New Cost Study Reflects Reality of Today’s Immigration

Heritage Says Critics Wrong About Costs

“Some proponents of comprehensive immigration reform (including amnesty) are trying to find support for their position in Heritage Foundation papers from long ago. In the first paper they point to, from March 2006, Heritage rejected amnesty but also considered the economic effects of immigration. Since that time, there are two major differences to consider. First and most importantly, at that time, Heritage had not yet done its own analysis of fiscal costs. But Heritage did just that in 2007, and today we released an updated study. The new study by Heritage fills the gap on the cost and estimates that the cost for amnesty and unlawful immigration is $6.3 trillion. Amnesty and a rush to an immigration bill that increases costs on taxpayers would be folly,” notes the Heritage Foundation in a blog post.

“Some want to assume the fiscal costs of amnesty can be swamped by economic growth. But the central economic test for immigration reform is whether it makes those who are legally in the country better off, not whether immigration or immigration reform increases the size of the economy. Of course, net immigration increases output and national income. But whose after-tax income is then increased? If not those in the country legally, then amnesty fails the test.”

Rubio Tries to Sell Amnesty to GOP

“Rubio knows he cannot persuade the Griffins and voters like them to consider the immigration reform he has proposed with a bipartisan Senate group. He does not even try. At this stop in Port St. Lucie, one of several he made while home on a weeklong recess, the senator bypassed the protesters. He headed straight into a rented hall at the maroon- and mauve-striped Polish American Social Club filled with the party faithful, who were curious — and largely uncertain — about the 844-page bill,” the LA Times says.

“These Republicans are the ones Rubio, the GOP’s fastest-ascending presidential hopeful, must convince that overhauling the nation’s immigration laws would be good for the nation. The catch, for many, is that the bill allows the estimated 11 million people in the country without legal status to stay and, eventually, to become citizens.”

About Author


Dan is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)'s President after joining the organization in 1982. He has testified more than 50 times before Congress, and been cited in the media as "America's best-known immigration reformer." Dan has appeared on virtually every significant TV and radio news/talk program in America and, in addition to being a contributing editor to, has contributed commentaries to a vast number of print media outlets.


  1. avatar
    John Winthrop on

    Heritage lost all credibility among intellectuals…..just talking to German scientist regarding immigration, mentioned how on earth such American institution can claim Hispanics have low IQ…………………….and went on and on regarding their achievements…………….Pedro Paulet rocket pionneer from Peru, poets. writers……….etc etc…………….the very essence of the US getting lost on generalizations that took Europe to endure WWII……………honestly I had nothing to say back…………………

  2. avatar
    John Winthrop on

    EASY ENOUGH!!///……..take all the studies and average them…………then a;; the lies and the truth data in it will be the most realistic…..

  3. avatar

    Rubio needs to listen more to his buddy senator Cruz before it’s too late!

    • avatar
      Mass Immigration Is Unsustainable on

      Cruz wants to double legal immigration and quintuple(!) H1-B.

  4. avatar

    Those who proclaim that GDP growth for it’s own sake is a sign of progress are the same people who endorse the “India Miracle”. Sure, their GDP grows by a big percentage but it’s based on endless rapid population growth. But are the Indian people in general better off? No. More than half the country lives in desperate grinding poverty. You have 50 billionaires, a small middle class, and the rest without even the basics like clean water. India’s GDP “per capita”, that is, per person, is absolutely dismal, far worse than many third world African and Asian countries.