The report examines the two categories of immigrants (naturalized citizens and noncitizens)separately in order to disentangle the economic costs and benefits associated with each.

Since it does not distinguish between foreign workers hear legally on visas and illegal aliens, any information under "noncitizen" is almost worthless when trying to analyze the impact of the illegal aliens. i.e. "noncitizen" is illegal aliens plus legal aliens. Immigrants are naturalized citizens.

Education: For this analysis, English Language Learner (ELL) enrollment was used as a proxy for the number of immigrant children in Arizona's public schools. The 2004 cost of ELL education in Arizona was $544 million of which $352.2 million (65 percent) was incurred in Maricopa County.

Yet even that almost worthless guideline is not used here. No mention is made of the two categories. All are lumped under "immigrant."

Of the $134.4 million in uncompensated care costs associated with immigrants, $119.9 was incurred by non-citizens.

Better, but we still don't know the split between the legal and illegal `noncitizen."

Of the $641.9 million in (Medicaid) AHCCCS costs associated with
immigrants, $477.4 million was incurred by non-citizens.

That's right at 75%. But still no information on illegal alien vs legal alien.

..the cost to the Arizona Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $90.9 million, of which $89.1 million was for non-citizens.

So naturalized citizens were $1.8 million. Illegals and legals were $89.1 million. That is a HUGE number. The question is, of course, what did the illegals cost?

Consumer spending in 2004 by naturalized citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $6.06 billion. Approximately 38,500 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending

Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $4.41 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time...

Here again we have no legal vs illegal split, and worse, we find the number of jobs that can be attributed to this spending is almost identical based on the dollars spent for both groups. 6400 per billion/naturalized vs 6360 per billion/non citizens Why you would expect a demographic group that has a very large number of low income consumers to produce the same amount of spending as a demographic with higher incomes, is not explained. It does suggest that no serious attempt was done to determine the actual numbers.

The bias of the report is further highlighted by such statements as:

Agriculture: A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs..

This, of course is a "the sky is falling" argument, and does not take into consideration that with sufficient pay many of the jobs would be taken by citizens who are either now unemployed or under employed and looking for better pay. It also doesn't take into consideration that it would be possible to introduce more legal immigrants into the country.

Arizona's foreign-born population has grown significantly since 1990 when there were 268,700
immigrants in the state. By the year 2000, the number of immigrants had grown by 143 percent to
652,200 and by 2004 it had grown to 830,900 people, an increase of over 300 percent from 1990.

Again there are no numbers of the illegals, but the study shows that in 14 years the gross number had increased 300 percent. On an annul basis that would be approximately 8% per year, for an expected doubling to  approximately 1,680,000 in 9 years, or 2013. Since the increase isn't linear, look at the change between 2000 and 2004, of about 90,000 per year, or near 2,000,000  by 2013..

And the real problem is that of the 831,000 immigrant growth, 619,800 is non- US citizen. Being generous and saying that 15% are here on visas, that means 85% are illegal, or a total of about 1,700,000..... And that assumes a linear growth for the next 9 years or so when we know the growth has been expotential.

And since we also know that labor is a commodity that is sold, there will be no increase in wages, no better working conditions as long as this unlimited supply is made available.