CBO Analysis Reinforces Skilled Immigration Benefits

Andy Halataei photo

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has analyzed the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill and reports that it would bring strong benefits to the U.S. economy, including improved productivity and deficit reduction.
In particular, the skilled-immigration reforms in the Senate bill, which we support, have the potential to create new jobs and new innovations across the economy.  CBO noted that the expansion of skilled immigration would boost American innovation and “generate additional technological advancements, such as new inventions and improvements in production processes.”
[E]mpirical research broadly suggests that an influx of immigrants, particularly highly skilled immigrants, would lead to increased innovation and task specialization.  And those improvements in turn would increase economic output for any given supply of labor and capital stock.
A substantial body of research documents certain effects of highly skilled immigrants on the U.S. economy.  For example, although immigrants constituted just 12 percent of the population in 2000, they accounted for 26 percent of U.S.-based Nobel Prize winners between 1990 and 2000, and they made up 25 percent of the founders of public-venture–backed companies started between 1990 and 2005.  Moreover, immigrants receive patents at twice the rate of the native-born U.S. population.  Logic suggests that such accomplishments should boost TFP [total factor productivity], but quantifications of that connection are few.  In one example, however, researchers demonstrated a strong correlation between the research and development undertaken by scientists and engineers and the rate of growth in TFP, implying a boost to TFP from an increase in the number of people working in fields that are related to technological innovation, such as science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.
The CBO statements reinforce the points that our nation’s technology leaders have made consistently:  The Senate’s immigration reform bill will lead to new jobs and new opportunities across the country.  Right now, skilled immigrants work, collaborate and innovate alongside our U.S. domestic workforce to generate new industries, businesses, products, and services that didn’t exist 20 years ago.  It’s a formula for success that has seen startups and opportunities emerge from Northern California to New Hampshire.  And it’s why the Senate should advance immigration reform.

Share this post on:
  • Dmitrii Wed., December 25, 6:18 AM
    Are the people who seek the Presidency the smraetst, most creative, most influential and experienced people of the land? Only one stands out as a true genius and revolutionary leader: Mr. Newt. How hilarious would a Gingrich-Obama debate be? Love his Lean 6-Sigma approach. I think the choice is either another 'blah-GW' or an exciting 'modern-day GW(Washington).' http://ptnmqgoxbe.com [url=http://vgiztklec.com]vgiztklec[/url] [link=http://tyadtvpk.com]tyadtvpk[/link]
  • Mark Sun., December 22, 9:37 AM
    I don’t understand you when you acwleknodge that the states have powers the feds don’t have. When you say that, you MUST believe that there are things one can do that the other can’t.Absolutely. States cannot enter treaties, while the Feds can. Etc. That doesn't mean that something is a tax when done at the federal level but isn't a tax at the state level.States can implement mandates and penalize failure.Sure. They can mandate things and then put you in jail or fine you civilly for not following regulations. They can also tax you.The federal government can’t implement mandates. They can only tax.No, that's absolutely, 100%, demonstrably false. The federal government issues mandates all the time, with punishment of prison or fine. If you just mean that the federal government can't implement an individual mandate for health insurance, then you're getting closer but you need to understand that that is NOT actually binding in any way. If John Roberts had written that whole section on the commerce clause as an op ed in the WSJ, it would have had exactly as much legal force.The only reason this was upheld was because congress can tax.The taxing authority was found to be sufficient to support the mandate. That doesn't mean that other federal powers wouldn't also support it. It won't even require another court to overturn this decision.You seem to think that, just because state and federal governments do some things differently means that something which is a tax for one cannot be a tax for another. Many states have income taxes, by your argument they're just penalizing income.When something is a tax when the feds do it, it's a tax when the states do it, unless you can show me some legal reason why they are considered differently at those levels.In short, a state can mandate and not call it a tax. The supreme court ruled, like it or not – and I don’t – that the federal government can tax.The federal government can mandate, too. For example, the federal government can mandate things like capital reserves for investment firms. See above.By the way, Obama argued this in front of the supreme court.Well, he didn't, the solicitor general did. And the SG argued it as an absolute last resort, to save the ACA in case the conservatives were as crazy as they, it turns out, are. That doesn't mean that he wants it to be a tax, it means he wanted to preserve health care.You can disagree with the ruling. I can disagree that eating my own wheat is illegal. But legally, we’re both wrong. I don't disagree that the taxing power gives them the authority. I think it's silly to use it when the commerce clause has always done this work, especially since at the end of the day, they didn't do anything to limit the commerce clause.While we're at it, Wickard was about the amount of wheat you grow, not about whether you're allowed to eat your own wheat. But these are all just facts and details, I understand why you wouldn't care about them.As it stands, Obamacare is a tax. Romneycare is a penalty. And it’s all because Obama is a President and Romney is a Governor.Obamacare is justifiable as an exercise of the taxing power. If you want to call it a tax simply for that reason, that's fine. Romneycare's mandate was structure almost exactly the same. It was the state tax agency that oversaw the mandate, you reported it on your tax returns, etc. The only difference is that the federal program penalized you a direct amount, while Romneycare just took away your tax deductions to punish you. Romneycare directly raised your taxes as a punishment.You're arguing nonsense right now. You have absolute proof that Romneycare was structured exactly the same way, and you're insisting that it's not a tax simple because it was a state program. That's nonsense.
  • Lupita Sat., December 21, 4:40 AM
    SirJohn, great point. Lynne,So Republican's and Democrats not working togeehtr is what made people not understand Obama care? How could the Republican's compromise on it when they weren't even consulted and the democrats didn't even have a vote in the house. They simply deemed it passed so they could send it to the conference committee and pass it through reconcilliation. There was nothing the Republicans could do to stop it. They didn't have the votes and in the Senate, Harry Reid was basically bribing democrat senators to get it passed there. The reason isn't lack of cooperation, the reason is a total abuse and rape of the Constitution by the Democrats in Congress and the White House. They were in such a hurry to pass their agenda they didn't care what was in it. http://qgxiqz.com [url=http://kjtpuljpfz.com]kjtpuljpfz[/url] [link=http://fxubdyhueo.com]fxubdyhueo[/link]
  • Kaan Fri., December 20, 11:56 PM
    Mac, yes, good point I recall Nancy Pelosi siynag that there was time to read it after it was voted on or some nonsense like that. I will add (in addition to my earlier comment) that I think that the divisiveness in the US is extremely harmful to the country, and we have politicians that will not work together, won't compromise, and that is as unworkable as it is unrealistic. We have many different views in the US and so I would expect our lawmakers to try to sort it out and work out a solution that works best for everyone. That is not happening though. One reason that few people understand Obamacare is that lack of cooperation and dialogue about the various aspects of Obamacare. Where was the debate about the points of Obamacare? It is absolutely confusing. It is a mess.
  • Open Thu., December 19, 1:44 PM
    The Tea Party is a monster out of coontrl! You guys are a focking riot.Two years ago, a year ago,you were all saying the Tea Party would never amount to anything, was just a gnat on a dogs balls and that they and Sarah were blips not to been seen ever again shortly.Now they're this huge monster.Kinda like Bush being this huge idiot except when hes the mastermind behind sending a 21 member coalition to war in Iraq based on lies or being the diabolical genius behind 911.The only consistency is your idiocy
(HTML not permitted)
* - Required