Jim cites a Cato blog post arguing for “dynamic scoring” of the economic effects of immigration. The post cites some ideas for how the Heritage Foundation should improve its forthcoming study of the fiscal costs of immigration. But leaving aside the specifics — some of which have merit, others I suspect are BS — here’s the crux of what I don’t get:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, “In 2009, 29 percent of the foreign-born population between the ages of 25 and 64 had not completed high school or received a GED, compared with about 8 percent of the native-born population.” At the same time, the federal government, states, and localities spend billions each year trying to prevent US schools from graduating students with precisely these low levels of educational attainment.
So the types of workers we don’t want US schools to produce are precisely the type the American economy needs more of? I can see how we could use more highly-educated workers, but more people with 8th grade educations?
Look, if you’re philosophically in favor of open borders, as Cato is, that’s fine. Or, if you think the political realities are such that Republicans must acquiesce to amnesty for illegal aliens, that’s ok too. But I’ve yet to see the compelling case for more low-skilled workers in an economy that needs fewer of them each year.