Friday, January 16, 2009


This is just one state in 50. Then consider the gateway states and what their costs are. Here are some additional points advanced by James S. of London, Ontario. They are points not often considered in computing the long-term effects of illegal immigration, which, I believe, should not be framed as an issue of legal vs. illegal immigrants, but for fiscal concerns, as an issue of unskilled vs. skilled immigrants. Illegals are almost universally unskilled. And in Canada, even the legal immigrants are overwhelmingly unskilled (80%). And so, one must stress, are the extended family members and children of those accepted into the country as “professionals”. The first pearl in a necklace may be authentic, but chain migration ensures that the rest of the necklace that is hauled into Canada is fake and economically worthless. Tim

“Immigrants have children too. It is quite possible that the children of immigrants are different from their parents in terms of their economic impact on the host country. If the parents are unskilled and over their lifetime in the new country receive more in social transfers than they pay in taxes, that doesn't mean that their children will do the same.

Unfortunately, in many countries the second generation of immigrants is a bigger burden than the first. The immigrants themselves may work at McJobs, but they are working. Their children often aren't working at all. Very few Hispanics who come to the US as adults become criminals, but their children are overrepresented among the criminals.(My note: also true of France, Holland, Sweden, and other European destinations.) Be that as it may, when considering the impact of immigration, it is best to take the long view.

If immigrants depress the wages of the native-born, then those native-born will also pay less tax. Our tax system is progressive, and for this reason, the bigger the share of low-income people, the lower tax revenues will be, everything else being equal.” James S.

No comments: