC study you cite (I have it open in front of me, you can link to it here ) actually says "Immigrants as a whole do not impose a financial burden on native born Americans..... the study calculates the fiscal impact of immigrants and their descendants on native born Americans.... tax payments minus the cost of government services they would consume....social security, medicaid, medicare, public schools, police and fire protection and government health services. The study found that the average immigrant.... paid in $80,000 MORE than he consumed in services over a lifetime." The number you cite ($89,000) is a first generation only figure for only "low skilled" immigrants -- to be honest, they comprise the vast majority of illegals, so we can use them as a population-- of cost vs. income but only for the first generation, with the next generation producing a net surplus of $75,000 per desdendant, eclipsing the $80,000 per person first generation that the study cited, and certainly eradicating the "debt" of parents. Further the gross outlay here in the study did not take into account the 96 welfare reform statutes (which reduced immigrant subsidies by 9,000 dollars per family). Finally, even if the "input v. output" curve were negative, NO sane economist would measure a person's value to the economy only on such terms. According to Julian Simon's study (1995), immigrants RAISE the overall wage and productivity scale. Even Borjas's oft-cited study only makes the case that illegals depress wages in SELECTIVE GROUPS (those with minimal educational/training skills), and that the .35 percent decrease per 1% rise in this group is "negligible." (his word, not mine).
This study (thanks again for it)goes on to either destroy, debunk or at least raise serious doubts about every single canard raised here on FR against immigrants, or as the hard core are prone to say, "against illegal immigrants, not immmigrants" (a distinction which fades quickly if you ask if we should allow illegals to become legal, btw).
At any rate, thanks again for the note, and the link is again HERE for anyone wishing to disturb their dogmatic slumbers on the issue.
So now you know.
Yep. Now I know