White House Touts "Saving Money" as a Reason to Pass Immigration Reform; Saving Money Makes an Even Better Reason to Cut Spending!
CBO estimates $1 trillion in savings over 20 years from immigration reform


The latest missive from the White House, via the director of the domestic policy council, Cecilia Muñoz:
Hi, all!
This week, we got some big news about the immigration reform bill. It's a little wonky, but it's so great that I couldn't wait to share it with you.
The nonpartisan experts who estimate the financial impact of legislation for Congress concluded that because undocumented immigrants will start paying more in taxes for things like education and Social Security, the immigration proposal in the Senate will make the economy fairer for middle class families while cutting the U.S. deficit by almost $1,000,000,000,000 over the next two decades.
With every passing day, it's becoming clear that we can't afford not to act. Now we know exactly how much is at stake, and it's the kind of news that can help to change the policy conversation in Washington.
The e-mail continues with infographics it encourages readers to share. But what does making the process for entering and staying in the country legally have to do with the deficit?While Shikha Dalmia has explained the various economic benefits a liberal immigration policy provides and there's nothing to suggest the CBO's number is cooked, it's not the whole story. The immigration reform bill being crafted in Washington doesn't provide an amnesty or even simply liberalize immigration laws. Instead the bill is packed with new bureaucracy and spending, like billions to border security, as well as carve outs for special interests that Lindsey Graham says has them coming back for more (in a good way, he says!). A decree to be free it is not.
And if the White House was as excited about saving money as it says it is, it would've embraced the sequester as a starting point and demanded actual cuts on top of it, instead of crying doomsday over mere reductions in spending increases.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Allow me...
"No, fuck you, cut spending".
Thank you.
I endorse this position.
It's a little wonky...
This has become a dog whistle to people who think they are really smart...
It's wonky to show 0's instead of words.
I stopped counting the 0's when I got to 4. What's 10 to the hrair power?
What's 10 to the hrair power?
About a blazzillion...give or take 7
Instead the bill is packed with new bureaucracy and spending...
No fucking shit.
there's nothing to suggest the CBO's number is cooked
nothing?
It's pretty obvious that the more government gets involved in our lives, the more money we all save. I'm sure there's a CBO report that will support that. It's so simple. More equals savings.
Economies of scale!
"cutting the U.S. deficit by almost $1,000,000,000,000 over the next two decades."
Ummm, yeah.... If the US deficit gets cut by $1 Trillion in the next 20 years, I'll suck her dick.
Take out "immigration" and replace with "obamacare" and the boilerplate is identical.