Cost of Illegal Immigration

[HagiaSophia]

llegal Immigration Cost Feds $10 Billion a Year; Amnesty Would Nearly Triple Cost
By US Newswire via NewsCom
Aug 25, 2004

WASHINGTON – U.S. Newswire – A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

The study, entitled The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, will be available on line at cis.org. Among the findings:

– Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

– Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

– If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

– With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments - not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

– Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

– The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

– Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

– Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

– However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

– About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

– Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers. …"

MichNews.com.

 

[Antonio_B]

HagiaSophia:

llegal Immigration Cost Feds $10 Billion a Year; Amnesty Would Nearly Triple Cost
By US Newswire via NewsCom
Aug 25, 2004

WASHINGTON – U.S. Newswire – A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

The study, entitled The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, will be available on line at cis.org. Among the findings:

– Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

– Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

– If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

– With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments - not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

– Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

– The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

– Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

– Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

– However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

– About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

– Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers. …"

MichNews.com.

Be carefull Sophia, someone might label you a “racist” for bringing up a legitimate issue!
Do you think it is “accidental” that neither political party wants to deal with this issue?

Antonio

 

[HagiaSophia]

Antonio B:

Be carefull Sophia, someone might label you a “racist” for bringing up a legitimate issue!

Since illegals come in a variety of colors, ethnic groups, various faiths and numerous nations, it’s not really a “racist” issue I don’t think.

Do you think it is “accidental” that neither political party wants to deal with this issue?

Neither side wants to touch the issue with a vaulting pole. Politicians at all levels simply look at it as the “elephant in the room” that no one wants to mention and as along as the taxpayers don’t revolt, it goes on. Pat Buchanan is the only one I’ve seen even talking about it.

 

[Lisa_N]

Well I’ll wade in too. We live in a semi-rural area and migrant workers are well in evidence. Some of them of course want to stay all year thereby burdening the social services systems in the off season. I just read about a Head Start program specifically for migrant kids. Now believe me I don’t begrudge the children a decent life but when you look at limited resources and expanding demand, something has to give. I know it’s very hard to get into Head Start and also schools are burdened with having to add staff who are bilingual or who can teach the kids basic hygiene and civilized behavior. One of the major issues for this Head Start program is teaching kids that you go to the bathroom indoors where many of them simply drop their pants out in the playground. It’s not the kids’ fault but in reality their parents are breaking the law and burdening our taxpayers.

There was a time when the illegals came up, picked the fruit and went home. No more. Along with the many hard working, sober, family oriented folks we now have many who have moved into the illegal drug trade with its related violence and consequences on both the medical and legal system. I think the incident that just put me over the edge was an illegal who stalked two religious sisters who were walking in the evening to pray together. The illegal raped and killed one of them, almost killed the other. He’d been deported numerous times, had engaged in previous crimes but just kept coming back through our unguarded borders. Sadly in this community illegals (probably because of their lack of education and assimilation) are involved in an inordinate amount of crime. While most of this is from south of the border, we also have a number of illegal SE Asians involved in gangs and drugs. It’s not a racist issue, it’s a legal issue. I don’t care where someone originates. They need to come in legally.

The cost is just too high and our citizens cannot get medical care or an education when resources are being diverted to help illegals instead.

Lisa N

 

[Antonio_B]

HagiaSophia:
Sophia,

You are correct that immigrants come in all colors but it undeniable most of them come from south of the border and, unfortunately, many Hispanics will label anyone that has concerns about this issue as a “racist,” thus folks are afraid to speak on the matter openly. Here even Mahony refers to them as “undocumented” rather than “illegal” aliens.

Neither one of the Parties wants to deal with them for two reasons: 1) No one wants to be accused of racism. That’s also the reason someone with a horrific record like Al Sharpton could run for the presidency because no one was about to challenge a Black person and risk the label of “racist.”

1. Both parties are afraid to lose the Hispanic vote.

Antonio

 

[workinprogress]

I am disturbed by the Church’s courting of illegal immigrants. There was some document by the Vatican about how some are tricked and others think America will be their immediate salvation from economic woes and what not. That is sad. I hate to see the kids suffer the trip here only to be sent back if caught and sent back, but there are underprivileged kids here–most non-white themselves. Sure some nationalists on the right see this as an invasion of a geographical location and a breaking of man-made laws and not the suffering of some of them. Still, there are illegal immigrants, not all Mexican, BTW, that are doing terrible things around the border. They, who are people, are violating the rights of Americans, who are also people. This is definitely injustice. Justice would be to send the illegals across the border and help these Mexican border towns to thrive and teach the children English so they can thrive in a global economy–that’s not going to happen if we have Spanish masses and Spanish classes. We are hurting their advancement; not helping it.
If they want to go to another religion for that reason (should we in the Church ever be Americans as well as Catholics and not let this country or the Mexican illegal kids be harmed more), may God have mercy on their souls if they know the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church; if they go to the Democratic party (provided the Republicans do the true compassionate conservative thing in the last paragraph instead of figuring they’d better get Mexican votes since they’re here) that supports the institution invented by a fascist woman to kill Jews, blacks, Catholics and Poles, as well as other non-Protestant, Anglo-saxons with imperfect physiologies, may God have mercy on their true reproductive rights–God’s rights, that is.
But we can’t be bleeding hearts or their bunch and/or another group will suffer injustice (the sending of their wages to their country’s economy, via their family members buying stuff in Mexico with some of their relative’s wages, instead of to ours could be an economical disaster waiting to happen). Parishes, deaconates, eparchies, whatever need to balance reason and emotions.
If nothing else, instead of the bishops of America saying we should hold our arms open to every illegal immigrant, I think they should say “be charitable, but be careful because not all of them are friendly”. Hold out one hand for a handshake with a pistol hidden behind the back in the other hand (laughing). I don’t mean that literally, of course, unless you have been burglarized or have had your livestock killed for no good reason.
That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[Jeffrey]

I agree with ya! One of the many reasons I say build the wall.
Lisa N:

Well I’ll wade in too. We live in a semi-rural area and migrant workers are well in evidence. Some of them of course want to stay all year thereby burdening the social services systems in the off season. I just read about a Head Start program specifically for migrant kids. Now believe me I don’t begrudge the children a decent life but when you look at limited resources and expanding demand, something has to give. I know it’s very hard to get into Head Start and also schools are burdened with having to add staff who are bilingual or who can teach the kids basic hygiene and civilized behavior. One of the major issues for this Head Start program is teaching kids that you go to the bathroom indoors where many of them simply drop their pants out in the playground. It’s not the kids’ fault but in reality their parents are breaking the law and burdening our taxpayers.

There was a time when the illegals came up, picked the fruit and went home. No more. Along with the many hard working, sober, family oriented folks we now have many who have moved into the illegal drug trade with its related violence and consequences on both the medical and legal system. I think the incident that just put me over the edge was an illegal who stalked two religious sisters who were walking in the evening to pray together. The illegal raped and killed one of them, almost killed the other. He’d been deported numerous times, had engaged in previous crimes but just kept coming back through our unguarded borders. Sadly in this community illegals (probably because of their lack of education and assimilation) are involved in an inordinate amount of crime. While most of this is from south of the border, we also have a number of illegal SE Asians involved in gangs and drugs. It’s not a racist issue, it’s a legal issue. I don’t care where someone originates. They need to come in legally.

The cost is just too high and our citizens cannot get medical care or an education when resources are being diverted to help illegals instead.

Lisa N

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

On this issue I disagree with the Churchs OPINION …by encouraging open borders, they (the Church) are assuming big govt onto the U.S and that Govt should be providing food and shelter…not just on emergency levels but on a CONTINUING CARE LEVEL.

Call me racist all day long…I say kick out the illegal line jumpers, enforce border security and do things the legal way… the church speaks of charity on this matter…well the bible also speaks of taking care of ones own home as well…and the MAJORITY of illegals fail to assimilate, by learning our language, paying taxes, etc… they account for more crime… and they certainly arent joining the Church on the levels matched with their sneaking into the Country…they are bringing their Santeria religion with them…to allow them to continue and ignore those who are patiently waiting in line to do things the RIGHT WAY…is a SIN against FAIRNESS & JUSTICE to the non criminals.

 

[Lisa_N]

The open border isn’t the only problem, it’s the attraction of America. People wouldn’t be jumping the border IF they weren’t “rewarded” for this illegal activity. IOW if they didn’t get medical care, social services, bank accounts or driver’s licenses it would be far less attractive to come here. So we have to address the enablers that encourage this activity…employers, banks, social services agencies, etc.

I am pulled in two directions as a Christian, I am bothered by my own attitude of wanting to prevent desperate people from trying to improve their lives. However the practical side of me says if we are spending billions on illegals it takes resources from our taxpaying citizens who have a right and expectation of receiving the benefits of our society.

IF we could come up with an entry plan that would not be onerous for the people but would prevent criminals and those who plan to live off our society, then having a migrant worker system would not be so disturbing to me. The really sad thing is that the folks who come up here to work hard during the season, pay their taxes and support themselves look like chumps when compared to the drug dealers, criminals and deadbeats. I’ve volunteered in migrant camps and these are good people who are trying to earn money for their families. But I still do not want them to come up here and utilize our services, not pay taxes and then send their money back to Mexico. Vincente Fox must spend half his time laughing at the stupid US that gives so much to his people and then he gets the money into HIS economy. The “wall” may be the only answer

LisaN

 

[workinprogress]

If they love the country so much, why break its rules unless they are against the wall?
BTW I did not mean to only send away the Mexicans. There are, of course, dangerous illegals from other countries. Our weak immigration policy seems also to be a slap in the face of people from other countries who have come here legally. We have Africans at our workplace that cannot bring all their (even) immediate family here. Some Africans sending money to their country is not a big blow to the economy. Besides, if they want to bring their family here by coming here legally to do so, it shows a love for our country, I think. I don’t think all that come here legally have lots of money to do so.
When I mean “illegal”, I do not refer to the starving, the smuggled or those escaping oppression. There may be filthy rich oppressors of the poor in the boder towns, but I doubt the people are as oppressed as Chinese, Sudanese or North Korean refugees would be.
Also, these Mexicans will probably be exploited in a country that sends jobs overseas for cheaper labor. Isn’t the Catholic Church the big pro-labor force? Sure, we can tell withholding a fair wage is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance but not all employers may be Catholic or care at all.

Come to think of it, if Obama thinks jobs are so sparse for black men, how are all these Mexicans and other laborers getting all these jobs pro-any-kind-of-immigration people keep saying they are getting? Maybe those Obama refers to should get a “litany of humility” mailed to their home. But, of course, there are many urbanites who would have had dead-beat dads themselves–so I can’t judge them. Star Parker has a good book on this material. I think she would recommend that these welfare or run away dads find some kind of job though. According to the Democrats, these jobs seem to be out there because migrants are finding them.

 

[Unvrsl_Sldr]

Isn’t it interesting that these illegals come to America and are able to find a job so quickly (to send home to their families of course). I wonder how much they get paid?

How do you suppose they are able to not pay taxes on the things that they buy?

Does anyone have any ideas?

thanks,

 

[Lisa_N]

Unvrsl_Sldr:

Isn’t it interesting that these illegals come to America and are able to find a job so quickly (to send home to their families of course). I wonder how much they get paid?

How do you suppose they are able to not pay taxes on the things that they buy?

Does anyone have any ideas?

thanks,

Although I find your questions disingenuous I will respond. But please read the post that began this thread. The issue is the amount of services used by illegals vis a vis their contribution through tax dollars. It would not be an issue if illegals contributed to society positively, or at least provided sufficient tax revenue as well as economic stimulation to cover the cost of services they utilize. However it has become increasingly clear they do not.

As to “taxes on things they buy” the issue was with respect to federal and state taxes on income and property. Illegals do buy gas and groceries and other items and in states that have sales tax yes they pay sales tax. But it is not sales tax that supports the schools their children attend, the hospitals they use or the social services provided via state and federal government.

How do they get jobs? Well let’s do the math. They are willing to work for less just as workers overseas are working for less creating howls about outsourcing of jobs. What do they get paid? Well most migrant work is paid by the pound picked/harvested. Other illegals work in what are likely lower wage or minimum wage jobs. We can all say that well there are no American citizens willing to work for those wages and that might well be a valid point. But the wages will not increase unless the flow of cheap labor ceases. Am I willing to pay more for lettuce so that the people working on the farm are paid a decent amount? Sure.

There is nothing new about migrant labor. My grandfather grew cannery crops from the 1920s through the 1950s. Every year men would come to pick the crops through the seasons and would return home afterward. They did not bring families, enroll their children in schools, descend on local hospital emergency rooms and food banks. I live in an area where we have a huge population of illegals under the radar screen as far as taxes. However they are able to stay because they can obtain drivers’ licenses, bank accounts, jobs, health care, food, an education for their kids.

Do I begrudge people wanting to better their lives. Not at all. I’ve BEEN to migrant camps and it aint a pretty sight. However the problem is not the hard working seasonal laborers as much as those who come and stay as the original post stated. Any ideas on your part on how to tackle that problem?

Lisa N

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I am ALL FOR letting immigrants into America…LEGALLY the RIGHT WAY…this is why I disgree with the Churchs stance…arent they the ones who say…hey…we want you in our Church…the true religion of Jesus Christ…BUT…there ARE…RULES and REGULATIONS that MUST BE ADHERED TO!

In order to participate in the TRUE FAITH…ONE MUST “ASSIMILATE”… its THAT SIMPLE.

The same holds true for America…we welcome you…BUT before you can enter the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH…there are RULES and REGULATIONS that MUST BE ADHERED TO!

Why the Church fails to see how this needs to be applied to people coming here just like she has the right to apply her set of rules is beyond me. The Church is basically saying…WE can protect OUR (HOME)…for we MUST (which I agree 100%)…but they dont think America has the SAME RIGHTS as she does to protect OUR HOME…The UNITED STATES.

 

[workinprogress]

I think we should let illegals from Asia flood in here and we can see our nation explain to us why we have to learn a language possibly with intonations and a different lettering system. Maybe then, billigualism will be seen as the sad joke that it is (laughing). I’m kidding.

 

[neuro_nurse]

A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget.

Rule #1 of critical review of any study: consider the source.

The organized anti-immigration “movement” is almost entirely the handiwork of one man, Michigan activist John H. Tanton.

Here is a list of 13 groups in the loose-knit Tanton network, followed by acronyms if the groups use them, founding dates, and Tanton’s role in the groups.

Those organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk (*).

In this list, “founded” means a group was founded or co-founded by John Tanton. “Funded” means that U.S. Inc., the funding conduit created and still headed by Tanton, has made grants to the group.

*American Immigration Control Foundation
AICF, 1983, funded

*American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together
1992, funded

California Coalition for Immigration Reform
CCIR, 1994, funded

Californians for Population Stabilization
1996, funded (founded separately in 1986)

Center for Immigration Studies
CIS, 1985, founded and funded

Federation for American Immigration Reform
FAIR, 1979, founded and funded

NumbersUSA
1996, founded and funded

Population-Environment Balance
1973, joined board in 1980

Pro English
1994, founded and funded

ProjectUSA
1999, funded

*The Social Contract Press
1990, founded and funded

U.S. English
1983, founded and funded

U.S. Inc.
1982, founded and funded

splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=72

“Let’s be clear,” wrote Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum, “CIS was birthed by FAIR, the militant anti-immigration group. The CIS executive director moved from FAIR to CIS to head up the organization. Although now independent, the two organizations share the same basic agenda: an American version of what in Europe is called ‘zero immigration.’” According to Sharry, CIS masquerades as an objective, “squeaky clean” think tank, but CIS is “simply churning out high-sounding, low-credibility grist for the high-pitch, low-road anti-immigration forces in the United States.” This assessment of CIS is widely shared among pro-immigrant groups, but CIS studies are not only frequently cited by the “low-road” nativist forces but also by major news media. (4)

CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15, 2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups, reported that despite the fact that CIS “may strike right-wing poses in the press,” it and other like-minded groups “support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.” A follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Borderline Republicans” described the anti-immigration network this way: “CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA—and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfortable with—were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women, and wider use of RU-486.” (5) Replying to this charge, Krikorian wrote in National Review Online that CIS does not take a “position on anything that does not involve U.S. immigration policy.”

irc-online.org/rightweb/profile/1452

 

[rlg94086]

Rule #1 of critical review of any study: consider the source.

I completely agree…

Those organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk (*).

Consider the source!

BTW…why dig up a 3-year-old thread? Start a new one about the cost of illegal immigration. Give some data on your side of the argument.

 

[neuro_nurse]

Some things never change. Terry Golway, in “Return of the Know-Nothings” (3/29), aptly takes Harvard professor Samuel Huntington to task for contending that Hispanics, and in particular Mexicans, are somehow a threat to the values that made America great. But as Mr. Golway notes, much the same was said about the Irish and Italians in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet history shows that none of these predominantly Catholic groups ever challenged the American creed—they absorbed it. What seems to be bothering Huntington is the challenge to WASP hegemony, not the failure of Catholic ethnics to assimilate.

In 1986, the main sponsor of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), John Tanton, wrote a private memo (subsequently leaked to the press) expressing his concerns about Latino fertility rates and their Catholicism. Now Huntington is sadly on board. Fortunately, most Americans understand that Little Italy and Spanish Harlem are very much a part of the American mosaic. So, for that matter, is Chinatown. I would have thought that social scientists employed at Harvard—which once had a quota for Catholics and Jews—would be beating the drums of diversity, not division. But, alas, some things never change.

William A. Donohue
President, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Sorry, I know Bill Donohue is sort of ‘fringe,’ but when I Googled “John Tanton Catholic” I came up with a list of references that suggest that Tanton is anti-Catholic.

Your source is biased

 

[rlg94086]

Sorry, I know Bill Donohue is sort of ‘fringe,’ but when I Googled “John Tanton Catholic” I came up with a list of references that suggest that Tanton is anti-Catholic.

Your source is biased

By “your,” I’m assuming you mean the OP’s. However, just so you are aware, you have quoted biased sources to try to prove bias. Kind of silly, don’t you think?

I happen to be a moderate when it comes to the immigration debate, but playing the “my biased sources clearly show that your sources are biased” game is really not time well-spent.

If you have difficulty with the numbers quoted, find a good study and refute the numbers.

 

[neuro_nurse]

The study, entitled The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, **will be available **on line at cis.org.

As in: it’s not available for the general public to review yet. That means that I cannot accept its conclusions. I have to review the methodology - for all I know, it was an opinion poll

“Based on Census Bureau data”

Based how? That tells me nothing.

I know you don’t believe everything you read in the press. As far as I’m concerned, the conclusions drawn from this study have no basis in fact until I can read the study. So far, all we’ve seen is a press release, not the study itself.

The jury is still out on this study. We’re not even to that point. The jury still hasn’t heard the evidence!

 

[neuro_nurse]

Uh oh – my bad. This study was published – in 2004.

BTW…why dig up a 3-year-old thread?

Why not? It’s a 3-year old study.

I’m looking over the study’s methodology and I have to tell you, there are a lot of things they’ve left out, such as: How did they sample the data they used? What levels of statistical significance did they accept? How did they go about calculating their estimates – using which formulas or statistical software?

Not only that, in the collection of the data that they used individuals’ immigration status (legal or illegal) was not collected, and so they’ve made a lot of assumptions about who is an illegal immigrant. With that in mind, there is absolutely no way to differentiate which individuals in the sample have been using social services.

This, my friends, is not a scientific study. They’ve tried to make it look like one, but there is nothing reliable about this study or its conclusions.

Let me give you an example:

Suppose I want to demonstrate that illegal immigration is good for the economy (that alone indicates that I am biased). I’ll use the same data that the authors of this study use, only I “randomly select” data from an area that has a high proportion of Hispanic immigrants who are working and where utilization of social services is low – say, New Orleans, where a large proportion of Hispanic laborers are healthy adult men working in the construction industry, which, as you might know, we have a lot of down here, and where there really aren’t any social services funded by tax monies.

Now, I’m going to set my level of statistical significance at 0.5 – which means I’m willing to accept a 50% chance that my conclusions are wrong (Most reputable studies use 0.1 to 0.01) – and I’m going to use a confidence interval of say, 65% - because I know that if I use a more realistic confidence level of 95% my CI will include a range that contradicts the results I want to demonstrate.

At the end of my ‘study’ I’m going to extrapolate the data I used from the New Orleans area to the entire U.S. and voilà: illegal immigration is good for the economy! (and I didn’t even break a sweat!)

Please note, in the study the OP cited, the word ‘sample’ is used once – and not in the context of data selected for analysis in this study - ‘confidence’ does not appear at all, and significance is used only in the colloquial sense – not with any relevance to statistical analysis.

There is nothing in the CIS study that I can find that demonstrates to me that its author did not use the types of dishonest techniques I described.

Sorry, you really need to take a look at what’s at the end of your fork before you take a bite.

Besides, what do you know about the Center for Immigrations Studies - other than the fact that it was founded and is funded by a guy who was on the board of Zero Population Growth from 1973 to 1978 and was its president from 1975 to 1977?