CNN's Dobbs, Christian Science Monitor cited dubious Heritage Foundation study on immigration
SUMMARY: In reports on the Senate immigration bill, CNN's Lou Dobbs and Christian Science Monitor staff writer Gail Russell Chaddock cited a dubious immigration study conducted by Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation. However, neither Dobbs nor Chaddock noted that independent analysts have questioned the methodology and results of Rector's study, which has reportedly influenced the Senate immigration bill debate.
On the May 24 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs cited a dubious immigration study conducted by Robert Rector, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, claiming that Rector "pointed ... out" that "there would be at the very least 103 million new legal immigrants in this country within the next 20 years" under an earlier version of the Senate immigration bill. Similarly, Christian Science Monitor staff writer Gail Russell Chaddock cited Rector's study in an article documenting the Senate's efforts to pass an immigration law: "Senator [Jeff] Sessions [R-AL] introduced a new report by the Heritage Foundation that claimed that the Senate bill would allow 100 million new legal immigrants into the country over the next 20 years." However, neither Dobbs nor Chaddock noted that independent analysts have questioned the methodology and results of Rector's study, which has reportedly influenced the Senate immigration bill debate.
Rector's study originally claimed that "[i]f enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act [CIRA, S.2611] would ... allow[] an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years -- fully one-third of the current population of the United States." Rector later reduced that number to 66 million after the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment that would limit the number of legal immigrants who could enter the United States under the bill's guest worker program.
But as Knight Ridder noted in a May 24 article, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in a May 16 report, concluded that the Senate bill -- before incorporating Bingaman's amendment -- would only have allowed approximately 8 million immigrants to enter the United States legally, not the 103 million Rector originally suggested. Moreover, Knight Ridder quoted William Frey of the Brookings Institution saying that Rector's conclusions are "widely unrealistic," and arrived at the 103 million figure by "assum[ing] the maximums, pull[ing] out all the stops for every loophole, possibility, and mak[ing] some assumptions -- some unrealistic -- about how many family members will be brought in."
Further, Dobbs allowed Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) to claim that Rector "has some really good documentation," to show that the cost of the Senate bill "would be $50 billion a year." Inhofe was apparently referring to a different Heritage Foundation study, in which Rector cited figures from the Center on Immigration Studies to claim that the Senate bill would cost the federal government over $50 billion per year:
Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.
But the CBO study estimates that the bill would cost a total of $54 billion between 2007 and 2016: "[E]nacting [the Senate's] legislation would increase direct spending by $13 billion over the 2007-2011 period and by $54 billion over the 2007-2016 period."
From the May 24 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Well, speaking of outrageous, the fact that Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation had to suggest to the United States Senate that there would be at the very least 103 million new legal immigrants in this country within the next 20 years, and until Robert Rector and the Heritage Foundation pointed that out, the Senate did not see fit to do anything about it until Senator Bingaman introduced his amendment to reduce those visas to a level of 200,000 a year. I mean, what is going on in that august body?
INHOFE: Well, I just talked to Robert Rector. He was in my office. We had a long visit. What is worse than what you just characterized is what's going to happen 11 years from now. This cost, according to Rector, he has some really good documentation, would be $50 billion a year. And the reason it doesn't start until the 10 years is up is because that's when the benefits start.
DOBBS: Right
INHOFE: And, of course, the CBO, they only look at the next 10 years. They can't go beyond 10 years. So, as far as they're concerned, it's not going to be that expensive.
From a May 25 article in the Christian Science Monitor:
In a key vote last week, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D) of North Dakota and Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama -- typically bookends on any vote on social policy - found themselves on the same losing side of a 69-28 vote to limit eligibility for the bill's guest-worker program to protect American jobs. "What on earth are we thinking? Can't there be some modicum of discussion about the effect on American workers?" said Senator Dorgan, introducing his amendment last week.
In support of that amendment, Senator Sessions introduced a new report by the Heritage Foundation that claimed that the Senate bill would allow 100 million new legal immigrants into the country over the next 20 years. He called for a demographic impact statement on the impact of the bill.
Is how The Heritage Foundation is consider credible. The research methods they use have been called in to question by experts so many times it borders ridiculous that they can even be consider crediable let alone used to influence our legislation. Why hasn't this organization been exposed as a fraud. Everyone associated with the Heritage Foundation should be scrutinized but instead its considered a worthy thing to be a part of a group that continues to churn out bogus studies like this one.
You guys are getting very McCarthy-like in the way you distort reality. Have you no shame? Or maybe you just can’t write clearly.
You said the immigration study is ‘dubious’ and cited ‘independent analysts’ who questioned the methodology and results of Rector’s study. But you didn’t provide any independent analysis – instead you quoted William Frey of the Brookings Institution, who questioned Rector’s conclusions as ‘widely unrealistic,” giving the false impression that Frey is one of the independent analysts… when in fact the link you provided to the Knight Ridder Newspapers site clearly identifies Brookings as left of center.
You further tried to taint Rector’s study by creating the false impression that he ‘reduced’ his estimates from 103 million guest workers to 66 million workers after the senate passed an amendment to limit the number of legal immigrants who could enter the US under the guest worker program, when in fact he ‘adjusted' calculations” because the Senate ‘reduced’ the number of guest--worker visas from 350,000 to 200,000.
You need to change the name of this site – from Media Matters, to Media Matter Only From Our Slant.
How about this for you. MYSELF
I looked into the methods myself along with my fellow students in a class at college a few years ago. That Class was "ADVANCED RESEARCH METHODS. This was one of many classes where we learn to compile raw data and how to set up quanitative controls for camparative analylists. My point is not just this study but EVERY study the Heritage foundation deos is based on methods that even me a a low level communications students relaizes is unrelialbe.
For Example-- We look into a methods of a labor study they produces. They tried to minimize the unemployment rate.When camparing stastical data thier methods often campare data from different times. Like comaparing the labor statics of Feb to Mar. Just so you will now there is more than one problem this analysis. First of all March's Unemployement rates always drop because summer construction and other seasonal work usually goes underway. Then their is the small fact that Feb is shorter month than March. The fair comparison to even a green horn researcher is to look at the same month in the last years. Then thier was the wonderful tactic of counting people with multilple jobs at mutliple people. Funny thing is SInce our Sec of Labor came from this sacred institution it makes me wonder just how relialbe are our goverments labor stats. This was not isolated with this study. Several of their studies prooved to have the same faulty methods. Any idiot with knowledge of statical data research methods could shoot holes these idiots. That is why they should be exposed as a fraud. If you wnat to obtain thier methods and have them analysed by my local university's communication's Dept I will. I will tell you Its a very conservative intitution in a rural area. And the communication dept still thinks the media is slanted to rebulican party and that the Heritage Foudation is FULL OF IT. That becasue they can't ignore the data that and research that keeps prroving it semester after semseter.
So My independent Analysis---- ME You see I dont need other pople to hand me my opinions I have the intelligence and education to research and develop them myself. My sources are the Heritage Foundation. They sort of tell on themselves if you would pay attention.
If you want a balanced view of immigration, you can find good info here:
[link to www.cis.org]
the subject is being discussed, which is a switch. considering all the people who insist any efforts to control immigration are racist. 103 million may be a bit high, but if there are 12 million illegals here, a large majority of those are probably men who have families back home. citizenship means those families come here under family reunification. you could easily be talking another 30 or so million and that is on top of our present legal visas of about 800,ooo a year. that's why groups like negative population growth, with joanne woodward on it's board [think she's a racist?], are opposed to our present immigration policies. and costs what costs? isn't this all gravy? of course those figures are for the federal government and don't include education costs of teachers and schools to states like california, which would be huge.
I've heard that buried in the senate immigration bill is a provision to DOUBLE the H1B Visas for tech workers because there "Aren't enough qualified workers..."
All of the mainstream media have been ignorning this.