One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.
That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.
a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY
That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:
- The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
- The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
- The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of
parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.
Note:
- I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.
I know many have analyzed it. The thing is can any of them be believed? Which I why I posted the word FAIRLY, in my initial post. Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.
The thing is can any of them be believed?
??? I provided you with links to two original and empirical studies and to two derivative studies. All four contain references to other studies on a host of immigration and immigration-related topics. I suggest you embark upon your journey of discovery by first reading the last two documents to which I liked (they are the original studies) and then move to the first two. [1]
I suggest that approach only because you seem undertain of what to believe. The third and fourth studies/documents I linked are empirical; thus if you don't have material objections to the methodology (modelling), you need only next evaluate the author's inferences. If you can identify no material failings -- failings that do indeed alter the researcher obtained using the methodology s/he documented -- you must accept (logically, obviously, you personally don't actually have to do or think anything) the verity conclusions and findings. [2]
You can read other original studies on the matter if you want. Indeed, I encourage you to do so. You'll find an assortment of them noted in the references in the second document I noted.
Note:
- Please don't make the child's error of not noting the date of writing/publication of the various works you read. If you read only the documents I cited, it won't matter. If you read documents noted in the footnotes and reference listings in the documents I cited, it might, depending on what you opt to read. I mention this only because I can recall there being three instances whereby, in the short time I've belonged to USMB, members have failed to do so when doing so was material to the merit of their assertions/position/argument. (I have no idea now who those members are. I just recall being shocked that they'd clearly, based on their comments, not paid attention to the dates.)
- I don't know whether you've noticed or not, but economics research, along with that of other social sciences has, these days and as a result of abundant and easily obtained information processing capabilities, has become overwhelmingly empirical, that is to say, based on deductive, not inductive reasoning. The thing that distinguishes social sciences from natural sciences is that actions/thoughts of the humans upon whom social science remark are not consistently observed on the individual level, but en masse they are. Whereas rocks, stars, molecules, etc. of a given genre behave consistently from one instance/example to the next, the same same may or may not be so of, say, Bill and Mary, but "people" as whole do exhibit consistent behavior patterns provided they all have the same body of information to guide their behavior.
