IN SPITE OF OFFICIAL ATTEMPTS TO OBSCURE IT, THE FACTS ARE THAT LOW-INCOME IMMIGRANTS
ARE OVERWHELMINGLY A CHARGE ON THE NET TAXPAYER, as the below quote indicates:
"Robert Rector, Real Clear Politics, June 27, 2007
Monday’s column from the Administration’s Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear (“Lead Weight or Gold Mine: What are the True Costs of Immigration?” June 25, RCP) is a study in misdirection and misstatement. Since they devote much of their piece to attacking my research, I’d like to set the record straight.[...]
* Low-skill individuals (i.e., those without a high school degree) receive far more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
* The net fiscal cost of the families headed by low-skill immigrants is not markedly different from the cost of families headed by low-skill non-immigrants.
* Low-skill immigrants receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits for each dollar of taxes paid. This imbalance generates a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime the typical low-skill immigrant household costs taxpayers $1.2 million dollars.
* Immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled. One-third of all immigrants and more than half (50 to 60 percent) of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree."
[Rector, however, does not include
the cost of interest on the net public subsidy
of immigrants, which, among other omitted charges
attributable to them, would add greatly on to his estimates.]
Speaking of immigration, so that "...the issue is framed--as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus "racism" on the other--tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject." -View From the Right. Is it done rhetorically this way, because no rational argument can be adduced for such degrees of openness?