surplus to the federal government, but a net cost to some states and most localities" (Fix, M and Passel, J.S. Immigration and Immigrants - Setting the record straight.1994- http://www.urban.org/pubs/immig/immig.html). They also argue that when refugees are not included, immigrants of a working age are considerably less likely to receive welfare than natives. It is argued that the misconception that immigrants are likely to live on welfare results from major flaws with the way in which research is carried out. Passel and Fix argue that the research ignores that the integration of immigrants is dynamic. That their incomes and tax contributions both increase the longer they live in the United States, and that, incomes vary considerably for different types of immigrants and also that the studies do not take into account the indirect benefits of job creation from immigrant businesses or from immigrant spending. They also claim that the negative impact of immigrants are overstated for a number of reasons, including: tax collections from immigrants are understated, service costs for immigrants are overstated and that benefits of immigrant-owned businesses as well as the economic benefits generated by consumer spending from immigrants are ignored. Although it is difficult to find truly impartial data or research on the matter, it can be argued that immigration does not have a substantial negative effect on government spending, due to the amount of money generated by immigrants. In the USA alone, it is estimated that annual taxes paid by immigrants generate a net surplus of $25 to $30 billion (Fix, M and ...
