Not just the pie, but the slices of the pie.

I record this not because I have digested it, but in order to remember that it exists. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine produced a report, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration and found that

The long-term impact of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small, and that any negative impacts are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born high school dropouts. First-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born, but the second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. This report concludes that immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.

The Center for Immigration Studies took a look at the report and, while agreeing with the macro impact, came to somewhat different micro conclusions. CIS is a noted opponent of immigration policies as they currently exist but, in like manner, NAS was as likely subject to more positive support of existing policies.

The point CIS is making is that while there is a half trillion dollar increase to the national economy owing to immigration, there is a nearly half trillion dollar loss of income from unskilled and low skilled workers. Netting the two impacts yields a $50 billion contribution to the national economy but primarily because of suppressed wages and income for those at the bottom of the economic pyramid (unskilled and low-skilled workers) and the benefit accruing to businesses.

Does their analysis hold water? Don't have time to delve into the details, but they are correct that any analysis has to look at not only the macro net benefits but also at the ebbs and flows of costs and benefits to different groups within the US. A real but relatively small net benefit to the already prosperous 10% may not warrant the reduction in income of the native born low skilled demographic.