12 ms·

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 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.

Starman_Jones 7mo ago
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.
- blockmarker 7mo ago
  It's generally the former, your net fiscal impact includes your education and other childhood expenses. That is a reason why immigration is supposedly so good, another country spent their money raising them but your country gets the tax contributions from the worker. (This does not necessarily mean that the immigrant is actually a net taxpayer, as many european countries have found out.) Such analysis generally distinguish between non-immigrants, first generation immigrants, and second generation immigrants. Rarely third generation too, and also separates based on the education level, legal or illegal, and country of origin. Given than in western countries immigrants generally remain and have children who will get government assistance such as free education, one should take into account second generation data as part of immigration. I am no erudite who has read a million papers, but I haven't seen any analysis for Europe that compares citizens and non-citizens, and for good reason, it's not informative. Here for example two different groups are mixed, non-immigrants and second generation immigrants. Given the lower socioeconomic status of most immigrants, the greater aid given to the second generation might eliminate any savings caused by the first generation, but in this article the cost of second gen is used to make the first generation look better compared to non-immigrants. This might have been a mistake, but people on Twitter explained it to senior Cato members, and their answers make it clear that it was not a mistake but a deliberate decision. So they are deceivers, even if they do not technically say anything false.
  - Starman_Jones 7mo ago
    Thanks for explaining, but I have to strongly disagree. If the costs for children of citizens are counted as part of the childrens' net fiscal impact ("citizen cost"), and the costs for the children of immigrants are also counted as part of the childrens' net fiscal impact (again "citizen cost"), then i fail to see the problem with Cato institute's methodology. It's fundamentally the same as if immigrants had zero children, but US citizens of comparable socioeconomic circumstances had an equivalent number of children. It gets factored in for the children; not the parents, and it happens consistently.
    - blockmarker 7mo ago
      There is always an implicit argument that immigration is bad or good for the economy. In Cato's analysis, the worse children of immigrants are, the better immigration looks. It is not the same as if citizens had children, because no matter if their children are fiscally beneficial or not, we have no option but to accept them. For immigrants it is different, one would only allow immigration if it benefits the citizens, and their children might change the answer. In this case, you can say that the costs of increasing the number of children of such socioeconomic status is greater than the benefits brought by their immigrant parents. But in this analysis, the worse the children of immigrants are, the better raising immigration looks. This would not be a problem if this article instead of citizen/non-citizen used first, second gen, and non-immigrant, as is the standard. It would be more clear and informative. But Cato refuses.
      - Starman_Jones 7mo ago
        That's the deal with America - we have no option but to accept the children - all the children - because that's how the Constitution is written. That's also how the data is structured. You've hypothesized, but haven't tried to defend, the notion that immigrants' children are a net negative. So far as I can tell, your suggestion that Cato modify their study is based only on your belief that it will lead to the outcome you want. There's any number of ways that the data can be sliced to support different hypotheses. For instance, Cato could discount citizens if their children emigrate from the US. If Cato has chosen to keep their methodology consistent between both groups, even though it doesn't cover all hypotheticals, that seems like a good decision. What I am trying to understand, and this is an earnest request, is whether there's a reason to change the methodology that doesn't require your hypothesis (second-generation Americans are a net drain on the economy) to be assumed to be true in order for the new methodology to make sense.

Starman_Jones 7mo ago

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.

blockmarker 7mo ago
It's generally the former, your net fiscal impact includes your education and other childhood expenses. That is a reason why immigration is supposedly so good, another country spent their money raising them but your country gets the tax contributions from the worker. (This does not necessarily mean that the immigrant is actually a net taxpayer, as many european countries have found out.) Such analysis generally distinguish between non-immigrants, first generation immigrants, and second generation immigrants. Rarely third generation too, and also separates based on the education level, legal or illegal, and country of origin. Given than in western countries immigrants generally remain and have children who will get government assistance such as free education, one should take into account second generation data as part of immigration. I am no erudite who has read a million papers, but I haven't seen any analysis for Europe that compares citizens and non-citizens, and for good reason, it's not informative. Here for example two different groups are mixed, non-immigrants and second generation immigrants. Given the lower socioeconomic status of most immigrants, the greater aid given to the second generation might eliminate any savings caused by the first generation, but in this article the cost of second gen is used to make the first generation look better compared to non-immigrants. This might have been a mistake, but people on Twitter explained it to senior Cato members, and their answers make it clear that it was not a mistake but a deliberate decision. So they are deceivers, even if they do not technically say anything false.
- Starman_Jones 7mo ago
  Thanks for explaining, but I have to strongly disagree. If the costs for children of citizens are counted as part of the childrens' net fiscal impact ("citizen cost"), and the costs for the children of immigrants are also counted as part of the childrens' net fiscal impact (again "citizen cost"), then i fail to see the problem with Cato institute's methodology. It's fundamentally the same as if immigrants had zero children, but US citizens of comparable socioeconomic circumstances had an equivalent number of children. It gets factored in for the children; not the parents, and it happens consistently.
  - blockmarker 7mo ago
    There is always an implicit argument that immigration is bad or good for the economy. In Cato's analysis, the worse children of immigrants are, the better immigration looks. It is not the same as if citizens had children, because no matter if their children are fiscally beneficial or not, we have no option but to accept them. For immigrants it is different, one would only allow immigration if it benefits the citizens, and their children might change the answer. In this case, you can say that the costs of increasing the number of children of such socioeconomic status is greater than the benefits brought by their immigrant parents. But in this analysis, the worse the children of immigrants are, the better raising immigration looks. This would not be a problem if this article instead of citizen/non-citizen used first, second gen, and non-immigrant, as is the standard. It would be more clear and informative. But Cato refuses.
    - Starman_Jones 7mo ago
      That's the deal with America - we have no option but to accept the children - all the children - because that's how the Constitution is written. That's also how the data is structured. You've hypothesized, but haven't tried to defend, the notion that immigrants' children are a net negative. So far as I can tell, your suggestion that Cato modify their study is based only on your belief that it will lead to the outcome you want. There's any number of ways that the data can be sliced to support different hypotheses. For instance, Cato could discount citizens if their children emigrate from the US. If Cato has chosen to keep their methodology consistent between both groups, even though it doesn't cover all hypotheticals, that seems like a good decision. What I am trying to understand, and this is an earnest request, is whether there's a reason to change the methodology that doesn't require your hypothesis (second-generation Americans are a net drain on the economy) to be assumed to be true in order for the new methodology to make sense.