[Plutarch]

(1) The $89,000 figure is not a "snapshot". It is the net present value of the immigrant in his lifetime. It is also the figure used by the Academy that you say we must not impugn. It was also the definition used by Gillespie in his piece. You cannot dismiss it or pretend to be confused by it.

(2) Please answer my question as to why we should favor poorly educated illegals, who are so costly for the taxpayer, when we might substitute better educated legal immigrants who will benefit the taxpayer (according to the not-to- be- impugned NRS study)? This is true whether we look at a single generation or several.

[Ben Ficklin]

On number 1, I will always disagree with you and agree with your CATO article.

As for number two, the US needs both low and high skilled imported labor. The study that Congress is using states that there are 483,000 low skilled jobs being created by the economy each year. Consequently, you will notice that these proposed guest worker plans start with a quota of 400,000. If those are applied for in the first quarter, an additional 10% will be created. If those are applied for in the second quarter, a second 10% will be created for a potential total of 480,000 which is about the same as the 483,000 estimate.

On the high skilled workers, I believe the quota reached 135,000 during the boom and was then lowered to 65,000 during the recession. As the eonomy has recovered that quota will have to be raised and there is mich discussion going on about the ultimate number.