Economists say every immigrant is a net economic positive to the nation. They eat,buy food clothing, cars. Every immigrant child is a net negative to the state,at least until they turn 18. But it isn't even. Net neg per kid of maybe 800 a year, positive of each adult of 1200-1600 are the numbers I've heard on freakonomics podcast. Their guests proposed solution was to have the feds pay the states per an immigrant child to offset who bears the costs. I don't think it's even a debatable position that each immigrant is a net economic positive, in the long term. Some political groups worrying about losing their culture is a completely different kettle of fish.https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/b...
omnee|1 year ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20240111003833/https://www.econo...
TheCoelacanth|1 year ago
In countries like the US that are good at integrating immigrants, they are a huge net positive.
j-krieger|1 year ago
This isn’t true in general and depends on the local economy and the immigrants country of origin. MENA migrants are a net loss for Germany, for example.
Even if economists agree, the money these immigrants spend lands in the pockets of rich capitalists.
The entire topic is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.
zapperdulchen|1 year ago
sumedh|1 year ago
Is this some propaganda website by Bush to promote neocon values?
switch007|1 year ago
Does that not fail your smell test?
EVERY immigrant?
LunaSea|1 year ago
mongol|1 year ago
This can only be true if they sustain themselves on their own work. An immigrant that does not work and only lives on subsidies can hardly be called a net positive.
kjkjadksj|1 year ago
tonynator|1 year ago
[deleted]