Immigration does “grow the economy” and highly-skilled immigrants do contribute more in taxes than they receive in direct government services (education, healthcare, entitlements, etc.). It would be very difficult to find an economist who disagreed with the above statement.
The presidential primaries will become more interesting in the new year as voters will decide which candidate they prefer for their party’s nomination. The Iowa Caucus is February 1 and the New Hampshire primary is the following week. By the end of February, when Nevadans and South Carolinians have also weighed in, we will see whether Bernie Sanders can pose a challenge to Hillary Clinton, and whether Donald Trump’s dominance of media coverage translates to support in the voting booth.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) has published a report, The Integration of Immigrants into American Society, 50 years after the passage of the Hart-Cellar Act, which eventually resulted in an almost four-fold increase in immigration to the United States. The recent NAS report is similar to one it published in 1997 in that it trumpets the positives of immigration while ignoring the negative consequences of expansionist immigration policies. The report 18 years ago played up the fact that adding millions of immigrants “grows the economy” simply by increasing annual GDP, and it downplayed the enormous fiscal burdens and effects on American workers that result.
The new report deals with issues of assimilation, or as the NAS terms it, integration. Steven Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies looked at the report and has written up his initial thoughts. Camarota, who is one of the nation’s foremost experts on U.S. immigration policy, was disappointed in the lack of balance in the NAS “findings.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has released the job numbers for November 2015, and much of the media is repeating the Fed’s rote line that this is yet another “key indicator of economic strength,” and that maybe, just maybe, it is time to raise interest rates. Whether or not Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen decides to raise interest rates is an important topic to consider, but that discussion almost always neglects the plight of tens of millions of Americans.
The Pew Research Center released a new report on Thursday that is well-timed given Martin O’Malley’s emphatic, and unfounded, claim that “net immigration from Mexico last year was zero.” We pointed out that O’Malley was conflating legal and illegal immigration, and that he either misinterpreted or misrepresented data from 2007-2014 in order to make the point that illegal immigration was a thing of the past, so therefore is is unreasonable for Americans to demand a secure border.
Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, who is polling under 3 percent nationally and is only at 4 percent in his home state, responded to a question about border security in Saturday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate.
The Republican presidential primary debate this past Tuesday helped to better define where the various top-tier candidates stand on immigration. Jeb Bush, who is wildly unpopular with Republican voters, reiterated his support for blanket amnesty for twelve million illegal aliens. John Kasich went even further than Bush in the debate, calling illegal aliens “law abiding” and denouncing Americans who support enforcement efforts. While neither Bush nor Kasich at this point look to have a realistic shot at the nomination, in large part due to their positions on immigration, they should get credit for being honest about their intentions. Neither man pretends that he believes the interest of the American people takes precedence over the demands of illegal aliens (or probably more correctly the demands of donors who fund their campaigns.)
Robert B. Reich, who served as Secretary of Labor during President Clinton’s first term, has released a video for MoveOn.org in which he claims to debunk four “lies” about immigration. Reich’s effort is the worst example of pure political hackery. He simply invents “facts” and tries to convince the viewer of their veracity by looking earnestly at the camera. Reich doesn’t provide any evidence, nor does he come up with any novel argument – it is doubtful he even believes what he is saying – and his so-called facts are easily refutable. But the video is interesting in that much of it contradicts his previously stated views on immigration and economic policy.
Marco Rubio’s awkward lunge for a water bottle on live television during his response to President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address is still garnering laughs, but the junior Senator from Florida can be forgiven for losing the battle with thirst during the biggest moment of his political career. What is not excusable is his historical illiteracy.