>To generate that benefit, immigration has to reduce the wages of natives in competition with immigrant workers by $493.9 billion annually. But business gain $548.1 billion from these lost wages, for a net gain of $54.2 billion.1 Unfortunately, the NAS does not report this large income redistribution, though it provides all the information necessary to calculate it.

>The above analysis is based on economic theory, but the report also summarizes empirical studies that have tried to directly measure the impact of immigration on the wages of natives. The size of the wage impact from such direct measurement is similar to that shown above (Table 5-3, pp. 207-208). But the size of this impact remains a subject for debate among economists.

>Turning to the fiscal impact, immigrants do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services at the present time. The NAS report presents eight different scenarios based on different assumptions about the current fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants and their dependent children. All of the scenarios show that immigrants are a fiscal drain. The drain is as large as $299 billion a year.2 In all the scenarios dealing with the current fiscal impact the deficit is as large or larger than the economic benefit reported above.

>Second-generation and third-generation Americans (native-born children and grandchildren of immigrants) are also in fiscal deficit, mainly because of the federal budget deficit shown in Table 8-2 p. 312. Of course, a fiscal drain for natives may be unavoidable. But adding more people through our immigration policies who run a deficit only adds to the problem.

>The current fiscal deficit at the state level is very large. The average fiscal drain shown for each "immigrant independent person unit" (in effect, immigrant-headed households) is shown in Table 9-6, p. 404. Multiplying the average by the number of such units in each state (Table 9-13, p. 426) shows the following fiscal deficits: California -$18.96 billion; Texas -$7.8 billion, New York -$5.79 billion, Illinois -$4.16 billion, New Jersey -$3.24 billion, Washington State -$2.51 billion, Massachusetts -$1.86 billion, Colorado -$1.18 billion, Arizona -$1.17 billion, Florida -$1.14 billion, Georgia -$1.02 billion, Nevada -$620 million, Oregon -$600 million, Virginia -$469 million, New Mexico -$429 million, and North Carolina -$424 million.

>Our current immigration system does not select immigrants based on their skills, so the future education level of immigrants is undetermined. Also, it is impossible to know how the country will deal with budgetary issues over the next 75 years — the CBO certainly does not have a great track record in this regard. Finally, immigration could be a source of domestic terrorism, which may result in military responses and additional defense spending.

>A "key" conclusion of the report (p. 87) is that there is a "slowing rate of wage convergence for immigrants admitted after 1979" (i.e., immigrants are catching up with natives more slowly than before). The lower education level of newly arrived immigrants partly explains this difference, but even after controlling for education, the report still finds that immigrants assimilate more slowly today than in the past.

>The report also finds a slowdown in acquisition of English. It even cites as a possible explanation the huge number of immigrants already here who give immigrants much less incentive to learn English (pp. 89-91).

>If new immigrants hurt the wages and slow down English acquisition of immigrants already here, then a reduction in immigration may help the millions of immigrants already here adapt to life in this country. The biggest beneficiary of lowering immigration may be immigrants themselves.

http://cis.org/NAS-Study-Workers-and-Taxpayers-Lose-Businesses-Benefit

https://archive.fo/UvuQm

>The net contribution of people of non-Western origin is negative, in total -16.6 billion Dkr. Non-Western immigrants’ net-contribution is -4.1 billion Dkr against descendants’ -12.5 billion Dkr.

>The lower net contribution of non-Western than Western immigrants is not ascribed to age, but to non-Western immigrants’ lower attachment to the labour market, which precipitates lower tax revenues and higher social expenses.

http://www.openpop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Table2.png

Western Immigration net contribution: 18.990 Dkr
Non-Western Immigration net contribution: -16.690 Dkr

>No indication that immigration of non-Western immigrants will produce a surplus to the public finances (not even 35 years ahead) unless integration of this group improves. Non-Western immigrants will only add to the problem of financing the welfare state.

>In contrast, Western immigrants will become an even more important source of financing for the welfare state.

http://www.openpop.org/?p=1004

https://archive.fo/j3biz

>Three major recent studies have assessed the net fiscal impact of migrants in the UK over different periods. The OECD found an average annual net fiscal cost of £4.3 billion in the years 2007 to 2009. Thus, on average, migrants paid £4.3 billion less in taxes than they received in benefits and services.

>Dustmann and Frattini of CReAM found that all migrants were a net fiscal cost of £14.8 billion in the financial year 2011/12.

>Using similar methodology to CReAM, research by Migration Watch UK found that all migrants were a net fiscal cost of £13 billion in 2014/15.

>Recent migrants from non-EU countries were also a net cost to the Exchequer in both analyses. CReAM estimated a net cost of £2.2 billion in 2011/12 meanwhile Migration Watch estimated a cost of £3.8 billion in 2014/15.

>Recent migrants from the new East European states of the EU8 and the EU2 (together the EU10) have been a net fiscal cost. CReAM estimated a cost of £138 million in 2011/12 whereas Migration Watch found a net cost of £1.5 billion in 2014/15.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/386

https://archive.fo/d0DTt

>Migrants contributed £89.7billion in taxes but received £106.7billion in public spending during 2014-15, the report shows.

>The cost to taxpayers included a staggering £20billion paid in working-age benefits.

>The crippling £17billion annual shortfall – equivalent to nearly £63 for every UK household – was estimated in a report published by population think tank Migration Watch UK.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670875/migrants-cost-britain-brexit-eu-referendum-migration-report

https://archive.fo/Tav4W