Regarding statistics on immigration and its effect on local economys

This is in response to an article in Metro news which can be found on Pg 4 of the 11/27/07 paper: http://www.readmetro.com/show/en/NewYork/20071127/1/4/

Not that I have taken a stand on this yet but if you are to present statistics to support your position, lets at the very least present both sides. Mr. Miller, who by virtue of the way he has parsed his article, is ostensibly pro-immigration and has presented one-sided statistics to prove his point. Where are the expense factors in this report? He makes it seem that this is a net gain when tax payer supported expenses like indigent healthcare, unpaid income taxes, incarceration/public attorney expenses plus a plethora of other unrealized costs to the economy have not been addressed. OK, so they bring $229 billion in; what is the downside? That is the net gain, if in fact there is a gain. If it turns out after a real study is conducted, then we can say, there is a net upside to immigration and reform should be discussed. It is also possible that a real cost/benefit study has been done but Mr. Miller, like so many who use statistics out of context to support their position/agenda simply did not want to present those numbers. And since the Metro decided to present this clearly one-sided argument, I have little hope for a balanced view from Mr. Miller or this paper.