Regarding "An immigration dividend for the United States" (The Washington Post, Other Views, June 24):
The CBO analysis of Senate Bill 744 being used by those with an amnesty/open border agenda to justify the legalization of 11 million to 20 million illegals currently in the United States is a red herring of monumental proportion.
The CBO summary uses an old misleading tactic of the amnesty crowd in attempting to blur the negative impact of illegal immigration by combining the economic impact of the illegals with that of those coming to the country legally. The resulting "averaged" positive impact is then presented as "proof" of the value of illegal immigration.
The summary should be reviewed with an eye toward the timing of the information presented. Simply put, amnesty given to illegals fairly quickly results in primarily neutral or negative economic results which are outweighed, eventually, by an influx of legal higher-paid and higher-educated foreign technical workers.
It is the second group of immigrants, not the illegals, who ultimately drive the labor supply and the resulting positive economic indicators. Per the CBO, "The supply of labor would increase primarily ... because the bill (S744) ..." would loosen or eliminate annual limits on various categories "of legal immigration" ( good for Bill Gates, et. al, but bad for American technical workers).
The Washington Post accepts the CBOs findings without any recognition of the weaknesses of the report, cherry-picking the statistics that support its political position. The Post dismisses as "dubious" a similar study by the pro-American worker Heritage Foundation which projects a much more negative impact of illegal immigration.
The term "dubious" should apply to the CBO analysis as the CBO makes it very clear that it doesn't have much confidence as to the real impact of S744, reporting in paragraph 2 of its summary: "Ascertaining the effects of this (policy) on the economy and the budget ... is highly uncertain in the short run" and even less certain in the longer term.
This CBO report is thus what most people would call a "wild guess" and certainly not near enough assurance to risk the future education and employment opportunities of our children and grandchildren.
The people of Florida should be embarrassed if Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson even try to use this admittedly questionable report as a rationale for a vote for S744.