The whole point of the study was that the majority of folks coming in on visa programs like the H-1B aren't "going to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDP." We already have O visa programs for those kinds of individuals. Out of 65,000 H-1B applicant slots every year, I'd expect to see bigger economic waves if all of them were contributing hundreds of thousands or even millions to GDP.
Is there something wrong with the methodology of the study? I have a great deal of disdain for libertarian front groups like the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute, but I don't immediately dismiss any study they come out with by virtue of their Boards. Mistaking the presence of an agenda for deliberate scientific dishonesty seems excessive; that the data may align with or contradict one's bias doesn't invalidate it either way.
Is there something wrong with the methodology of the study? I have a great deal of disdain for libertarian front groups like the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute, but I don't immediately dismiss any study they come out with by virtue of their Boards. Mistaking the presence of an agenda for deliberate scientific dishonesty seems excessive; that the data may align with or contradict one's bias doesn't invalidate it either way.