Thread: Influx into the US

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by misskit

^ From the same op Ed.

The cost and disruptions of such a plan, both economically and politically, could be enormous. The conservative American Action Forum, for example, figures it would take 20 years and $420 billion to deport the 12 million illegals here now.


Talk about turning America into a police state!

Trump's plan is a lot of airy fairy crap. Wishful thinking on the part of the supposed 59%

Plus I bet they've all got guns.

There's your depopulation right there.

Ever seen Red Dawn have ya, hairy?

What does that have to do with you deporting millions of armed illegals Booners?

Oh, nothing.

So what the fuck are you on about now?!

I honestly don't think he actually knows. Whenever he goes off script from the blog cut 'n pasting and is forced to actually think about something and foment and express his own thoughts and opinions it invariably comes out as utter nonsense or irrelevant dribble.

U.S. Farmers: Trump’s Immigration Plan Would Spell Disaster For Our Agricultural Industry |

"Statistics show that undocumented immigrants make up approximately 60 percent (1.4 million) of the agricultural work force. Republican candidates that want to crack down on these workers clearly have no clue just how much we rely on them when we go to the supermarket. Politico.com cites a study reporting that “if Congress passed an enforcement-only immigration bill… fruit production in the U.S. would drop by as much as 61 percent, food prices in grocery stores would rise by 6 percent and the average net farm income would drop by as much as 30 percent.” This shows that the conservative attack on immigration has nothing to do with helping the economy, and everything to do with petty identity politics and scapegoating minorities.

On top of that, the fact is these are not jobs that most Americans are eager to take anyway. According to Tim McMillan, owner of Southern Grace Farms in Georgia, “I can’t get American citizens to do the work. They just don’t want to do it".

Article is in the link.

^Left this bit out. Has some relevance I would say.

"This should not be understood as some kind of defect or moral failing on the part of immigrants," Camarota said about the findings. "Rather, what it represents is a system that allows a lot of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, who then earn modest wages and are eligible for a very generous welfare system."

^ That's right. The majority immigrants themselves are decent, hard working people who get peanuts for wages. It is our system which is broken.

If the entire costs of having these workers and their families were calculated and pushed back on their employers, I doubt the employers would be bothered with hiring them.

Instead, taxpayers get to once again subsidise businesses.

Originally Posted by Norton

^Left this bit out. Has some relevance I would say.

"This should not be understood as some kind of defect or moral failing on the part of immigrants," Camarota said about the findings. "Rather, what it represents is a system that allows a lot of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, who then earn modest wages and are eligible for a very generous welfare system."

Yes, it is relevant.

And reinforces the point that the type of immigrants being allowed into the US in such high numbers is a mistake.

Legal immigrants with say, the equivalent of a high school education and no skills are just adding more unemployable people to the job market.

There have been more and more articles/reports on this, even in the sympathetic papers like the NY Times and MotherJones.

There is a labor problem in the US.

Even college graduates cannot find jobs.

Why is an illiterate mother of eleven children dumped in upstate New York.

Where is she going to work?

Where does she get her money?

UTICA, N.Y. — Sadia Ambure is relieved that it is summer. “I hate the snow,” Sadia, who is 16, said. “It hurts my skin. I’m like a snake — my face turns red, then ashy.”

Harsh winters have been one of the challenges of living in this old manufacturing city in upstate New York for Sadia and her family, members of the Somali Bantu tribe. They arrived here from a Kenyan refugee camp almost a decade ago after a stint in St. Louis. “My body is trying to get used to America,” she said.

Her mother, Zahara Hassan, 38, who has 11 children, is just now learning to read and write.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/ny...y-adopted.html

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Legal immigrants with say, the equivalent of a high school education and no skills are just adding more unemployable people to the job market.

The immigrants are employed albeit at very low wages which puts them in a category allowing some level of public assistance.

Rather than restrict immigration, perhaps the answer is to make sure immigrant and nonimmigrant wages are sufficient to give them an income above level which allows public assistance.

This of course will drive up employer cost which in turn drive up consumer prices and slow consumption. Market investors don't like lower consumption numbers so little chance our goverments will make a move to give all folks a livable wage. Better to give low wage folks financial assistance as a way of subsidizing employers of low wage earners.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Legal immigrants with say, the equivalent of a high school education

That's me. Never unemployed, paid my taxes and never a penny received in any sort of public assistance. The current problem needs fixin but blaming immigrants is not the solution.

Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households | Center for Immigration Studies

An Analysis of Medicaid, Cash, Food, and Housing Programs

By Steven A. Camarota September 2015

This study is the first in recent years to examine immigrant (legal and illegal) and native welfare use using the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). While its complexity makes it difficult to use, the survey is widely regarded as providing the most accurate picture of welfare participation. The SIPP shows immigrant households use welfare at significantly higher rates than native households, even higher than indicated by other Census surveys.

•In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

•Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

•No single program explains immigrants' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.

•Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and use of housing programs is similar to natives.

•Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.

•Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children — 30 percent vs. 20 percent.

•The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

•The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education.

•The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent.

•In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent).

•Illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP. In a forthcoming report, we will estimate welfare use for immigrants by legal status. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants.

•Most new legal immigrants are barred from welfare programs when they first arrive, and illegal immigrants are barred as well. But the ban applies to only some programs; most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for at least some programs and the bar often does not apply to children; states often provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; naturalizing makes immigrants eligible for all programs; and, most important, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth.

•The heavy use of welfare by less-educated immigrants has three important policy implications: 1) prior research indicates that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly less-educated, so allowing them to stay in the country creates significant welfare costs; 2) by admitting large numbers of less-educated immigrants to join their relatives, the legal immigration system brings in many immigrants who are likely to access the welfare system; and 3) proposals to allow in more less-educated immigrants to fill low-wage jobs would create significant welfare costs.

Rest of study is in the link.

Conclusion to the above lengthy study:

Conclusion

While most research examining immigrant and native welfare use has relied on the Current Population Survey (CPS), this report has used the more difficult to use, but more accurate, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). While the CPS shows that immigrant households have higher welfare use than native households, this analysis based on the SIPP shows the gap between immigrant and native households is even larger than previously shown by the CPS. The SIPP shows a 21 percentage-point difference between immigrant and native households' welfare use — 51 percent vs. 30 percent. This a good deal higher than the 15 percentage-point gap shown by the CPS — 39 percent vs. 24 percent. The more accurate SIPP indicates immigrant welfare use is higher relative to native households than previously thought.

If one assumes that immigration is supposed to benefit the country, then immigrant welfare use should be much lower than natives'. Instead, the SIPP shows that, two decades after welfare reform tried to curtail immigrant eligibility, immigrant-headed households are using welfare at much higher rates than native households for most programs. Based on data collected in 2012, 51 percent of households headed by immigrants (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 30 percent of native-headed households. In addition to having higher welfare use, immigrant households pay less in taxes to the federal government on average than native households.

The vast majority (87 percent) of immigrant households had at least one worker in 2012, higher than the 76 percent of native households. But the relatively low education level of a large share of immigrants partly explains why more than half of working immigrant households accessed at least one major welfare program in 2012. Of immigrant households, 24 percent are headed by someone who has not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of native households. However, among the most educated households, those headed by a person with a bachelor's degree or more, immigrant households are still much more likely to use all forms of welfare than native households. Therefore, other factors such as culture and the exchange of information provided by immigrant social networks also likely play a significant role in explaining immigrant "success" in accessing welfare programs.49

A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. One way to describe what happens in regard to welfare is to recognize that most immigrants come to America to work, and most find jobs. However, many earn low wages because of their education levels, language skills, or other factors. As a result, many immigrants, especially those with children, are eligible for welfare programs, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, and to a lesser extent cash assistance. Well-developed social networks and high welfare use for many different programs in immigrant communities help each new wave of immigrants navigate the welfare system. Put a different way, the nation's welfare system is designed to assist low-income workers, primarily those with children. This describes a very large share of immigrant households and so their use of welfare programs reflects this fact.

It is also worth remembering that the high welfare use by immigrant households is not explained by the presence of adult natives in these households. The presence of adult natives actually slightly lowers the welfare use rates of immigrant households overall.

The discussion of what to do about immigrants' heavy use of welfare should be conducted with the recognition of its complexity. On the one hand, it is not enough to say that welfare use by immigrants is not a problem because illegal immigrants and newly arrived legal immigrants are barred from using most welfare programs. While advocates of expansive immigration often make this argument, it does not reflect the way the welfare system actually works. As discussed at length in the Appendix, restrictions on immigrant use of welfare cover only a modest fraction of legal immigrants at any one time, many programs are not barred, and numerous exceptions negate the restrictions. Further, benefits are often received on behalf of American-born children who have the same welfare eligibility as any other citizen.

Moreover, it is not enough to point out that most immigrants work. Work and welfare often go together. The welfare system, particularly non-cash programs, is specifically designed to help low-income workers. Nor is it enough to argue that low-income immigrants are no more likely to use welfare than low-income natives, when immigrants are much more likely to have low incomes than natives in the first place.

On the other hand, it is incorrect to see high use of non-cash welfare programs by immigrant households as a moral failing on their part. High welfare use among immigrants reflects the realities of the modern U.S. economy, which offers limited job opportunities to the less-educated, and the generous nature of the nation's welfare system, which means that immigrants will be more dependent on welfare programs than the native-born. Further, we should not be surprised that knowledge of the welfare system is extensive in well-networked immigrant communities.

It is also important to not compare today's immigrants with those who arrived 100 years ago during the prior great wave of immigration. Welfare simply did not exist at that time in the same way that it does now. Thus, prior immigration is not really relevant to the issue of current welfare use. When thinking about this issue, it makes more sense to acknowledge that spending on welfare programs is a part of every advanced industrial democracy, including ours. Moreover, we have to recognize that less-educated workers will earn modest wages in the modern American economy. Therefore our immigration policies need to reflect these realities. If we want to avoid this situation, past experience clearly demonstrates that, for practical and political reasons, trying to bar immigrant families that are already here from accessing these programs is not likely to be successful.

Our legal immigration system admits large numbers of less-educated immigrants who are primarily the family members of immigrants already here. Most of these immigrants work, but many are unable to provide for themselves or their children and so turn to the welfare system. If we continue to admit large numbers of less-educated legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants to remain, most of whom have modest levels of education, then immigrant welfare use will continue to be high in the future.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

Legal immigrants with say, the equivalent of a high school education and no skills are just adding more unemployable people to the job market.

Originally Posted by Black Heart

And reinforces the point that the type of immigrants being allowed into the US in such high numbers is a mistake.

^That right here is my biggest heartburn about it all coupled with they are given special concessions while native born people here are not. Being an illegal is one thing but letting in uneducated people to burden the system is just wrong. Just because they pass the test and get citizenship doesn't make them a contributor to the system. I know dozens of immigrants that came over so they could get their aging parents here. They openly talk about it. After a few years they start applying for all that special aid and medical assistance. Who is paying for it??? The People like me who cough up damn near 45% of my earnings to support it. There is no follow up once they have been sworn in and personally I think their should be. They just join the masses and milk the system.

Originally Posted by JPPR2

letting in uneducated people to burden the system is just wrong.

Uneducated folks are destined to be a burden on the system? Bit harsh there JP.
No doubt there are immigrants who come to the US to trick the system but they are a minority. Even so, benefits too easily obtained should be discontinued. This goes for native born folks who trick the system as well.

I remember the outrage, prediction of dire consequences and spiraling welfare cost from anti immigration folks when many thousands of Vietnamese boat people landed on our shores in the 70s. Those uneducated Vietnamese worked hard and took advantage of what the US had to offer. The children of the uneducated VN immigrants are doing quite well and certainly valued contributors to the US.

I hold strong the idea immigration is one of the US's great strenghts. Reform is needed but this still remains something special to me and so many worldwide.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by misskit

^ From the same op Ed.

The cost and disruptions of such a plan, both economically and politically, could be enormous. The conservative American Action Forum, for example, figures it would take 20 years and $420 billion to deport the 12 million illegals here now.


Talk about turning America into a police state!

Trump's plan is a lot of airy fairy crap. Wishful thinking on the part of the supposed 59%

Plus I bet they've all got guns.

There's your depopulation right there.

Ever seen Red Dawn have ya, hairy?

What does that have to do with you deporting millions of armed illegals Booners?

Oh, nothing.

So what the fuck are you on about now?!

Instead of Cubans & Russians them good 'ol boys will address the hoards of illegals pouring across the border.

Rather a dim bulb ain't ya, hairy...

So let me get this straight. I talk about trying to deport millions of armed immigrants and you suddenly start banging on about "good ol' boys" addressing "hordes pouring across the border".

You really aren't very bright, are you?

Originally Posted by JPPR2

the 100 question test immigrants take was simply not enough

All civics stuff. Needs to determine functional literacy which is far more important. Just one of many things that need changing via a comprehensive reform bill. Plenty of rhetoric regarding immigration by our politicians but no action since 1986 which primarily made it illegal to hire undocumented workers. Nice law but let's face it rarely enforced.

Originally Posted by JPPR2

Anybody can vouch financially on a application for the incoming person

Another bit needs change. You vouch, you are financially responsible for the person before and after naturalization. To your point, why should you pay via your taxes.

A bit of tax advice. After you retire, establish residence in Thailand and save yourself painful California taxes.

For some fun. Wonder how well native borns would do.

Quiz: US Citizenship Test (Part II) -- could you pass? - Washington Times

^ Missed one question on that test. I didn't remember representatives are elected every two years. Thought it was four.

Recently, I helped a friend with the citizenship test and the preparation questions given were much more difficult than this actual test. I don't even remember the one about representative terms being on the list.

Immigrants Don't Drain Welfare. They Fund It.
By Laura Reston

Republican presidential candidates who want to deport undocumented immigrants en masse, end birthright citizenship, and build a wall along the Mexican border just got some new ammunition. A report released Wednesday by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates for reducing immigration to the United States, has concluded that 51 percent of households headed by immigrants—legal or undocumented—receive some kind of welfare. “They are creating a significant burden on public coffers,” writes Steven Camarota, the study’s author and the director of research for CIS. “By using welfare programs immigrants may strain public resources, harming taxpayers and making it more difficult to assist the low-income population already in the country.”

While that sentiment is likely to resonate with conservatives, the facts prove otherwise: Native-born Americans aren’t footing the bill for immigrants so much as immigrants are contributing to a welfare system that many of them can't take advantage of.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 cut back on welfare extended to immigrants. It categorized green card holders and refugees granted asylum as “qualified,” and all other immigrants—including undocumented workers and many people lawfully here in the United States—as “not qualified” and therefore ineligible for welfare. But the law stipulated that even qualified immigrants had to spend five years in the United States before they could apply for benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, or cash assistance for families with children. Since that major welfare reform, some states have responded by providing for immigrants with programs that offer health care to the children of immigrants or pregnant mothers, and a few states—like California and New York—offer nutritional or cash assistance. But those efforts are mostly limited to qualified residents, while all other immigrants are still almost universally banned from receiving welfare.

The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.” As the Cato Institute notes in its critique of the study, that measure is “ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons.” Relying on such mutable methodology let Camarota exaggerate the number of immigrants on welfare to back up the claim that Americans are footing the bill for immigrants.

Groups like The American Immigration Council have long argued that, contra conservative depictions of “moocher,” immigrants have long given more to the welfare system than they take from it. “In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits,” a 2010 report by the Council found. “In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.” And a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2013 found that “more than half of undocumented immigrants have federal and state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.” Those immigrants are essentially helping to underwrite the welfare system, providing an enormous subsidy to it every year without being able to reap any of the benefits.

Camarota rejects that conclusion.

“We have an immigration system that lets in vast numbers of unskilled laborers. We tolerate illegal immigration,” he said in an interview. “Pretty much everyone concludes that it’s going to be a net drain.” He wants to institute a “selective” immigration system, one that cuts back on the number of immigrants and places an emphasis on allowing only educated, not unskilled, workers into the country.

Many economists would advise against such a plan. From construction sites in Virginia to farms along the California coastline, immigrants provide essential labor in an evolving economy. The Chamber of Commerce report found they are more than twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a new business each month. In fact, immigrants started 28 percent of all new businesses in the United States in 2011. Immigrants pay billions in taxes to the government every year; in Texas alone, they generate $1.6 billion annually in taxes. To deport millions en masse, sending them back to their home countries—to say nothing of Donald Trump’s proposal to uproot American citizens born here—would be economically disastrous.

Immigrants Don't Drain Welfare. They Fund It. | The New Republic

^ Harry ... thanks for finding and sharing the counter point article to the one I posted.

Increasing social security free for all will lead US to European way of life and that will be the end of America

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Increasing social security free for all will lead US to European way of life and that will be the end of America

What was that famous Lady Thatcher quote again?

"Socialism is a great form of government until you"...aw hell, y'all know the rest anyhow.

Yeah I know, wish the rest of the crowd would know

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Increasing social security free for all will lead US to European way of life and that will be the end of America

What was that famous Lady Thatcher quote again?

"Socialism is a great form of government until you"...aw hell, y'all know the rest anyhow.

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Yeah I know, wish the rest of the crowd would know

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Increasing social security free for all will lead US to European way of life and that will be the end of America

What was that famous Lady Thatcher quote again?

"Socialism is a great form of government until you"...aw hell, y'all know the rest anyhow.

They do but it doesn't fit with their ideological agenda which is utterly devoid of objectivity...