And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition.
For some reason, the New York Times online article did not link to that poll, so readers who do not trust the New York Times -- or readers who might be interested in characteristics of the poll, such as sample size, representativeness, and question wording -- must track down the poll themselves.
It appears that the poll cited by Adam Davidson is here and is limited to the aggregate effect of high-skilled immigrants:
The average US citizen would be better off if a larger number of highly educated foreign workers were legally allowed to immigrate to the US each year.
But concern about immigration is not limited to high-skilled immigrants and is not limited to the aggregate effect: a major concern is that low-skilled immigrants will have a negative effect on the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. There was a recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists on that concern, and that poll found more than a single economist to agree with that proposition; fifty percent, actually:
My comment at the New York Times summarizing this post, available after nine hours in moderation.