Let’s talk about that 2020 National Academies study you keep waving around. It’s a classic cherry-pick. That same report admits that immigrants with low education levels cost more in services than they contribute over a lifetime. So your “net positive” claim only holds if you hand-pick the skilled ones. But you don’t control who shows up at the border.
And Canada? Their GDP per capita hasn’t outpaced ours consistently since the 2000s. In fact, Canada’s productivity growth has been stagnant for a decade, despite their points system. They’re importing workers, not innovation. Meanwhile, Canada’s housing prices have exploded because demand outstrips supply — sound familiar? Germany’s 2015 refugee influx didn’t “ease labor shortages” — it strained social services for years, and integration remains a mess. You’re citing exceptions as rules.
Let’s get real about wages. David Card’s research shows that immigration has a negligible or slightly positive effect on average wages — but that average masks massive pain at the bottom. For high school dropouts, wages drop by 5-10% in high-immigration areas. That’s not a myth. That’s a burden on the poorest Americans.
You want to talk demographic crisis? Fine. But importing workers doesn’t solve an aging population — it just delays the reckoning. Immigrants age too, and their children assimilate into lower birth rates. It’s a temporary fix that creates permanent infrastructure pressure. So no, I’m not treating people like liabilities. I’m treating the math like it matters.
04:00 AM