ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
It seems like when a study or a report agrees with our point of view, we call it "well written". When it doesn't, we say it was "out-of-context". To me, the following cited reports seem "well written". In 1997, Donald L. Huddle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, Rice University, published a report entitled: Public Costs of Immigration: Recent Net National Public Service Costs and Projected 1997-2006 Costs. In the conclusion he wrote: "Since 1992 annual net cost of immigration has risen from $42 billion to $65 billion." George Borjas, in his book Heaven's Door published in 1999, is described as "Pforzheimer Professor of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research." He has said, as noted in Huddle's report, that "native workers who compete with immigrants lose about $133 billion yearly due to immigration whereas producers gain about $104 billion". This doesn't include the $65 billion discussed in the preceding paragraph. The Urban Institute study of 1994, which Mr. Richard Baer cited as "favorable to immigration", is one of those "out-of-context' cases. As I said in my previous post, they were only able to reach that conclusion by excluding from their calculations, immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, the former USSR, and Viet Nam (over 40% of the immigrant population at the time).

John H. Frecker
Baileyville, ME