First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Tell it to Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University. He says otherwise.
Fern
His study has been widely discredited by most thinking individuals quite a number of times, and even include some basic errors. From Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp )
It is true that Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and
concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars
more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute
in revenue. It's also true that others have criticized his studies as flawed and arrived at
exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that immigrants actually produce a net revenue
surplus). For example, a University of California Davis Migration News article on "Illegal
Immigration: Numbers, Benefits, and Costs in California" notes:
There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to
the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded
that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to
them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures,
and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced
this conclusion.
Donald Huddle of Rice University set the benchmark for today's debate with a
study that concluded that the legal and illegal immigrants who arrived since 1970
cost the US $42.5 billion in 1992, and $18.1 billion in California. According to
Huddle, 7.2 million immigrants arrived legally and illegally in California since 1970,
and the state incurred costs of $23 billion to provide them with services — half of
the costs were for education and health care, and one-sixth were due to the costs
of providing services to US residents displaced by these immigrants.
As with all such studies, Huddle made assumptions about how many illegal aliens
there are, their usage of welfare and other public services, the taxes they paid,
and their indirect economic impacts. Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute reviewed
and revised Huddle's US estimates, and his calculations turned the $42 billion net
cost into a $29 billion net benefit.
Most of the $70 billion difference between these studies arises from their estimates
of the taxes paid by immigrants — Huddle assumes that post-1970 immigrants paid
$20 billion in taxes to all levels of government, and Passel assumes they paid
$70 billion. And the major reason for the difference in tax estimates is that Huddle
did not include the 15 percent of each worker's earnings that are paid in Social
Security taxes, while Passel did — this accounts for over one-third of the
$70 billion difference.
Huddle excluded Social Security taxes because, in his view, contributions today
need to be offset by the promise of benefit payments to immigrants when they
retire. Passel included them because the federal government treats Social Security
on a pay-as-you-go basis.
An article published by the Urban Institute drew similar conclusions:
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits
and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to
all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was
sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates
major reductions in immigration to the United States. "The Costs of Immigration"
(Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When
these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle's study actually
show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion.
Nice try, though some basic research would have been nice instead of linking to sites with blatantly right-wing rhetoric ("anchor babies") or some the Rice study funded by a group that wants less legal immigration.
Last edited:
