63% of non citizens on welfare

[danielpalos]

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

Wow! I bet its only grown since then! Even more of a reason for the wall!

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective.

 

[longknife]

Most Migrant Households Rely on Welfare

This appears to be a valid site for such information with good information.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

Compared to 35% of native households

13 tables of data and 2 figures to back it all up. This outfit clearly did one heck of a lot of research to come up with the findings.

New "public charge" rules issued by the Trump administration expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, receipt of which may prevent a prospective immigrant from receiving lawful permanent residence (a green card).

Let’s see the Dims scream and holler and do everything they can to stop any changes to illegals receiving welfare. It’s what makes them vote for them.

Much more of this @ 63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

Census Data: 63 Percent of Non-Citizens Use Welfare Programs @ Census Data: 63 Percent of Non-Citizens Use Welfare Programs

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

 

[Mr Natural]

It’s the least we can do to make our guests feel welcomed.

 

[well named]

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.

 

[centerleftFL]

I would like to delve more deeply into the data they used for this, but there's an obvious and immediate detail which is a problem:

"Cash welfare includes the EITC..." (Figure 1)

I doubt that most of the people in this thread who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit consider themselves to be the recipients of welfare.

And I PROMISE they're on here. Even if they are younger and don't have a fucking clue their mommies or mommies and daddies got the EITC.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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





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

Leta them in. Let them in!

 

[well named]

Looking at the other tables in the report it doesn't look like use of EITC contributes that much to the total (~5%), so while I think it's a bit goofy I also think the other methodological issues are more important, especially the problem of comparing households without controlling at all for household size or individual recipients. The EITC thing just jumped out at me at first glance.

 

[centerleftFL]

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





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

SERIOUSLY? Let's look at CIS. Certainly has an innocuous sounding name doesn't it. It is not. Sometime back after reading some of their data, flares started going off. Sure enough my instincts were dead on. This is NOT a non-partisan think tank. That is bullshit. They are essentially NO-IMMIGRATION proponents or so

Center for Immigration Studies
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a think tank that, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), has "been part of a broad-based and well-planned effort to attack immigration in all forms" even though it now seeks -- and has largely attained -- more mainstream credentials.[1] It bills itself as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization"[2] and testified before Congress almost 100 times between 1995 and 2009.[1]

According to its website, CIS is "the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States." CIS states that its vision of America is "pro-immigrant, low-immigration," seeking "fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."[2] But according to the SPLC, "the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked."[1] CIS is part of the John Tanton Network, the anti-immigrant "empire of organizations" created by, or connected to, population-control advocate and nativist John Tanton.

FAIR
John Tanton

John H. Tanton is an American retired ophthalmologist and activist in efforts aimed at reducing immigration levels in the United States. He was the founder and first chairman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an immigration-reduction organization. He was chairman of U.S. English and ProEnglish. Wikipedia

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non-profit tax exempt organization in the United States that self-identifies as an organization seeking to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.[7] The group publishes position papers, organizes events, and runs campaigns in order to influence US immigration policies. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group with close ties to white supremacist groups.[8]

FAIR was founded in 1979 by the ophthalmologist John Tanton, former historian of labor movements and director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Otis L. Graham, Jr. and Sidney Swensrud, a former chairman of Gulf Oil and former governing board member of Planned Parenthood.[9][10][11]

The founding chairman, John Tanton, became leader of several anti-immigration groups[12] and held white supremacist beliefs while he led the organization

 

[centerleftFL]

Looking at the other tables in the report it doesn't look like use of EITC contributes that much to the total (~5%), so while I think it's a bit goofy I also think the other methodological issues are more important, especially the problem of comparing households without controlling at all for household size or individual recipients. The EITC thing just jumped out at me at first glance.

Awfully logical of you. I admit those #'s are all greek to me. I've never had to calculate or received it. I want to see the NUMBERS. Who gets it? Rules for getting it? Fair or not fair if you and your employer are PAYING TAXES, I'd have to have a really good reason to tell someone they can't have it.

Has any Rep. congress or President ever said or tried to kill it off? I don't remember if they did. I know BUSH pushed up the EITC credit in his 2 tax cuts back in 2001. Did Trump's and the REP congress' latest tax cuts boost it or was it a recalculation? Don't know. I also don't know if it is indexed to inflation so does it's level may rise automatically. On top of the federal credit, a bunch of states have their own version of the EITC.

(Remember it is over 40 years old now. It was started under another REP, Jerry Ford).

Who Is Eligible, and for How Much?
When filing taxes for 2018 (due in April 2019), working families with children that have annual incomes below about $40,320 to $54,884 (depending on marital status and the number of dependent children) may be eligible for the federal EITC. Also, working-poor people who have no children and have incomes below about $15,270 ($20,950 for a married couple) can receive a very small EITC. In the 2016 tax year, almost 26 million working families and individuals in every state received the EITC.

Using the amount for the income cap above, it would seem that MOST WORKING FAMILIES would qualify. The national median income is $61,372. (2017)

 

[well named]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make there, tbh. I'm a fan of the EITC regardless of its origins, and not so much a fan of CIS

 

[Meister]

merged

 

[eagle1462010]

It’s the least we can do to make our guests feel welcomed.

Party Crashers aren't invited guests.

 

[Ame®icano]

Like cockroaches.

Liveleak.com - US CBP repel caravan with tear gas/pepper spray.

 

[SweetSue92]

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

Wow! I bet its only grown since then! Even more of a reason for the wall!

It has grown. Now nearly 245% of ‘ non-citizens’ are on welfare. And the rest is about to be. This calls for a northern wall as well.

From Sweden.

Why don't you worry about your own invasion and let us worry about ours? Soon enough you'll be praying five times a day as it is.

 

[SweetSue92]

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

Wow! I bet its only grown since then! Even more of a reason for the wall!

It's odd that households headed by non-citizens that have adult natives use the programs at a greater percentage than those without adult natives in the household.

Hey, you can’t pollute a thread like this with reasonable arguments! You’re making sense - Stop it!

Erik from the Land of the Vikings says: meh, let whomever in and if they take your money, your land and your women--meh.

That's what Erik from the Land of the Vikings says. Meanwhile his Vikings ancestors are rolling over in their graves or, more like, laughing and laughing and laughing at what Scandinavia has become. Or maybe staring in disbelief.

 

[SweetSue92]

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

Wow! I bet its only grown since then! Even more of a reason for the wall!

It's odd that households headed by non-citizens that have adult natives use the programs at a greater percentage than those without adult natives in the household.

Hey, you can’t pollute a thread like this with reasonable arguments! You’re making sense - Stop it!

Erik the Viking from Sweden is one of my new favorite posters on US Message Boards. I mean this bears repeating. Because the world in 2018 is such a crazy messed up place that Erik the Viking from Sweden has this message for us:

YES! Let these invaders on your land!!! Let them come in and take your land and your goods and your women!!!

You're just perfect, Erik the Viking. I mean that. perfect.

 

[SweetSue92]

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

Wow! I bet its only grown since then! Even more of a reason for the wall!

It's odd that households headed by non-citizens that have adult natives use the programs at a greater percentage than those without adult natives in the household.

Hey, you can’t pollute a thread like this with reasonable arguments! You’re making sense - Stop it!

Hey Erik the Viking:

Do you endorse invaders taking over JUST the US mainland, or do you endorse this for Sweden as well, just as your Vikings ancestors did?

 

[007]

But, but, but... the democraps NEED THOSE ILLEGAL ALIEN VOTES...

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY

Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost The U.S. Plenty | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

... and the list just goes ON AND ON AND ON...

 

[ErikViking]

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

Wow! I bet its only grown since then! Even more of a reason for the wall!

It's odd that households headed by non-citizens that have adult natives use the programs at a greater percentage than those without adult natives in the household.

Hey, you can’t pollute a thread like this with reasonable arguments! You’re making sense - Stop it!

Hey Erik the Viking:

Do you endorse invaders taking over JUST the US mainland, or do you endorse this for Sweden as well, just as your Vikings ancestors did?

No question about the problems that comes with immigration. Not least here. But exaggeration and fear mongering doesn’t help. That will most likely having us all solving the wrong problem. I suggest staying cool and say what is right.

Here lies another problem, it is equally hard to get people to listen on both sides of the fence.

When criticising immigration you will be labelled as something bad. When you use humanitarian reasoning you are going to get another label. None of which is fair.

This post is an example of fear mongering. It’s only purpose is to make people dislike or fear or hate other people so that they can be thought of as non-human. That’s not right.

 

[SweetSue92]

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

Wow! I bet its only grown since then! Even more of a reason for the wall!

It's odd that households headed by non-citizens that have adult natives use the programs at a greater percentage than those without adult natives in the household.

Hey, you can’t pollute a thread like this with reasonable arguments! You’re making sense - Stop it!

Hey Erik the Viking:

Do you endorse invaders taking over JUST the US mainland, or do you endorse this for Sweden as well, just as your Vikings ancestors did?

No question about the problems that comes with immigration. Not least here. But exaggeration and fear mongering doesn’t help. That will most likely having us all solving the wrong problem. I suggest staying cool and say what is right.

Here lies another problem, it is equally hard to get people to listen on both sides of the fence.

When criticising immigration you will be labelled as something bad. When you use humanitarian reasoning you are going to get another label. None of which is fair.

This post is an example of fear mongering. It’s only purpose is to make people dislike or fear or hate other people so that they can be thought of as non-human. That’s not right.

Erik the "Viking", don't be projecting YOUR problems onto America. This is all projection.

Be a Viking man...own your problems. Don't project them.