[Starman_Jones]

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]

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]

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.