Posted on 09/08/2017 8:34:19 AM PDT by Wuli
Donald Trump has proposed eliminating or severely modifying the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Many Americans believe that the presence of unauthorized immigrants is harmful to the economy and would like to see steps taken to reduce their presence. However, a repeal or roll-back of DACA would harm the economy and cost the U.S. government a significant amount of lost tax revenue. We estimate that the fiscal cost of immediately deporting the approximately 750,000 people currently in the DACA program would be over $60 billion to the federal government along with a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
IMO < Cato has been pro illegal immigrant for a long long time.
Perhaps others will remember it differently, but I don’t see this as a change.
What an absolute pile of beltway horse$hit this piece from Cato is!
Simple question for Cato.
If losing 750,000 people will cost our economy 280 billion dollars in economic growth, then what has been the fiscal impact of Roe v Wade and the MILLIONS of unborn Americans?
My suspicion is that CATO would roll out its Liberal calculator and say the abortions benefit the economy, in spite of the loss of “new workers” to pay for entitlements, which they thought as good reason for DACA - building the government with taxes to pay for entitlements.
True that, they used the H1-B as a reference and claim that the average wage per hour of a DACA individual is $17..
just let that sink in to this steaming pile of crap
Well said.
True libertarians believe in no borders. :(
But.. but...
If these DACA folks are as economically valuable as CATO claims, then why hasn’t Mexico built a border wall to keep them IN?
And offered “free” airline tickets to bring them HOME?
[crickets chirping]
Cato is the Koch Brothers.
The Kochs frown and Cato changes course and executives...
Sadly, CATO has become an overt arm of the US Chamber of Commerce.
They used to be my Amazon Smile donor but — no more. Just removed them.
DACA criteria (underlines mine):
Came to the United States before their 16th birthday
Have lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007
were under age 31 on June 15, 2012 (i.e., born on June 16, 1981 or after)
Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012 (i.e. illegal)
Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school (not fruit pickers but competition for better paying jobs)
Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
From a pro-illegal site (dunno how true this is):
"Starting on Feb 18, 2015, you cannot be too old for DACA; you can be of any age as long as you meet the other requirements. 'This is a BIG deal. Soon, if you are 35, 40, or 45, AND meet the basic criteria, you could qualify for DACA!' "
Starting on Feb 18, 2015, you must have been present in the U.S. from January 1, 2010 until now to qualify for DACA."
The flood of "children" from South America didn't start until 2014.
You mean that gardener with 4 or 5 kids in school doesn't pay in enough to cover the kids education? Who knew?
We are as likely to see that as we are to fill out our taxes on a postcard.
Exactly, cheap labor express. Even Reason Foundation has gone that way.
CATO, another institution destroyed by the cancer of liberalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.