https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/b...
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/b...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240111003833/https://www.econo...
In countries like the US that are good at integrating immigrants, they are a huge net positive.
This isn’t true in general and depends on the local economy and the immigrants country of origin. MENA migrants are a net loss for Germany, for example.
Even if economists agree, the money these immigrants spend lands in the pockets of rich capitalists.
The entire topic is far more nuanced than you make it out to be.
[1]: https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/demografie-...
Is this some propaganda website by Bush to promote neocon values?
Does that not fail your smell test?
EVERY immigrant?
This can only be true if they sustain themselves on their own work. An immigrant that does not work and only lives on subsidies can hardly be called a net positive.
Health insurance companies, for example, are a negative drain on society, yet they employ hundreds of thousands of workers, in what can only be explained as a make-work program for pointless bureaucracy.
Lots of this in the DOD as well. And the homeless program administrators, which you mentioned.
It's just not explicit welfare to the poorest of the poor and there are a few implicit steps, because otherwise it looks bad.