CATO promotes financial gain from illegal alien amnesty, ignores massive non-financial costs (Peter Dixon, Maureen Rimmer)

Posted Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer of the CATO Institute have a study promoting the supposed economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty ("Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform", freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-040es.html). As with other "economic" studies, theirs isn't really based in economics in that they're ignoring all the costs of what they promote:

A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion... In contrast... [t]he positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.

If we (incorrectly) assume that the costs and gains would be spread equally among the population and assuming there are 117 million U.S. households, the figures are about a $57/month loss versus about a $128/month gain. Can you see amnesty making you an extra $128 a month? Not to mention the fact that any gains wouldn't be spread equally. Those at the low end of the wage scale would see increased competition, and most of the gains would go to, for instance, those who own industries that employ large numbers of low-wage workers (and that might also donate to CATO).

And, of course, there are huge costs associated with amnesty that CATO isn't figuring in. Giving the Mexican government even more power inside the U.S. has a huge cost. Giving the far-left and racial power groups (like the National Council of La Raza) even more power has a huge cost. Increasing disrespect for our laws has a huge cost. Increasing the incentive to move here illegally has a huge cost.

And, Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer aren't including all those costs and more in their "economic" analysis.

Tags: 
comprehensive immigration reform
cato institute
peter dixon
maureen rimmer
immigration economics

Comments

Smitty (not verified)

Fri, 08/14/2009 - 19:34

Massive nonfinancial costs? How about the massive financial costs? SS & Medicare unfunded liabilities increased 30 trillion dollars in one year 2005. Hispanics also have more than double the diabetes rates of white American and significantly higher healthcare costs.

Leave it to Beaner (not verified)

Fri, 08/14/2009 - 20:37

Dont forget about the benefit of tens of thousands of then "legal" gang members. We certainly need more of them? We would be stuck with them for life, and then couldnt boot em' back to their Countries of orgin. Amnesty is BAD FOR CITIZENS AND BAD FOR AMERICA PERIOD! Its laughable its even being considered.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 08/15/2009 - 01:08

Not in their vocabulary: 'Externality': An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affect somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in PRICES. For instance, smoke pumped out by a factory may impose clean-up costs on nearby residents; bees kept to produce honey may pollinate plants belonging to a nearby farmer, thus boosting his crop. Because these costs and benefits do not form part of the calculations of the people deciding whether to go ahead with the economic activity they are a form of MARKET FAILURE, since the amount of the activity carried out if left to the free market will be an inefficient use of resources. If the externality is beneficial, the market will provide too little; if it is a cost, the market will supply too much. Much of the damage done to the environment may be a result of externalities. An EXTERNALITY can arise when people engaged in economic activity do not have to take into account the full costs of what they are doing. //// In other words, if they [capital] can make money off illegal immigration, screw you [citizens] and whatever effect it has on you. None of your business. Their perverted vision of 'democracy'.

eh (not verified)

Sat, 08/15/2009 - 06:12

Typical 'analysis' penned by people who do not live anywhere near a sprawling, suburban Hispanic slum, err barrio.

fred dawes (not verified)

Sat, 08/15/2009 - 07:12

Its always about money not duty or anything good that is why this nation will disappear into some monkey people's history books. mexico and its white drug dealers have been sending its little brown monkeys here for 50 years and soon the evil monkeys in mexico city will be your new monkey rulers and the ideals of the white spanish monkeys will put you down like some old dog.