As John Red Eagle and I demonstrated
in Cuckservative,
large numbers of immigrants are not good for the economy. Moreover, the biggest
econonomic study on the matter to date has concluded that at best, the net economic benefits of immigrants
are nonexistent.
Keep
in mind that this economics study does not even begin to take into account the
cultural destruction that is caused by immigration.
Immigration has been and will continue to be a hot button topic in the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has called for a wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico and a halt to all immigration from certain "countries of concern to national security." Meanwhile, Hillary has called for more relaxed immigration policies that would grant illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and a surge in Syrian refugees.
But, no matter where you stand politically on immigration, a group of the nation's "smartest" professors from the most elite schools in the country recently came together to publish a 500-page study for the "National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine" on the economic and fiscal impacts of immigration. After what must have been countless months of research, the report seems to confirm what most people could have derived from applying simple logic, namely that while immigration expands the economy it also negatively impacts the employment of low-skilled native workers and places undue burden on federal and state entitlements like food assistance programs and Medicaid.
The full 500-page immigration study can be reviewed at the end of this post but here are the key takeaways...
First, the study finds that the lower median age of immigrants is a positive offset to the aging U.S. population and serves to enlarge the economy but notes that the key beneficiaries are the immigrants themselves and not the native citizens.
Second, low-skilled immigrants, which represented nearly 50% of the total in 2012, were found to have a higher employment rates than low-skilled natives indicating that U.S. citizens are being displaced at least at the lower bound of the income spectrum.
Finally, first-generation immigrants were found to be more costly for entitlement programs than native-born citizens.
Immigration has been and will continue to be a hot button topic in the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has called for a wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico and a halt to all immigration from certain "countries of concern to national security." Meanwhile, Hillary has called for more relaxed immigration policies that would grant illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and a surge in Syrian refugees.
But, no matter where you stand politically on immigration, a group of the nation's "smartest" professors from the most elite schools in the country recently came together to publish a 500-page study for the "National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine" on the economic and fiscal impacts of immigration. After what must have been countless months of research, the report seems to confirm what most people could have derived from applying simple logic, namely that while immigration expands the economy it also negatively impacts the employment of low-skilled native workers and places undue burden on federal and state entitlements like food assistance programs and Medicaid.
The full 500-page immigration study can be reviewed at the end of this post but here are the key takeaways...
First, the study finds that the lower median age of immigrants is a positive offset to the aging U.S. population and serves to enlarge the economy but notes that the key beneficiaries are the immigrants themselves and not the native citizens.
Second, low-skilled immigrants, which represented nearly 50% of the total in 2012, were found to have a higher employment rates than low-skilled natives indicating that U.S. citizens are being displaced at least at the lower bound of the income spectrum.
Finally, first-generation immigrants were found to be more costly for entitlement programs than native-born citizens.
There is NO CASE to make for the net
economic benefits of mass immigration, nor can the economic benefits of
immigration even begin to compensate for the various societal costs of
immigration. The only economic case for immigration is a tautology, which is
because the definition of GDP means that GDP will increase with population
growth, so any increase in population for any reason, up to and including alien
invasion and occupation, will be "economically beneficial" so long as
"beneficial" is defined as being "a larger GDP number".
This is not, in fact, the case. The natives are not better off economically, and they are definitely not better off in any other way.
This is not, in fact, the case. The natives are not better off economically, and they are definitely not better off in any other way.
