Immigration reform is over, for now. The Big Con preceded it, and will continue in its wake.

According to a paper published by the Heritage Foundation at the height of the immigration debate, “low-skill immigrant households received $30,160 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means tested benefits, education, and population-based services). In general, low-skill immigrant households received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill immigrant households. In contrast, low-skill immigrant households pay less in taxes than do other households…”

Leave aside the above Colbert-style researchiness of the analysis–that they’re comparing big fat golden delicious apples (“the average U.S. Household) with tiny little apples (“low-skilled immigrant households”). The embarrassing quality of much of the research conservative think tanks expect us to take seriously is not the subject of this post. Its subject is what happens when two specimens research ordered up by Heritage reach different political conclusions.

This study concludes that “low-skilled immigrants increase poverty in the U.S. and impose a burden on taxpayers that should be avoided.” Indeed, keeping ’em coming would make it “necessary to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all means-tested welfare, and to cut expenditures on public education roughly in half” for such families in order to keep them from being a drag on the taxpayers.

The next day the conservative blog Captain’s Quarters observed (taking the above study at face value as “excellent work,” but again, not the subject of this post), “this would tend to argue against the inclusion of a guest-worker program as a component of immigration reform, and even more so against normalization altogether.”

Captain’s Quarters goes on to note another study by Heritage scholars that concludes enforcement-based immigration reform – of the sort favored by the right-wing base – “would likely have an adverse effect on the nation’s economy, largely because it does not contain provisions that would increase the number of legal work visas.” This paper says GDP would fall by an average of over $50 billion a year without those visas. For whatever reason – he doesn’t say why – the conservative blogger chooses to take the second study as authoritative: “Removing the illegal labor with no provision for replacement will damage the economy, a fact that seems fairly plain even without the extensive analysis provided in this paper.” For what it’s worth Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has its own problems with counting when it comes to their own preferred ideological claims, agrees: “In most cases immigrants will pay at least as much in lifetime federal taxes as they receive in benefits” and “have a positive financial impact on the most expensive federal entitlements: Medicare and Social Security.”

So, then: two Heritage studies, each with their supporters and detractors, each reaching conclusions pointing to different policy recommendations – the one, the position of the conservative base to keep Mexicans out of the U.S.; the other, the position of big business to keep them coming.

Sounds like, if you were actually a “think tank,” a welcome occasion for back and forth – especially as an important bill on the very subject is about to be debated in the Senate.

Not so fast. The next day, May 22, Heritage sent out a letter signed by “Edward J. Feulner, Ph.D.” to “members and supporters” that said: there is no debate. They appear to have, um, crunched the numbers. The fundraising numbers, that is.

Dear XXXXX,

There have been important—and troubling—developments on the illegal immigration front, and The Heritage Foundation needs your help to set things right.

Last Thursday, the White House and Senators from both parties endorsed a secretive deal, authored by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal migrants present in the United States. Remember, rewarding lawbreakers with an amnesty is wrong. While the proposed law includes some constructive language on border enforcement and strengthening legal means of immigration, there are so many loopholes in the law that Heritage Foundation experts are still trying to count them all….

Your contribution today will help ensure Heritage is able to get the message to lawmakers in Congress.

MyHeritage.org/OpposeAmnesty

The letter goes on to quote a conservative senator on the Senate floor:

“The Heritage Foundation, which got a copy of the bill somehow, is making this legislation, in draft form, publicly available to encourage widespread debate and discussion,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said yesterday on the Senate floor. “Thank goodness they did make it public.”

Our good Senator Sessions says Heritage’s nobly helping to “encourage widespread debate and discussion.” Yeah, right. Here’s how the Heritage Foundation invites “debate and discussion”: by issuing ideological dictates in boldface type. Remember, rewarding lawbreakers with an amnesty is wrong.

Note, by the way, how Heritage cons its conservative critics. They posted this missive to “Captain’s Quarters”:

“The ‘competing study’ that Captain Ed references is actually a companion study that has yet to be published by the Heritage Foundation. It is in the process of undergoing external peer review. On the basis of reviewer comments, substantial revisions have already been made. Heritage will post the study as soon as it’s final.”

As one conservative supporter of the Bush bill wrote me–he said it, I didn’t–“The idea of Heritage doing any sort of serious non-political peer review is farcical, to say the least.”

The Heritage Foundation generally doesn’t care for “peer review.” But when you’re in a public relations jam, the words sure come in handy.