Discussion (0 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

mooreds•about 2 hours ago

> Camarota does raise a fair point: US-born children of immigrants would not exist in the United States had their parents not immigrated. If the goal is to estimate the total fiscal effects attributable to immigration, then including those children alongside their parents is a reasonable exercise. Of course, that argument also means we should include the grandchildren of immigrants in the analysis because they wouldn’t be here without immigrants either. Great-grandchildren too. On second thought, Camarota doesn’t have such a good argument.

Nice bit of shade.

josefritzishere•about 2 hours ago

If you do that math then you need to do it for non-immigrants as well in which case... his argument stands. If you want to go back 3 or more generations, then effectively all Europeans are immigrants so the math falls apart. The definition of terms is key because without it the math is meaningless. ...Basically, immigration is a net good, economically, as we have known for centuries.

coldtea•about 2 hours ago

>compared their per-capita welfare use to that of natives

The interests of its native people (including giving to those among them that need it some welfare money) is the reason a state exists.

So what sense does it make to compare in per-capita or absolute terms, the welfare given to each group? Any non-zero amount wont be an argument in favor of immigration.

ForHackernews•about 2 hours ago

Assertion without evidence.

States existed before modern democracy, and the nation-state as we know it evolved from European kingdoms and aristocracies. States exist today for a convoluted variety of historical reasons; certainly not exclusively "the interests of its native people"

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (0 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews