White House “Rejects” Study on Immigrants’ Value
From the New York Times: Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
Maybe I’m quibbling over words, but “reject?” Like, “tell it to go away?” How do you “reject” a compilation of information that upsets you?
You can ignore it, or you can repudiate it, if you have data that conflicts with the original study. But doesn’t it sound silly to say, “I just don’t accept this?”
I’m reminded of the interview I conducted with Cato Institute spokesperson Jerry Taylor a few years ago for Renewable Energy–Following the Money, a portion of which went like this:
Craig: You must have been somewhat swayed by the recent Harvard Medical School report estimating the externalities of coal in the U.S. at $700 billion a year.
Jerry: No, I don’t think it was a very good study. Anyway…
Craig: (who just realized to his astonishment that Jerry was about to dismiss the study and change the subject because he didn’t “think it was a very good study”) But can you speak to that? Is there some specific element of the study you found bogus?
Jerry: I don’t think that it is true. In other areas of science and health in particular, you don’t find massive divergences in views.
In other words, his libertarian think-tank rejected a study from the Harvard Medical School. After all, one can’t expect to find any academic rigor or intellectual integrity at a place like that, and anyway, we just don’t like it. We’re just stamping our feet and telling it to go home.
Craig,
“a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.”
That is a lie ! Not only is it untrue, but a deliberate attempt to start advance an argument on an initial deception ! Shame on you !
No such conclusion, or report exists !
Where you gleaned this piece of distorted information may be the cause of your false reporting, (I’d like to believe that you are misled, than intentionally misleading).
The “report” to which you refer is no more than ‘leaked’ sections of a “Draft” scenario, designed as a discussion paper for the preparation of material to be considered, along with a great deal of other contrasting material in the preparation of a final full study, which arrived at a very different conclusion.
The authors of the actual final report by the Department of Health and Human Services stated unequivocally, “This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data,” .
Same on you, and the NYT for this sort of dishonest reportage.
If you think that the NYT, arguably the most trusted name in journalism since 1851, has gotten this wrong (worse, deliberately so), do you mind providing at least a molecule of evidence? Maybe you could link to the final report, or the data that superseded that of the draft report.
Craig,
I fear you are correct, even in today’s world of degraded media, few people,(except for the most ardent “never Trumpers”) would try and argue the NYT is “trusted”.
The report was intended as an update to the, PROPOSED REFUGEE ADMISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 REPORT TO THE CONGRESS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE COMMITTEES ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE AND UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS207(d)(1)and (e)OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
(the upper case is theirs, not mine :).
The final report, of which the NYT claims to have obtained “draft excerpts”, was yet to be released.
The report, although prepared by officials, is issued in the name of President to Congress and is intended to carry his imprimatur as to authenticity and validity, just as if he wrote it personally.
In other words, it’s ‘the President’s’ report, not an independent study.
Since the report itself had not been released, the whole debate became about supposed excepts from a drafts contribution leaked to a newspaper and seized upon as if it was an accurate copy a report table to congress by the President !
“Fake News” indeed!
The ‘National Review’ journal published an article critical of the draft report and the flaws contained, as if the draft were actually the finished report.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/leaked-hhs-refugee-report-interesting-flawed/
But it’s hardly “news”, since the NYT article was published the best part of a year ago and a report to Congress isn’t due for some time, so the reason for your breathless indignation is a little difficult to understand. Maybe you’ve just run out of stuff to be outraged about, and thought you’d just rehash old favorites?
Just a suggestion, I think if you read the provisions of SECTIONS207(d)(1)and (e)OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, may find the knowledge gained illuminating. ( I don’t mean that to sound sarcastic, it’s merely a friendly suggestion).
The NYT has taken to being the outlet of ‘anti-Trump’, leaks.
The problem with leaks is while the can provide useful insights, they are mostly self-serving, biased distortions (or outright lies) presented anonymously and given sensationalist status which once woven into a narrative, becomes over time and repetition accepted as truth.
It’s perhaps significant to observe the effect of “leaks’ and anti-Trump activism on the otherwise dwindling NYT readership. The readership is still in free-fall, but each sensationalist anti-Trump revelation, create a spike in readership revenue.
There are only so many anti-trump articles you can publish without ennui setting in, and I fear no one needs more pictures of Hillary Clinton.
The NYT entered dangerous territory when it publish article praising government officials who had form a “secret alliance” to thwart and undermine the President in their capacity as government officials.
The NYT announced it would protect the identities and cooperate with those officials believe their first duty is to this country, and to resist the President continues to act in a manner we determine is detrimental to the health of our republic.”
The NYT praised those officials who avow “to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr Trump until through our efforts see him out of office.”
The NYT justified protecting the identities of ” Senior officials in the Trump administration whose identities are known to us and whose jobs would be jeopardized by disclosure”.
No matter how partisan your feelings toward any President of any political Party, this sort of behaviour is intolerable and an attack on democratic principles.
A newspaper has a duty to protect the identity of an official who can identify any illegal activity committed by an elected representative or official. No one would dispute the media’s right to perform such a duty.
However, when an individual official, acting alone or as part of a group, decide for ideological for political or ideological purpose to conspire with a media outlet to “undermine” “thwart” or “remove” an elected representative or official, it becomes a criminal act, even treason.
The treason is not limited to the betrayal of the oath they took as officials oath, but in the betrayal of the voters right to select their representatives. The treachery is setting themselves up as superior to the Constitution.
Public servants must not start to interfere in policy decisions which are the sole prerogative of elected officials. It’s the very nature of the position in administrative positions to serve political leaders of all types and party loyalties equally faithfully and loyally within the law and the Constitution.
In encouraging, sheltering and enabling these miscreants, the NYT has lost the right of privilege extended to reporters to protects a source, they have made themselves participants in a conspiracy.
If the any media outlet loses sight of objective reporting and becomes a mere lobbyist or propagandist for a political cause, no matter how virtuous, how can it be “trusted” to be fair and objective?
I really don’t understand Trump and I’m sure most people don’t either. Does he think that just since he’s the president he can deny whatever facts he wants to? You can’t just deny a study like that. There wasn’t even any reason for him to deny it. At least there are only two more years until we can get rid of him.