The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is an anti-Immigrant Think Tank

I think that title puts it mildly. I also don’t think it will surprise many people. Often I go up to people I know and tell them something interesting (to me) I learned / learned more about, almost always economics related. Sometimes I get people going “yeah, I know”. I think because they had already formed an opinion on the matter that my understanding of the subject confirms. 

But who doesn’t want to be told by an expert that their opinions are generally correct. I would want to know that. Similarly, a think tank that is against more immigration is probably xenophobic given the broad consensus of the literature (and theory) that immigration is good for the economy and at least doesn’t make the federal deficit worse. I’m sure it isn’t surprising and is casually assumed by many.

But I can prove it!

I found my way to a blog type post of theirs titled "Why Immigration Can't Solve the Social Security Deficit". Now it’s true immigration can’t solve the Social Security deficit in the sense that it can’t reduce it to zero on its own, but that’s not what reveals their bias. The post begins by saying the argument that more immigration is good for the SS deficit is “based on hype rather than reality. A realistic assessment of that idea appears in a report of the Social Security Advisory Board.” Which states, “[w]hile recognizing the importance of immigration to our future patterns of economic and population growth, the Social Security Advisory Board does not view immigration as a panacea or free lunch for saving Social Security.” 

Duh it’s not a free lunch, thanks for the expert analysis. The very next sentence in that report is “The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that an increase in legal immigration of about a quarter of a million would reduce the 75-year actuarial deficit of the Social Security program by about 5 percent.” FAIR is clearly cherry-picking their quotes.

The FAIR post continues, “[w]hile increased immigration might help…in the short-run…it is no solution in the long run.” What short run? The SSA found that it would reduce the actuarial deficit over a 75 year period. The actuarial deficit is the gap between costs and revenue over 75 years in this case. How is that not the long run? While forecasting that far out is a huge stretch, the least that can be said is that more immigration is projected to on net reduce the SS deficit in the long run, or over an immigrant’s lifetime.

Their reasoning is that “immigrant workers age too. They then become eligible for benefits…In that sense it is a Ponzi scheme.” That’s not a finding; that’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. The SSA looked over a 75 year period, which accounts for aging immigrants becoming eligible for benefits.

Their second string argument is that “[a] majority of immigrant workers take low-wage jobs. Because the Social Security System is redistributive it pays out more to low-wage workers compared to their contributions than it does for high-wage workers. That means that the more low-wage immigrants who are admitted to work in our country and become eligible for future payments, the greater the burden will be on the future workers to support those retirees.”

The first sentence is misleading, the second is a damn lie and a non-sequitur. Payroll taxes are regressive in terms of % of income taxed. This means the poor are paying in more of their income than the rich. So the fact that the flat benefit is a greater percentage of a poor person's income than for rich people isn’t exactly ~unfair. More importantly, it doesn’t matter. Either immigrants are a net benefit, zero net cost, or net cost; that they are a smaller individual net benefit than if they were richer doesn't change the fact that more immigration reduces the SS deficit. This means there is no added burden on other taxpayers over the average immigrant’s lifetime. 

Furthermore, immigrants tend to be clustered in low and high skilled jobs compared to the native born. So there’s plenty of immigrants paying in a lot more than they’ll ever take out. And around 30% of immigrants eventually return to their home country, paying into the Social Security system, and then leaving without taking their full entitled benefit if any of it.

So FAIR's analysis is not just a different way of looking at the data; it’s not reasonable people disagreeing. They are deliberately misleading, cherry picking, and lying. It is not the truth they are after, but to provide a veneer of credibility to xenophobic rhetoric. Or else their analysts are dumb af.