I will not read anything the Cato Institute puts out, they are disingenuous partisans. They do not include the cost caused by the children, such as education and healthcare, they do not even include the cost of welfare to the children or to the household, since the children are legally citizens. It's very easy to say that immigrants are good for the economy when the greatest expenses are attributed to non-immigrants. Do not listen to Cato or read their articles, you would just be feeding yourself lies.
The costs incurred by the children of immigrants are obviously a cost of immigration, but in Cato's analysis, the more expensive the children of immigrants are, the better immigrants look in comparison to natives. If every child of immigrants increased the deficit by 50 million dollars, Cato says that immigration should be increased because citizens increase the deficit so much. This is clearly deceit to supoort their favored conclusions.
How is this calculated for citizens? Does my "cost to society" include my education, etc. or was that factored in to my parents' costs? The former seems like a much more natural way to calculate it, but I'm unfamiliar with how these are done in practice.
Is it really necessary to have reverse colonialism to maintain a high quality of life?
We're essentially offloading the cost of raising people from childhood and much of their education to get fully grown workers who will accept lower wages. This in turn becomes a Ponzi scheme that no doubt has economic benefits but is also unsustainable without ever increasing immigration and does produce negative externalities (inflationary plus social disarray).
Also, even if we are on board with this reverse colonialism, are all immigrants contributing to the same degree? Surely the benefits could be maximized...
Let's tell Singapore, a high-trust country with exceptional quality of life and extremely strict, borderline eugenic immigration policies, I'm certain they're missing out!
Your comment implies that the CATO study results are not true due to the Singapore example.
However, pointing to a different country that achieved success with “eugenic” immigration (it’s not even clear what you mean given that Singapore has had very high immigration but for the sake of argument let’s assume it’s the opposite of whatever the study here found) does not invalidate or disprove that the U.S. deficit reduced due to U.S. immigration.
It’s the kind of logical fallacy one would hope a 4 year old would grow out of, and yet…
On the surface, there's absolutely zero connection between public debt and private (personal) savings. If there's a hidden connection, you're going to have to explain it, because it's not clear at all how they are one and the same.
I will not read anything the Cato Institute puts out, they are disingenuous partisans. They do not include the cost caused by the children, such as education and healthcare, they do not even include the cost of welfare to the children or to the household, since the children are legally citizens. It's very easy to say that immigrants are good for the economy when the greatest expenses are attributed to non-immigrants. Do not listen to Cato or read their articles, you would just be feeding yourself lies.
Why would you include costs incurred by children?
That would be constant between natural born citizens and immigrants.
This critique makes no sense.
The costs incurred by the children of immigrants are obviously a cost of immigration, but in Cato's analysis, the more expensive the children of immigrants are, the better immigrants look in comparison to natives. If every child of immigrants increased the deficit by 50 million dollars, Cato says that immigration should be increased because citizens increase the deficit so much. This is clearly deceit to supoort their favored conclusions.
How is this calculated for citizens? Does my "cost to society" include my education, etc. or was that factored in to my parents' costs? The former seems like a much more natural way to calculate it, but I'm unfamiliar with how these are done in practice.
Is it really necessary to have reverse colonialism to maintain a high quality of life?
We're essentially offloading the cost of raising people from childhood and much of their education to get fully grown workers who will accept lower wages. This in turn becomes a Ponzi scheme that no doubt has economic benefits but is also unsustainable without ever increasing immigration and does produce negative externalities (inflationary plus social disarray).
Also, even if we are on board with this reverse colonialism, are all immigrants contributing to the same degree? Surely the benefits could be maximized...
[flagged]
The biggest one was let in Jan 20th. 2026. Let's start there.
we should start by kicking out murderes and rapist and pedophiles elected in 2025
[dead]
Let's tell Singapore, a high-trust country with exceptional quality of life and extremely strict, borderline eugenic immigration policies, I'm certain they're missing out!
Your comment implies that the CATO study results are not true due to the Singapore example.
However, pointing to a different country that achieved success with “eugenic” immigration (it’s not even clear what you mean given that Singapore has had very high immigration but for the sake of argument let’s assume it’s the opposite of whatever the study here found) does not invalidate or disprove that the U.S. deficit reduced due to U.S. immigration.
It’s the kind of logical fallacy one would hope a 4 year old would grow out of, and yet…
So immigrants earn so little they can’t put aside any savings? Or somebody is. Not the flex Cato thinks it is.
The government’s red ink is our black ink. The trouble is “safe savings” doesn’t have the same air of doom about it.
Where did you get that assertion?
The article literally says that they earn more because they work more hours on average.
For the deficit to reduce we overall have to be saving less.
Are you talking about trade deficit?
This is about deficit in government spending.
Immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
For the deficit in government spending to reduce the private sector has to save less. They are one and the same thing.
The immigrants are spending all they get. Nothing to do with taxes.
Learn how the accounting works
On the surface, there's absolutely zero connection between public debt and private (personal) savings. If there's a hidden connection, you're going to have to explain it, because it's not clear at all how they are one and the same.