Cato Institute Immigration Policy Analyst Alex Nowrasteh was still reviewing The Heritage Foundation's latest study on the cost of the path to citizenship component of the Senate "gang of eight" bill. But his initial reaction was no different than his opinion of the conservative think tank's 2007 study: It's "flawed," Nowrasteh told me in a brief email exchange.
The libertarian-leaning Cato Institute has been highly critical of Heritage's research on this subject and of its lead researcher, Robert Rector. Here's what Nowrasteh told me a few minutes ago:
"So far, this Heritage study is as flawed and error-prone as the 2007 version. Their net-fiscal cost accounting is non-dynamic and does not take account of changes in the economy that would result from immigration, including an increase in GDP, native worker productivity, and in wages for the majority of American workers that all result in higher tax revenue. Still reading through it though so I might be pleasantly surprised."