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

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Art I, sec 8, clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

i.e., the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (sometimes also called the "Elastic Clause") grants Congress a set of so-called implied powers—that is, powers not explicitly named in the Constitution but assumed to exist due to their being necessary to implement the expressed powers that are named in Article I.

 

[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

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.

Europe allowed millions in on refugee status. Open ended refugee status. Most come here looking for a better job.

 

[Asclepias]

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

Well, that and black Americans.

and the idiot I predicted appears on cue.

 

[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.

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

My point is that we should be working to minimize the welfare state, not building walls to accommodate it.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

My point is that we should be working to minimize the welfare state, not building walls to accommodate it.

How are you going to do that if capitalism cannot exist without a welfare state?

 

[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.

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

My point is that we should be working to minimize the welfare state, not building walls to accommodate it.

How are you going to do that if capitalism cannot exist without a welfare state?

If.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Should non-citizens be able to serve in the military? You know, do the brave things that cowards like your messiah won’t do?

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/VNA-Fact-Sheet.pdf

 

[WillowTree]

Build the damn wall.

 

[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.

Europe allowed millions in on refugee status. Open ended refugee status. Most come here looking for a better job.

And yet when most are unskilled and uneducated, most end up on the dole.

 

[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.

My point is that we should be working to minimize the welfare state, not building walls to accommodate it.

We should both minimize the welfare state and protect our borders.

 

[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.

Should non-citizens be able to serve in the military? You know, do the brave things that cowards like your messiah won’t do?

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/VNA-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Sure as a way to gain citizenship. I have no problem with that.

Its the other illegals who should be booted out of our country.

Oh and he's not my messiah. That's all in your rabid little brain.

He is a damned good POTUS though. Even if you can't see it.

Piss off.

 

[Asclepias]

Build the damn wall.

No thanks. No one intelligent wants a monument to Drumpfs stupidity. Besides Mexico already said they wont pay for it.

 

[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?

Art I, sec 8, clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

i.e., the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (sometimes also called the "Elastic Clause") grants Congress a set of so-called implied powers—that is, powers not explicitly named in the Constitution but assumed to exist due to their being necessary to implement the expressed powers that are named in Article I.

So no. No Constitutional right to free stuff.

 

[bendog]

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.

I think the first defense has to be employment and housing. The notion of an "identity card" was kicked to the curb by dems back in the Reagan reforms. And there has to be some penalty for employers who don't demand to see a card, and who hire/rent to some % of illegal aliens. Dems have to compromise

Secondly, I think we have to triple our deportation of families found here illegally. Sessions did a good thing in hiring a lot of judges despite Trump at least initially saying he didn't want that. One unfortunate result would be deporting one or both parents of children born here. Inevitably, we'd be telling parents to take very young children with them, or never see them again. I think we'd have to accept some form of "amnesty" by allowing parents of older children who have been raising kids here for years to stay ... perhaps without ever being allowed to become citizens. The GOP would have to compromise.

 

[WillowTree]

Build the damn wall.

No thanks. No one intelligent wants a monument to Drumpfs stupidity. Besides Mexico already said they wont pay for it.

Then don’t tax Americans.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Should non-citizens be able to serve in the military? You know, do the brave things that cowards like your messiah won’t do?

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/VNA-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Sure as a way to gain citizenship. I have no problem with that.

Its the other illegals who should be booted out of our country.

Oh and he's not my messiah. That's all in your rabid little brain.

He is a damned good POTUS though. Even if you can't see it.

Piss off.

He sucks both as a person and as a POTUS. More as a POTUS actually.

You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. Imagine my shock.

 

[Asclepias]

Build the damn wall.

No thanks. No one intelligent wants a monument to Drumpfs stupidity. Besides Mexico already said they wont pay for it.

Then don’t tax Americans.

Drumpf is going to tax americans to get the wall built dummy. Did you really believe him when he said he was going to make Mexico pay for it?

 

[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?

Art I, sec 8, clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

i.e., the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (sometimes also called the "Elastic Clause") grants Congress a set of so-called implied powers—that is, powers not explicitly named in the Constitution but assumed to exist due to their being necessary to implement the expressed powers that are named in Article I.

I don't truck with racist focks, and Meathead qualifies there ... big league. But more so its in the equal protection clause.

Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia

 

[boedicca]

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.

Should non-citizens be able to serve in the military? You know, do the brave things that cowards like your messiah won’t do?

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/VNA-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Sure as a way to gain citizenship. I have no problem with that.

Its the other illegals who should be booted out of our country.

Oh and he's not my messiah. That's all in your rabid little brain.

He is a damned good POTUS though. Even if you can't see it.

Piss off.

He sucks both as a person and as a POTUS. More as a POTUS actually.

You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. Imagine my shock.

 

[sparky]

So.....anyone care to opine on how_____% of _____(enter ethinicity) is <only> _____% employed in this booming Trump economy?

~S~