>> In second year economics my prof would have failed me for such a basic conclusion. This is a hilarious comment. You are saying that your economics professo

>> In second year economics my prof would have failed me for such a basic conclusion. This is a hilarious comment. You are saying that your economics professor would have failed you for making a claim akin to what one of these three Economics Nobel laureates claimed in a very well known, classic article in the labor literature? I'm an economics professor and I would be delighted to see work like this from an undergrad! >> Now that's a negative effect. He made the assertion of NO negative effects. What you and later studies have identified is that there may be heterogeneous causal effects across groups. There is a large literature on this topic! >> if a study is so easily invalidated... I'm not worried about this. You have not "invalidated" this study with five minutes of thinking! >>> it's bad data (well, bad methodology from start to finish) because it draws a conclusion based on correlation between immigration and unemployment/wages 1. It is not bad methodology. That is literally what half of the prize which went to Imbens and Angrist is about. This is a methodology which permits making causal claims in the absence of an experiment! 2. It is not drawing a conclusion based on a correlation. For more information about what they actually did and how it works (and this is a big interesting topic!) you might benefit from the Nobel Foundation's scientific background paper on this prize, here: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2021/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2021.pdf https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2021/10/advanced-economic...