Foundation to criticize immigration measure's cost
WASHINGTON — Jim DeMint, who retired from the Senate to head the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, will lead an attack on a proposed immigration overhaul with a report from the conservative institute on the costs government would bear in offering a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented workers in the country.
The report is expected as the Senate Judiciary Committee starts weighing the immigration bill next week.
Heritage will build its case on the presumption that legalizing undocumented immigrants will increase participation in already strained federal programs such as Social Security, which provides retirement benefits for the elderly, Medicare and Medicaid, which provide health care for the elderly and impoverished, and food stamps, public assistance for the poor.
Heritage wouldn't reveal its newest figures before the release of its report. In 2007, the last time Washington took a stab at an immigration bill, the foundation presented research showing that low-skilled immigrants paid significantly less in taxes than they received in government assistance, leading to long-term taxpayer costs of more than $2 trillion in the revision that lawmakers were debating.
Advocates of the immigration measure, which has bipartisan support, point to congressional data showing that the potential costs are exaggerated and cite the economic benefit of legally employing millions of people.
“The cost issue is the big test point that critics have to make,” said Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian policy group in Washington, who views the possible costs to government programs as overstated.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.