Not with certainty, but with probability. Mexican immigrants vastly outnumber Russian, Indian, Chinese, Korean, and Persian immigrants. But the entrepreneurship ratio is lopsided in the opposite direction. One group creates jobs on net, the other is a net tax recipient. And other developed countries like Canada and Singapore routinely distinguish between skilled and unskilled immigrants, so it's really not that hard a distinction to make.
I don't know if it's that simple: the very act of getting to America from Mexico has got to be cheaper and easier than from any of the other countries that you mentioned, surely. That is to say, because it's a lot cheaper to actually get to the USA from Mexico, more blue collar workers ("less entrepreneurial") are able to do so.
If all of those other countries shared a border with the USA, only then could you really start comparing the 'entrepreneurship ratio'.
And maybe you should be a bit more thankful to the group of people who ensure you can buy cheap produce in American supermarkets. Among other things...
For your median Hispanic household, during school age years with 3 kids we're talking about $24,900 per year in taxpayer expenditures, which is about 65% of their household income. This is likely significantly more than is paid in taxes by the household and is one line item; we have not yet included medical bills or the array of other costs borne by society.
Business owners are currently fobbing off the costs of unskilled immigration (illegal and otherwise) on the rest of society; your cheap produce is not cheap.
Education should be regarded as an investment. It has to be paid for, but we have 'nationalized' school as a strategic measure, intended to optimize the next generation's opportunities. Regardless of who's children they are, the 'cost' of not educating them will, over their lifetimes, be much greater than $8268.
Possibly true. However, given a surplus of people wishing to immigrate to the US, we should selfishly take all the immediate operating-profit applicants first before admitting any that require us to borrow money (feel-good or whole-world-utilitarian exceptions like asylum aside; credit them whatever value you think they're worth).
Kids don't 'wish' to immigrate - they get dragged along.
Furthermore, its not clear we in America are so poor we must operate on an immediate-profit bases, especially when considering human capital. You for instance. Should we eject you, probably a student by the sound of it, because you are not currently profitable?
Now you argue that you're already an American, which is true but firmly on the "I've got mine" side of politics and not pretty.
America is in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars and in the worst economy since the Great Depression. When do you think we should start looking at the profit/loss implications?
If it is an investment then we need to look at ROI and determine the point at which this investment becomes cash flow positive from a net tax expenditure standpoint. Chinese, Korean, Indian, Russian, Persian immigrants are throwing off cash in generation 1 -- wait and see is not required. But 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanic immigrants have not achieved significantly greater economic success than the 1st generation.
If it is an investment then we do need to look at these bottom line metrics.
Your numbers have nothing to do with being Hispanic. Is making $40000/year so rare for families with 2 or 3 kids? First we socialize schools then we complain when the costs are not covered by those using the schools. This is a very common pattern.
However, data on estimated tax liability is present, and it suggests immigrants are liable for very little in tax. This should be unsurprising - taxes are primarily paid by the highest income brackets, and immigrants tend to lie within the lowest income brackets.
Exactly. Plus, we dont export as much agriculture products as the US does. I have no data on this, but Germany is probably a net importer of agriculture products, despite all those subsidies and cheap labor from east europe.
