In your calculations, what percentage of the immigrants involved were in fact legal immigrants, and what percentage illegal immigrants? Are the results substantially the same for both groups, or are there in fact notable differences?
Given that the ratio of illegal to legal immigration has shifted massively under the Biden Administration, unless you can demonstrate that the numbers are pretty much the same for illegal and illegal immigrants, the distinction becomes crucially important in any sensibke evaluation.
“Immigrants account for less Medicare and Medicaid spending per capita than US-born individuals.”
Thanks for the very good piece.
The above bullet point, though, while true, ain’t the relevant issue.
The relevant question is whether immigrants are net burdens or net payers into the “system”, not how their healthcare consumption of government dollars relates to those of native-born American citizens.
I’m quite sure that for high-skill immigrants the answer is that they are net payers.
I don’t know and would be somewhat interested in the answers re: lower-skill legal immigrants.
But of course the biggest relevant issue today is whether the overwhelmingly low-skill illegal immigrants are a net drain on the system - which seems almost certainly to be the case - not whether or not they are a greater drain than American citizens and those here legally. Because that means American citizens and American taxpayers have to pay for them.
The main point of the article is that immigration fiscal cost analyses have not been accurately assessing immigrant costs to Medicare and Medicaid, making those potentially less accurate. I also think it's important to state that we could scale the current system without negative effects, even if that's mainly from high skilled immigrants. The article has several links on the broader fiscal effects. My assessment is that the vast majority of the costs of low skilled immigration comes from unskilled spouses and minor children of US citizens, who we will never not permit to immigrate for obvious reasons. Illegal immigrants are net contributors because they receive ~no entitlements. https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-receive-less-medicare-medicaid-person
1) My objection was to the quoted line, and only the quoted line. I might agree with you about the rest of the main points of the article, but I stand by my assertion that the framing in the quoted line is mostly irrelevant and misleading for the purposes of public policy.
Though note the link you sent refers to ALL immigrants, NOT just illegal immigrants, and there the calculations do indeed change, as legal immigrants pay taxes, while most illegal immigrants do not. I agree with you 100% that a single young *legal* immigrant without children is on average most likely a net benefit rather than a net drain on the taxpayer.
2) You claim “Illegal immigrants are net contributors because they receive ~no entitlements.” This is simply false. Just because they don’t legally receive cash transfers like food stamps, unemployment insurance or SSDI, they most certainly DO receive two of the most expensive benefits: Medicaid and K-12 education.
What drop in which taxes is way less than what drop in which benefits? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
It may be too difficult to “prove” in a note. But surely it’s not too difficult to make your basic claim properly.
Are you suggesting that Medicaid/CHIP is not an expensive benefit that most low-skill illegal immigrants receive? I understand that for adults it is mostly Emergency Medicaid, and that this doesn’t cover all such “emergency” costs.
But of course the federal government pays a large share of those uncovered costs through DSH payments and grants to states, states pay part of the costs (some of that money coming from state taxpayers, other coming from federal grants to states), and that legitimately insured consumers pay some of it.
So that might technically explain why Medicaid isn’t drained, but this is mostly a distinction without a difference when most of the money is coming from other federal pockets and the rest from state taxpayer and consumer pockets, true?
Are you claiming that K-12 education, which is partly (but only partly) funded by federal taxpayers (the rest is by state taxpayers) is not a costly benefit illegal immigrants with children receive?
Are you claiming that illegal immigrants don’t draw SNAP and WIC benefits? Are you claiming that no meaningful amount of fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid payments to illegal immigrants occurs?
Personally, I am all for more *legal* immigration, including basically unlimited high-skill immigration and a healthy amount of low-skill legal immigration as well (once the illegal immigration numbers are radically reduced).
But given that under the Biden Administration the majority - exactly how large a majority no one knows of course - of immigrants to the country are now illegal immigrants, and by definition almost all of those are low-skill immigrants, it is disingenuous to refer only to *legal* immigrants - or to prior ratios of legal to illegal immigrants, which would have had a meaningfully higher percentage of high-skill immigrants - when making claims about the drain on American taxpayers from *today’s* immigration.
When you say immigrants are you referring to legal immigrants or illegal immigrants?
It includes all foreign born, regardless of citizenship or legality.
In your calculations, what percentage of the immigrants involved were in fact legal immigrants, and what percentage illegal immigrants? Are the results substantially the same for both groups, or are there in fact notable differences?
Given that the ratio of illegal to legal immigration has shifted massively under the Biden Administration, unless you can demonstrate that the numbers are pretty much the same for illegal and illegal immigrants, the distinction becomes crucially important in any sensibke evaluation.
“Immigrants account for less Medicare and Medicaid spending per capita than US-born individuals.”
Thanks for the very good piece.
The above bullet point, though, while true, ain’t the relevant issue.
The relevant question is whether immigrants are net burdens or net payers into the “system”, not how their healthcare consumption of government dollars relates to those of native-born American citizens.
I’m quite sure that for high-skill immigrants the answer is that they are net payers.
I don’t know and would be somewhat interested in the answers re: lower-skill legal immigrants.
But of course the biggest relevant issue today is whether the overwhelmingly low-skill illegal immigrants are a net drain on the system - which seems almost certainly to be the case - not whether or not they are a greater drain than American citizens and those here legally. Because that means American citizens and American taxpayers have to pay for them.
The main point of the article is that immigration fiscal cost analyses have not been accurately assessing immigrant costs to Medicare and Medicaid, making those potentially less accurate. I also think it's important to state that we could scale the current system without negative effects, even if that's mainly from high skilled immigrants. The article has several links on the broader fiscal effects. My assessment is that the vast majority of the costs of low skilled immigration comes from unskilled spouses and minor children of US citizens, who we will never not permit to immigrate for obvious reasons. Illegal immigrants are net contributors because they receive ~no entitlements. https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-receive-less-medicare-medicaid-person
Two different points:
1) My objection was to the quoted line, and only the quoted line. I might agree with you about the rest of the main points of the article, but I stand by my assertion that the framing in the quoted line is mostly irrelevant and misleading for the purposes of public policy.
Though note the link you sent refers to ALL immigrants, NOT just illegal immigrants, and there the calculations do indeed change, as legal immigrants pay taxes, while most illegal immigrants do not. I agree with you 100% that a single young *legal* immigrant without children is on average most likely a net benefit rather than a net drain on the taxpayer.
2) You claim “Illegal immigrants are net contributors because they receive ~no entitlements.” This is simply false. Just because they don’t legally receive cash transfers like food stamps, unemployment insurance or SSDI, they most certainly DO receive two of the most expensive benefits: Medicaid and K-12 education.
Too complex issue to explain in a note. Suffice it to say the drop in taxes is way less than the drop in benefits.
What drop in which taxes is way less than what drop in which benefits? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
It may be too difficult to “prove” in a note. But surely it’s not too difficult to make your basic claim properly.
Are you suggesting that Medicaid/CHIP is not an expensive benefit that most low-skill illegal immigrants receive? I understand that for adults it is mostly Emergency Medicaid, and that this doesn’t cover all such “emergency” costs.
But of course the federal government pays a large share of those uncovered costs through DSH payments and grants to states, states pay part of the costs (some of that money coming from state taxpayers, other coming from federal grants to states), and that legitimately insured consumers pay some of it.
So that might technically explain why Medicaid isn’t drained, but this is mostly a distinction without a difference when most of the money is coming from other federal pockets and the rest from state taxpayer and consumer pockets, true?
Are you claiming that K-12 education, which is partly (but only partly) funded by federal taxpayers (the rest is by state taxpayers) is not a costly benefit illegal immigrants with children receive?
Are you claiming that illegal immigrants don’t draw SNAP and WIC benefits? Are you claiming that no meaningful amount of fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid payments to illegal immigrants occurs?
Personally, I am all for more *legal* immigration, including basically unlimited high-skill immigration and a healthy amount of low-skill legal immigration as well (once the illegal immigration numbers are radically reduced).
But given that under the Biden Administration the majority - exactly how large a majority no one knows of course - of immigrants to the country are now illegal immigrants, and by definition almost all of those are low-skill immigrants, it is disingenuous to refer only to *legal* immigrants - or to prior ratios of legal to illegal immigrants, which would have had a meaningfully higher percentage of high-skill immigrants - when making claims about the drain on American taxpayers from *today’s* immigration.