Study Paints Positive Picture of Immigration : Government: Both legal and illegal immigrants use fewer government resources than native-born citizens, the report says. Critics contend that the findings are slanted.

A new study on the effects of immigration finds that total per capita government expenditures are much lower for immigrants--legal and illegal--than for native-born citizens.

The report also paints an upbeat picture of immigrants’ educational achievements and asserts that the nation’s natural resources and environment are unaffected by the influx of immigrants.

“As of the 1970s, immigrants contributed more to the public coffers in taxes than they drew out in welfare services,” the report says. “The most recent data . . . show that each year an average immigrant family put about $2,500 into the pockets of natives from this excess of taxes over public costs.”

The study, to be issued this morning in Washington by the National Immigration Forum, an immigration-advocacy group, and the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, comes at a time when Congress is wrestling with major immigration bills and public opinion is increasingly negative on immigration issues.

Legislation is progressing in both houses of Congress to clamp down on illegal immigration and--to the dismay of many immigration advocates--restrict entry of legal immigrants as well.

The issue has split Republicans, some of whom see the free flow of legal immigrants as an economic boon to the country. Immigrant-rights groups say the political activism to stem illegal immigration has unfairly led to the limitations on legal immigrants.

But groups pushing for stronger restrictions on immigration branded the report, authored by University of Maryland professor Julian L. Simon, as biased.

“Julian Simon is not a liar,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “but he gets as close as anyone can be to one. He is intentionally deceptive, manipulative and grossly in error.” Signifying the sensitivity of the issue, more than 20 interest groups and think tanks have signed on to the report, and they span the political spectrum--from the immigrant-rights group, the National Council of La Raza, to the Progress and Freedom Foundation, an organization closely associated with House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a strong supporter of legal immigration, is scheduled to address the Capitol press conference where the report is to be released today.

Among the report’s most controversial findings is Simon’s conclusion that government expenditures are lower for immigrants than for native-born Americans.

According to the report, the average immigrant family received $1,404 in welfare services in its first five years in the country. Native-born families averaged $2,279, Simon writes. The report makes these other points:

* The number of illegal immigrants in the United States--estimated at 3.2 million--is not very different from a decade before.

* More than half of illegal immigrants enter legally and overstay their visas; less than half enter clandestinely.

* New immigrants are more concentrated than native-born citizens in the youthful labor force ages when people contribute more to the public coffers than they draw out.

* Immigrants on average have a year less education than natives--about the same relationship as has been observed back to the 19th century.

* Natural resources and the environment are not at risk from immigration.

“The most surprising finding,” said Simon in an interview Friday, “is that there is no surprise whatsoever. Everything is exactly as it was 10 and 20 years ago. Claims that immigrants used to be economically beneficial but are no longer so . . . are utterly false.”

Such optimistic findings collide with the views of other researchers.

“His numbers are conventional and unremarkable,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. “The question is what sort of spin Julian puts on them. He has his bias, and the bias has a very significant influence on the interpretation he has put on the facts.”

For example, Krikorian said, Simon reports that the number of immigrant high school dropouts has been declining.

“But what he doesn’t mention,” said Krikorian, “is the gap between the percentage of American high school dropouts and the percentage of immigrant high school dropouts is widening. It’s pretty obvious that the education gap in increasing. By not addressing [that] he makes his document an advocacy document.”

Because of the emotions surrounding the immigration issue, researchers, including Simon, expect criticism from other experts.

“Convene any respectable panel of economists,” said Simon, “and I’m prepared to wager a month’s pay that my data is straight.”