63% of Non-Citizens in U.S. are on the Dole

[boedicca]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

 

[Asclepias]

Just watch some idiot claim this money is going to illegal immigrants.

 

[bendog]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

 

[well named]

Two other threads on this were merged and then closed, but I'm going to just copy/paste what I wrote before:

It looks like this is similar in methodology to a previous CIS report, and suffers from some similar defects, as described by the Cato Institute (see also Cato's analysis, based on different data). This is the main issue, I think:

"The CIS report compared all immigrant households and all of their inhabitants, including millions of native-born citizen children and U.S.-born spouses, with all households headed by native-born Americans. Richwine admits that the larger family size of immigrant households accounts for much (not all) of their greater welfare use because those born in the United States are eligible for all means-tested welfare benefits – even though Table 6 shows that immigrant households controlled for children consume a lower level of benefits. A household level analysis does not reveal who receives the benefits, leaving the impression that the immigrants are the intended legal beneficiaries when they are often legally excluded from these programs.

The CIS report should have compared immigrant individuals to native-born individuals for three reasons. First, the number of people in an individual does not vary but the number of people in a household can vary tremendously. The greater number of children in the immigrant household, rather than any different level of individual welfare use, is what largely drove the report’s results."
​

Apparently the two think tanks have been having this argument for a while. This paragraph in response to a slightly older (but again similar) CIS report also seems to apply here:

"The third issue with the CIS report is that they omitted the cash value of welfare benefits consumed by immigrant and native households. CIS only analyzed the use rates for each welfare program but they do not tell you how much welfare was actually consumed. For instance, the cash value for many welfare benefits are determined by the number of eligible members living in the household. If only half of the members of a household are eligible then the benefits are reduced [n.b. that the actual non-citizen household residents are ineligible -- wn]. Furthermore, CIS does not report how long immigrant households are in these benefit programs compared to natives. Immigrants could be on these programs more frequently but for shorter periods of time and with fewer beneficiaries per household – which is roughly what we found."
​

They raise some other objections but I think these are the most important and least subjective of them.

 

[boedicca]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).

First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.

 

[TheDude]

But but but they contribute so much to the ecomoney.

 

[The Original Tree]

So are 47% of our Citizens. Can't we Deport all of them at once? We could pay off The National Debt with the money these Sponges bleed us for!

I am actually ok with 20-30% of our population of Citizens on Public Assistance.

Where we are getting slaughtered is with the 65% of immigrants on the dole. We need some kind of rule that you cannot apply for assistance until you are in The US for 15-20 years.

Or we can put everyone on an Island like Denmark does.

Denmark Plans to Isolate Unwanted Migrants on a Small Island

COPENHAGEN — Denmark plans to house the country’s most unwelcome foreigners in a most unwelcoming place: a tiny, hard-to-reach island that now holds the laboratories, stables and crematory of a center for researching contagious animal diseases.

As if to make the message clearer, one of the two ferries that serve the island is called the Virus.

“They are unwanted in Denmark, and they will feel that,” the immigration minister, Inger Stojberg, wrote on Facebook.

On Friday, the center-right government and the right-wing Danish People’s Party announced an agreement to house as many as 100 people on Lindholm Island — foreigners who have been convicted of crimes but who cannot be returned to their home countries. Many would be rejected asylum seekers.

 

[boedicca]

But but but they contribute so much to the ecomoney.

What they contribute is more jobs for the Permanent Fusion Status Quo Swamp Party Bureaucracy.

 

[bendog]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).

First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.

We cannot legally make it illegal for illegal immigrants to get some forms of public assistance. Perhaps it's possible to change that with legislation. However, it is not constitutional to deny educational and medical services even to children here illegally, and it's doubly not constitutional to deny services to "anchor babies" and the 14th is not likely going to be changed by the Sup Ct.

But we could fine Big League anyone hiring an illegal alien without taking steps to ascertain legal status. And we should do that.

But Trump's still out of his mind on chain immigration, and I think we should keep people who legitimately qualify for asylum, regardless of financial ability on their part.

 

[boedicca]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).

First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.

We cannot legally make it illegal for illegal immigrants to get some forms of public assistance. Perhaps it's possible to change that with legislation. However, it is not constitutional to deny educational and medical services even to children here illegally, and it's doubly not constitutional to deny services to "anchor babies" and the 14th is not likely going to be changed by the Sup Ct.

But we could fine Big League anyone hiring an illegal alien without taking steps to ascertain legal status. And we should do that.

But Trump's still out of his mind on chain immigration, and I think we should keep people who legitimately qualify for asylum, regardless of financial ability on their part.

Yes, we can. We absolutely can make citizenship or legal residency a requirement for receiving benefits.

 

[Claudette]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).

First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.

Used to be to come to this country you had to have a sponsor. Someone who provide everything for you. That ended when the Govt. decided the tax payers could foot the bills.

And no one who isn't a US citizen should be getting anything from our social services.

 

[Meathead]

Just watch some idiot claim this money is going to illegal immigrants.

Well, that and black Americans.

 

[Meathead]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).

First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.

We cannot legally make it illegal for illegal immigrants to get some forms of public assistance. Perhaps it's possible to change that with legislation. However, it is not constitutional to deny educational and medical services even to children here illegally, and it's doubly not constitutional to deny services to "anchor babies" and the 14th is not likely going to be changed by the Sup Ct.

But we could fine Big League anyone hiring an illegal alien without taking steps to ascertain legal status. And we should do that.

But Trump's still out of his mind on chain immigration, and I think we should keep people who legitimately qualify for asylum, regardless of financial ability on their part.

Eh? Where in the Constitution does it sat anything about rights to free stuff?

 

[bendog]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).

First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.

We cannot legally make it illegal for illegal immigrants to get some forms of public assistance. Perhaps it's possible to change that with legislation. However, it is not constitutional to deny educational and medical services even to children here illegally, and it's doubly not constitutional to deny services to "anchor babies" and the 14th is not likely going to be changed by the Sup Ct.

But we could fine Big League anyone hiring an illegal alien without taking steps to ascertain legal status. And we should do that.

But Trump's still out of his mind on chain immigration, and I think we should keep people who legitimately qualify for asylum, regardless of financial ability on their part.

Eh? Where in the Constitution does it sat anything about rights to free stuff?

I don't answer to racist fucktards

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anyone have a pragmatic solution to the chaos created by decades of kicking the issue of migrants down the road?

Anyone? For sure the solution is not to build a wall / Potemkin Village as Trump demands.

 

[shockedcanadian]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

You're doing much better than some European nations, I read there was between 92-95% of new immigrants who were without work, A YEAR AFTER they arrived.

 

[dblack]

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders.

This is an indictment of the welfare state, not an argument for closed borders. The truth of the matter is that you can't have a free society with a welfare state.

 

[boedicca]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

You're doing much better than some European nations, I read there was between 92-95% of new immigrants who were without work, A YEAR AFTER they arrived.

And that is a big reason why the social contract in Europe is breaking down faster than it is in the U.S.

 

[boedicca]

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders.

This is an indictment of the welfare state, not an argument for closed borders.

You can't have both - that was a key point.

 

[Meathead]

The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.

View attachment 232726

As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:

Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.

A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)

If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?

And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?

And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:

Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).

First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.

We cannot legally make it illegal for illegal immigrants to get some forms of public assistance. Perhaps it's possible to change that with legislation. However, it is not constitutional to deny educational and medical services even to children here illegally, and it's doubly not constitutional to deny services to "anchor babies" and the 14th is not likely going to be changed by the Sup Ct.

But we could fine Big League anyone hiring an illegal alien without taking steps to ascertain legal status. And we should do that.

But Trump's still out of his mind on chain immigration, and I think we should keep people who legitimately qualify for asylum, regardless of financial ability on their part.

Eh? Where in the Constitution does it sat anything about rights to free stuff?

I don't answer to racist fucktards

"... and it's doubly not constitutional to deny services to "anchor babies".

Doubly not Constitutional?!