As promised, here is Alex Nowrasteh from CATO, who has disputed the Heritage study on the basis of its failure to account for GDP growth as a result of immigration. And here in lays the crux of the immigration reform argument.
The figures released from the updated Heritage study “The Fiscal Cost of ” have not addressed the scoring problems contended by Nowrasteh. Admittedly, it differs little from the first study released by Heritage. However, it is clear that Heritage is concerned with the ballooning cost associated from welfare and the lack of substantive plans to reform any of the 120 plus welfare programs.
Alex Nowrasteh’s argument can be summed up by this statement taken from his latest article in response to the Heritage study:
The new Heritage report is still depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue. It explicitly refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform—factors that increase native-born American incomes. An overlooked flaw is that the study doesn’t even score the specific immigration reform proposal in the Senate. Its flawed methodology and lack of relevancy to the current immigration reform proposal relegate this study to irrelevancy.
Not that I am playing favorites, but the podcast from CATO is below as well, which is a bit more clear-cut without the political couching one gets from anything on news organization broadcasts.