{"id":14567,"date":"2017-07-20T13:21:14","date_gmt":"2017-07-20T17:21:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=14567"},"modified":"2018-12-28T12:43:26","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T17:43:26","slug":"using-weasel-words-depict-supposed-benefits-immigration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2017\/07\/20\/using-weasel-words-depict-supposed-benefits-immigration\/","title":{"rendered":"Using \u2018Weasel Words\u201d to Depict the Supposed Benefits of Immigration"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lena Groeger<\/a>, a journalist at ProPublica, provided an example of the use of \u2018weasel words\u2019 and biased analysis to convey the false impression that immigration is an economic boon (See ehttps:\/\/projects.propublica.org\/graphics\/gdp<\/a>). It demonstrates the need to use critical thinking to evaluate the claims of mass immigration proponents.<\/p>\n

Example 1: In the article, an economist claims, \u201c\u2026with immigration, you can flip a switch and massively grow the size of the country.\u201d Groeger notes, that claim is \u201c\u2026referring to overall GDP, not per-capita GDP, which the analysis does not address.\u201d The point is that an overall increase in GDP as a result of increased immigration may result in a decrease in per-capita GDP, i.e. the average earner is worse off.<\/p>\n

Example 2: Groeger cites a report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine<\/a> (NAS) that\u00a0found \u201clittle evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers.\u201d Of course, \u201clittle evidence\u201d means there is some evidence. And the effect on the employment level of native workers is not stated, but in context surely means negative effects. So the NAS was in effect dismissing negative effects on native workers.<\/p>\n

Example 3: Groeger cites the claim of a labor economist that immigration \u201c\u2026boosts economic growth for years.\u201d She notes that this assertion ignores the fiscal effect on governmental budgets at all levels down to the local school district budget. The lesson is that the advocates of mass immigration are often proponents rather than even-handed analysts. By contrast, FAIR\u2019s estimates of the fiscal impact of illegal immigration include estimates of tax contributions of illegal aliens. (See http:\/\/www.fairus.org\/publications\/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Example 4: Addressing the possibility of increased deportation of illegal aliens under the Trump administration, Groeger cites advocates of mass immigration alleging that \u201c\u2026removing so many people at once would have a significant economic effect.\u201d Implicit is that this refers to a negative effect. But, this statement ignores the fact that no one is advocating an overnight mass deportation, and it ignores the potential fiscal benefits of meaningful immigration enforcement for governments and job benefits for unemployed and under-employed natives.<\/p>\n

This latter discussion demonstrates that the author, despite some otherwise balanced analysis, falls into the trap of being enamored with the prospect of an economic panacea that supposedly could result from more than doubling today\u2019s million-plus annual immigration.