This article is featured as part of the United Nations University Sustainable Development Explorer. UNU’s work is uniquely comprehensive, spanning the full breadth of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With some 400 UNU researchers engaged in more than 180 research projects, UNU is most active where the different goals merge and interact.
Visit the UNU Sustainable Development Explorer to experience the “who” and “what” of UNU’s work, meet our experts, and learn how our ideas are generating knowledge to develop realistic solutions to achieve all 17 SDGs.
The White House recently embraced a proposal to cut legal immigration to the United States using a ‘merit’-based points system. Senior aides claim this would ensure migrants could support themselves financially, and not burden social services.
The move is an overture to some corners of the Republican base and has purportedly re-invigorated debates on national identity and American values. But does the ‘costs of immigration’ argument hold water?
Unsurprisingly, the devil is in the details.
Once the children of immigrants grow up to become second-generation adults, they have a far higher net fiscal benefit to states than native-born U.S. citizens do. The average annual fiscal benefit of second-generation immigrants in the U.S. is US$400 more than it is for native individuals. The disparity leaps in the District of Columbia, where a second-generation individual contributes US$7,100 while a native-born individual costs US$1,300.
Read the full article on The Hill.