Wednesday, March 20, 2019

BETOMATIC'S ILLEGALS - 400 ILLEGALS SHOWED UP IN EL PASO TO VOTE FOR LA RAZA SUPREMACIST BILLIONAIRE FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS BETO "BETOMATIC" O'ROURKE

400 Migrants Apprehended Within Five Minutes in El Paso Sector


El Paso Sector Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 400 migrants in a five-minute period on March 19, 2019. (Photo: U.S. Border Patrol/El Paso Sector)
Photo: U.S. Border Patrol/El Paso Sector
181
3:00

El Paso Sector Border Patrol agents apprehended two large groups of Central American migrants after they illegally crossed the border from Mexico. Agents apprehended the two groups totaling more than 400 during a five-minute period early Tuesday.

Agents patrolling near Bowie High School came upon a group of 194 migrants at about 2:45 a.m. Tuesday. Approximately five minutes later, other agents patrolling the border further west came upon a second group consisting of 252 migrants. The second group crossed the border near downtown El Paso, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials.
Officials said that during the first three hours of Tuesday morning, their agents apprehended more than 430 people. Officials called it just “another busy day for the El Paso Sector Border Patrol.”




View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

agents apprehended 2 large groups within 5 minutes of one another in El Paso Sector early this morning. The groups totaled 430 individuals—mostly Central American families and unaccompanied children. http://bit.ly/2Hw7etW 


“In the last 30 days, the U.S. Border Patrol El Paso Sector is averaging 570 apprehensions a day, with 90 percent of those being in the El Paso Metropolitan Area,” officials stated. “These numbers continue to stretch the resources available to the U.S. Border Patrol to deal with this influx and the challenges that come with it.”
During the first five months of Fiscal Year 2019 (which began on October 1, 2018) El Paso Sector officials reported a 1,689 percent increase in the number of Family Unit Aliens apprehended in the sector, according to the February Southwest Border Migration Report. In February alone, the agents apprehended 13,744 migrants including 10,509 family units and 1,517 unaccompanied minors.
So far this year, agents in the nine southwest Border Patrol sectors apprehended more than 268,000 migrants including 136,150 family units and 26,937 unaccompanied minors. All sectors except for the Big Bend and Laredo Sectors reported increases of more than 200 percent in family unit apprehensions. The Laredo Sector reported only a 77 percent increase and the Big Bend Sector reported only a 17 percent increase.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for the Breitbart Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.



The Heritage Foundation records over a thousand successfully 

prosecuted cases of voter fraud in the U.S.  Not included in their 

records is a recent example near me.  It was a vote-harvesting 

scheme using absentee ballots perpetrated by the previous mayor of

Waverly, a small town about an hour from the Va. capitol.  It was 

not listed because Richmond’s infamous attorney, Joe Morrissey, 

traveled to the sticks to get a fellow Democrat acquitted.

Beto O’Rourke Demands End Of “Racist” Voter ID Laws





Speaking at Keene State College on Tuesday, the former Texas congressman also called for expanding same-day voter registration across the nation, as well as federal oversight of the voting system.
He says, “We have kept too many people out for too long.”
Republicans have pursued voter ID laws aimed at preventing in-person voter fraud, including by people in the country illegally. Many experts say such voter fraud is extremely rare, and critics contend the efforts are meant to suppress turnout from groups who tend to back Democrats, including racial minorities and college students.


IS BETOMATIC A CLONE OF BANKSTER-OWNED BARACK OBAMA, THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST WHO SURRENDERED OUR BORDERS FOR 8 YEARS AS HE AND HOLDER SERVICED THEIR CRONY CRIMINAL BANKSTERS.

*


*
 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” – Karen McQuillan  AMERICAN THINKER.com
*
OBAMANOMICIS:

Further, nearly 60% think that the next generation will be worse off than they are. And few have any faith that the economic outlook for the country will improve in the near or distant future.
*

There are many parallels between “Betomania” and “Obamamania,” and O’Rourke has been called the “white Obama.”


He is married to the daughter of a billionaire, so if nominated, Democrats would have a hard time attacking Republicans for supporting a billionaire president without being accused of hypocrisy. 
*

“Beto also questioned whether the Constitution was still relevant, which makes one wonder how seriously he would take the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” should he be sworn in as president.”
*


WORDS OF A PSYCHOPATH BARACK OBAMA:

"In his 2006 autobiography The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama wrote, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  That is why Obama won the presidency, and should O’Rourke win too, that is why he will have won" 

BETO O’ROURKE HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY MEXICO. HOW IMPORTANT WILL THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES BE?
*
“In 2018, a volunteer for the Beto campaign urged followers to transport undocumented aliens (ILLEGALS) to the polls.”
*
“Many liberals believe that anyone in the United States – citizen or non-citizen – should be able to vote.  If they want to make that argument and change the law to make it happen, they are more than welcome to try.  Of course, if they run on that issue, they will get slaughtered at the polls.  So instead of going to the American people and working to change the law, they try an underhanded dirty trick to achieve the same goal.” APOLO VILLALOBOS

"American elites continue focusing on a global order while ignoring the decline of the United States. A broken America will be unable to meet any geopolitical threats abroad. Any national security strategy that does not begin with securing our own national security at home will be doomed to fail." DANIEL GREENFIELD

Knowing that the wall will become a reality if the President gets the cash brings out the cheap-labor-express, wealthy power brokers like the Billionaires for Open Borders: Michael Bloomberg; Rupert Murdoch; other distinguished members of the Forbes 500; and, as Lou Dobbs often reminds us, the "globalists, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, Koch brothers and Wall Street." 

LA RAZA SUPREMACIST BETO “BETOMATIC” O’ROURKE… openly endorsed by Mexico!
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/12/rep-beto-orourke-celebrates-his.html
O’Rourke tweeted his support for hundreds of undocumented people into American communities.
*
“Many thanks to volunteers & donors who ensure that we take care of families being released by ICE in El Paso. 200 to be released today. Over 500 tomorrow.” BETO O’ROURKE
*
 We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico….. AND THE ENEMY IS THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY!

Democrats are Changing to Rules on Voting to Ensure Permanent Majorities for Them


The November 2018 election brought sweeping changes to election law in Michigan. Proposal_2, establishing a non-partisan ‘independent’ redistricting commission, and Proposal_3, mandating several registration/voting policy changes, passed with better than 60% of the vote and were incorporated into the Michigan constitution. Apparently, the constitutional amendment path was used to block a possible future Republican legislature and governor from rescinding these provisions. However, at this time there is little chance there will be any attempt at that, because Michigan voters also enthusiastically rushed three Democrat females into the offices of the governor, attorney general and secretary of state.
The Republicans may hold a majority in both the House and Senate, but they aren’t in much of a position to force any changes, constitutionally or otherwise. And besides, how long will that majority last with H.R. 1, Pelosi’s get-out-the-progressive-vote plan, now firmly incorporated into Michigan’s voting law?
Even more troubling is the evidence that the process of converting the U.S. into a permanently Democrat majority is further along than one might imagine. An article in the Washington Examiner by J. Christian Adams describing theprovisions of H.R. 1 led to a closer examination of the Proposal 3 features which include:
·      Straight-ticket voting
The links given above are to the Ballotpedia pages describing these registration/voting policies and include a listing of states that as of August of 2018 had adopted these policies. The number of electoral votes subject to the impact of these policies in the 2020 election is summarized here:
Number of electoral votes up for grabs in voting subject to the following policies
·      Same-day registration:     204
·      Straight-ticket voting:         86
·      Automatic registration:    201
·      No-excuse absentee:        298
The fifty-state electoral vote total is 538. These figures do not include any states that may, through legislation or administrative procedure, adopt any of the H.R. 1 policies prior to the 2020 election.
The spreadsheet used to construct this summary is available for examinationhere. Sheet 2 provides a summary of election policy issues on the ballot in 2018 in various states. Note that the sort order is by decreasing number of electoral votes for a given state. This explains the ongoing effort by the Democrats to bring the Texas 38 electoral votes under the aegis of H.R. 1.
Way back when Eric Holder was Attorney General, he vowed to aggressively challenge voter ID laws, in Texas, of all places:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday vowed to be “aggressive” in challenging voting laws that restrict minority rights, using a speech in Texas to make his case on the same day a federal court was considering the legality of the state’s new voter ID legislation.
“Let me be clear: We will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights,” Holder said in the speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “I can assure you that the Justice Department’s efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive.”
When the Supreme Court upheld the Texas Voter ID law in 2013, Town Hallreported the following:
The Justice Department said Thursday that it will file a new lawsuit against Texas to try to block the state's voter ID law.

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement accompanying the announcement of the lawsuit.

"We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights."
SCOTUS be damned! Fast forward to 2018.
H.R. 1 was rolled out in late November as reported by the Washington Post:
House Democratic leaders on Friday unveiled the outline of a broad political overhaul bill that will include provisions for public financing of elections, voting rights reforms and new ethics strictures for federal officials.
The bill has been in the works for months as part of Democrats' “For the People” campaign platform, a framework that helped them win the House majority in this month’s midterm elections. [snip]
“It’s folks from across the political spectrum that are demanding this,” said Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.), the principal author of the plan, who stood alongside Pelosi and several members of the incoming freshman class at a news conference.
YouTube screen grab (cropped)
But that was just the start. In early March, Speaker Pelosi went back to Texas to renew the fight to turn Texas blue because the state’s voter investigationpurportedly shows the need for the Democrats' new federal voting rights law:
An investigation by Texas officials into potential voter fraud that critics said threatened to jeopardize voting rights of naturalized citizens illustrates how important ballot box protections are, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in Austin on Tuesday.
The activity in Texas “shows only more importantly the need” for voting rights legislation the House will take up this week, Pelosi, D-Calif., said at an event in East Austin.
H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” is designed to make voting easier, reduce partisan redistricting and limit what Pelosi called “the influence of big, dark money” in campaigns.
Critical of moves in Washington and Texas revolving around voting, Pelosi said the state investigation was “part of a whole picture of undermining the Constitution.”
She was joined by Julieta Garibay, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit accusing Texas officials of illegally targeting her and others because they are foreign-born.
Posted once upon a time on a news site there was an interesting 51 minute videoof Ms. Pelosi and others speaking about the need to welcome “Newcomers” through inclusion in the political process. Newcomers? Would that be illegal aliens? Is this a suggestion to register and have non-citizens vote? Sounds like it to me. Why wait for H.R. 1 to become law? This isn’t going to happen before 2020 and the Dems have an election to win.
The House passed H.R. 1 on March 7 on a party-line vote of 234 to 193.
But the tale doesn’t end there. I doubt that you have heard very much about H.R. 1 or Michigan Proposal 3. And the media, MSM or otherwise, hasn’t devoted much time to the subject. My interest was piqued only because I live in Michigan and was appalled that Prop 2 and Prop 3 were adopted, and by large margins at that.  In my very humble opinion, all the media hoopla on a plethora of other issues is a smokescreen for voting fraud. I see no reason why voter photo ID based on citizenship and registration at least 30 days prior to the election is a suppression of “voter rights.” Strict rules for absentee voting and vote counting deadlines should not be an issue. So, what’s the deal?
Think of H.R. 1 as “Motor Voter” on steroids.
President Clinton signed the original Motor Voter bill into law in May of 1993, just four months after assuming office. There is a video in the Clinton Library archive of the signing ceremony. If you watch it, you can harbor little doubt that this was a major legislative milestone for the Democrats. The opening scene presents Clinton as a larger-than-life, almost heroic figure. Even the formulators of the Cloward-Piven Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis are present. One even speaks to congratulate the President for his accomplishment. Watching this now and considering where we are politically and culturally, and all the crises that have come and gone over the intervening years or are still with us, there is little question that the Democrats knew exactly what they were going to do with Motor Voter. And they managed it in spades.
Paraphrasing Bette Davis: Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy couple years.



House Dems attempt to legalize voter 


fraud



A letter to the editor in the Richmond Times-Dispatch last week chastised the GOP for "bounty-hunting" blackface photos of Virginia’s attorney general, Mark Herring.  The author immediately lapsed into name-calling, typecasting Republican delegates as racist who lack any moral high ground for their opposition to eliminating voter ID laws and other safeguards when there is little evidence of voter fraud.
Most people know that voter fraud has existed since the founding, but few get caught and fewer prosecuted.  My late father shared his Depression-era story of when he and his brother earned some pocket money by participating in a Dem vote-buying scheme in his rural Florida district.  Dad said the scheme worked, and no one got caught, but the experience forever soured him on politics.
The Heritage Foundation records over a thousand successfully prosecuted cases of voter fraud in the U.S.  Not included in their records is a recent example near me.  It was a vote-harvesting scheme using absentee ballots perpetrated by the previous mayor of Waverly, a small town about an hour from the Va. capitol.  It was not listed because Richmond’s infamous attorney, Joe Morrissey, traveled to the sticks to get a fellow Democrat acquitted.
Moving it up a notch, and just in time for the 2018 midterm elections, the California legislature legalized a similar vote-harvesting scheme and much more.  The rules changes worked so well that on election night, GOP shoe-in seats in the few remaining solidly Republican areas like Orange County evaporated.   Per Townhall, anyone can "walk into an elections office and hand over truckloads of vote-by-mail envelopes with ballots inside no questions asked, no verified records kept."  Democrat operatives cased nursing homes, low-income neighborhoods, illegal alien work sites, etc. to "help" people vote or to pick up and deliver their ballots.  California’s newly relaxed voting laws enabled cheating on an industrial scale that will perpetuate Democrat control.
Seeing California’s success, the new majority-Dem U.S. House of Representatives went the state one better and, on March 8, passed H.R. 1, a near copycat "For the People Act," by a party-line 234-193 vote.  Like California’s new rules, this seemingly virtuous bill would force early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting in all 50 states and similarly skew national election results heavily toward Democrats.  
It may not pass the current Senate, but this bill clearly reveals which party is pursuing absolute power by any means necessary while disingenuously claiming the moral high ground.  Hint — it’s not the GOP or even Russia.



What’s Happening at the Center
In their latest report, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler explain that while immigration significantly increases the overall size of the nation's population, its impact on slowing the aging of American society is very limited. Immigrant fertility has declined significantly since 2008 and the presence of immigrants raises the birth rate for all women in their reproductive years by just two births per thousand. If present trends continue, the total fertility rate (TFR) of immigrants may drop below 2.1 in the next few years, the level necessary to replace the existing population. An immigrant TFR of less than 2.1 would mean that, in the long run, immigration would add to the aging of American society.



Featured Posts

Democratic Lawmakers Don't Want to Know When Illegal Aliens Buy Guns
By Dan Cadman
Democrats have come out in opposition to an amendment that would alert the government when illegal aliens try to buy guns. This seems like exactly the kind of amendment that both sides of the gun control debate could get behind -- but apparently not.


Ninth Circuit Rules Expedited Removal Review Violates the Constitution
By Andrew Arthur
Until the Supreme Court resolves the circuit split, this decision is almost certain to encourage even greater numbers of aliens to enter illegally along the Southwest border states of Arizona and California, which are in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.


Response to the American Immigration Council on the Value of Foreign Degrees
By Jason Richwine
The Center recently published Jason's report  showing that immigrants with foreign degrees are less skilled than U.S. degree holders. The report was critiqued by an analyst at the American Immigration Council--but these critiques show a serious misunderstanding of the report.

U.S. Resettled More Refugees than Any Other Nation in 2017 and 2018
By Nayla Rush
Newly released UN data show that the United States remained the top country for refugee resettlement in 2018. What's more, the vast majority of refugees whom the UN referred to third countries for resettlement are neither the most vulnerable nor in urgent need of relocation.


THE REAL LATINO AMERICA:

“Analysts said the operation appeared designed to allay skepticism among Mexico's political leaders about the U.S. government's commitment to Mexico's crackdown on cartels. The drug-related violence has taken about 15,000 lives since President Felipe Calderón entered office in 2006. Mexican authorities have arrested 80,000 drug suspects, and Washington has responded with $1.4 billion in aid under the Merida initiative, but some in Mexico have grown frustrated with the U.S. market's continuing demand for illegal drugs. “
*
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.




*
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

*

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens..


*

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!


*

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.


*

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.


*

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.


*

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.


*

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.


*
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .


*

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:


*

12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'


*

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.


*
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'

Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals


DACA Amnesty Would Render Border Wall Useless, Cost Americans $26B



Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty- mages
11 Dec 20181,846
5:36

A deal in which President Trump accepts an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for minor border wall funding would be counterproductive to the “America First” goals of the administration, depressing U.S. wages in the process ahead of the 2020 election.

As Breitbart News has extensively chronicled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended the DACA program last year, although it’s official termination has been held up in court by left-wing judges.
Since then, a coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram an amnesty for up to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens through Congress, an initiative supported by the donor class.
CLOSE | X
Such a plan, most recently, has been touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump receives anywhere between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
The amnesty would render the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger increased illegal immigration at the border — which is already set to hit the highest annual level in a decade next year — but increased legal immigration to the country.
Last year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the southern border, as migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the country to later cash in on the amnesty.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a DACA amnesty would trigger an immediate flood of a million illegal aliens arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2014, when Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order, the temporary amnesty caused a surge at the southern border, as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.
In terms of legal immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of foreign relatives to the DACA illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for green cards through the process known as “chain migration.”
According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the average number of family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized Mexican immigrants stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5 million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals entering the U.S.
If the number of amnestied illegal aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration deal were to rise to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals coming to the U.S.
At this rate of chain migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied population would potentially outpace the population of New York City, New York — where more than 8.5 million residents live.
Should the goal of Trump’s proposed border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually incentivize lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S. imports 1.5 million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s working and middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact, increasing illegal and legal immigration levels.
The president has also touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms of cost. A border wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure compared to the $116 billion that illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled with a border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out the cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
For example, a DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that does not include the money taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens. And because amnesties for illegal aliens tend to be larger than initially predicted, the total cost would likely be even higher for taxpayers.
Additionally, about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA illegal aliens who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be much larger than what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more Medicaid money than the average American household. The research also noted that 56 percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one person on Medicaid.
Another study, reported by Breitbart News, indicates that the CBO estimate of DACA illegal aliens who would end up on Medicaid after an amnesty is the lowest total possible of illegal aliens who would go on the welfare program.
Meanwhile, a DACA amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down for the country’s working and middle class, delivering benefits to the business lobby while squashing the intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The plan is also likely to hit the black American community the hardest, as they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs against a growing illegal and legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would be willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would be willing to swap an amnesty in exchange for funding border “security measures.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


THE INVASION THAT AMERICA INVITED
Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
*

“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.”  VIRGINIA HALE

 

Census Confirms: 63 Percent of ‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households 
By Paul Bedard 
Washington Examiner, December 3, 2018 

“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank. 

The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare. 
. . . 
Their key findings in the analysis: 

* In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households. 

*Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives). 
. . . 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households 

 

Let’s Shrink Illegal Alien Population, Save Billions at Same Time



 By David North |


The usually discussed techniques for lowering the size of the illegal alien population are two in number:
  • Reducing the inflow of illegals, such as by building a wall; and
  • Mandating the departure of others through deportation.
There is a third variable, rarely discussed, that reaches the same goal without coercion and could be something that Democrats and Republicans might agree on: the subsidized and voluntary departure of some of the undocumented and other aging, low-income foreign-born. It probably would require an act of Congress.
I am thinking of a technique for selectively encouraging the emigration of those among the foreign-born who are most likely to become welfare users in the future. It would save billions and billions of federal dollars a year, and some state funds as well.
It is based on, among other things, the fact that most of the illegals are from warmer climates than our own, and reminds me of a conversation I had years ago on this subject with a Jamaica-born resident of the United States who told me of her fond memories of the warmth of that island: "Don't forget, old bones are cold bones."
Hence, the proposed Return to Warmth (RTW) program, which would directly subsidize the departure of numerous foreign-born persons, many of them here illegally, and would indirectly help the economies of the nations from which they migrated. That would be the genial face of the RTW program, which fits with its deliberately friendly name.
Meanwhile, it would prevent large numbers of these migrants from participating in our Medicare program and other (less expensive) income transfer programs, saving billions a year, and thus making RTW attractive to conservatives.
Let's look at some specifics.
In the following table, we show the roughly estimated 2017 per capita costs to the United States of the foreign-born Social Security beneficiaries while in the United States, and while in their home countries. It is drawn from government data easily available on the internet, such as the Medicare budget (which was $720 billion in 2017) and on similar sources for the numbers of beneficiaries.
The table is also based on the fact that many Social Security beneficiaries, including many of the foreign-born, can draw their checks in most of the rest of the world, but would not be able to participate in other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income. All four require residence in the United States.
Given the information above, one might assume that virtually no one would want to take their Social Security benefits abroad. That is not the case.
More than 650,000 Social Security checks are mailed overseas each month and this number (and the percentage of retirees who do this) is slowly but steadily increasing, according to various issues of the of the Social Security Administration's Annual Statistical Supplement. Here are the totals and the percentages of all beneficiaries for three recent years:
During the early 1990s the percentage was about 0.75 percent.
Clearly this is an arrangement that is, slowly, growing in popularity. My suggestion is that we deliberately increase its size.
The evidence, incidentally, suggests strongly that most of these checks are notgoing to wealthy people who have decided to retire to the Riviera rather than Boca Raton. Average annual payouts of Social Security benefits were $15,208 nationally in 2017, and only $8,178 for those getting their checks abroad. Thus, the overseas checks were only 54 percent of the national average, reflecting the substantially lower lifetime incomes of those who retired abroad. This is not a rich population.
While I cannot document it, I learned some years ago, in a conversation with a SSA staffer, that more than 90 percent of those getting checks overseas were not born in the United States.
Proposal
The U.S. should create a new program (RTW) to encourage these movements back to the home countries, providing a range of new benefits to stimulate such returns, but designing them in such a way that the returnees will tend to stay returned once they have left.
If the United States can save $17,000 a year on each of hundreds of thousands of people, and all of them will stop making the impact that the rest of us do on the environment, this country will be making major progress, without using any coercion at all. And the savings of some $17,000 a year, per capita, means that it would be appropriate to offer some really enticing rewards to those thinking about leaving the country.
Who Would Qualify? Since a major part of the motivation is to reduce the illegal alien population, such persons would not be disqualified. I would limit it to foreign-born persons who qualify now, or will soon, for Social Security retirement, of whatever civil status, from illegal to citizen. It would only apply to people wanting to return to their native lands, and might not apply to a comparative few whose homes are within, say, 300 miles of the U.S. borders. (These people would be tempted to live secretly in the United States while collecting abroad.)
Dependents of the beneficiary could qualify, at any age, but the principals would have to be 61 years of age or older.
The Reward Package. This has to be enticing enough to encourage Social Security beneficiaries to seek it, despite the basic math outlined above (which many of them might sense, even without knowing the details.) Such a package might include:
  • Retirement benefits at the age of 61, instead of the usual 62;
  • A 10 percent bonus on the Social Security benefit while the beneficiary is abroad;
  • Free one-way plane tickets for the principal and the dependents; and
  • Checks totaling $5,000, half on arrival in the home country, and the other half a year later, but only paid in person, at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
Holy cow, some might say, you are going to be giving some illegals 10 percent more in Social Security for the rest of their lives! Isn't that an extravagant waste?
The 10 percent increase, based on current Social Security data, would mean that the overseas individual would get an additional $818 a year. That would be more than balanced by the Medicare savings of $10,778 a year; maybe we should set the Social Security benefit increase at 25 percent or more.
The monthly checks would have to be cashed in the home country, in person, by the beneficiary, and within 60 days of their issuance. Further, such checks would need to be endorsed by the beneficiary along with a thumb print of that person, and a note on the back of the check indicating the name of the cashier who accepted the check, and the date thereof. Banks that showed a pattern of check abuse would be barred from depositing these checks in the future.
All receiving any part of the bonus package would have to agree in writing to not seek to return to the United States under any circumstances for three or five years; if they did (or their checks were cashed in the United States), the government would halve the future benefit checks until the bonuses had been repaid. If they came back to the United States twice within those years, the beneficiary would be no longer be eligible for SSA retirement checks unless, perhaps, they were citizens, in which case a milder penalty would be exacted. (No one using the RTW benefits would be eligible to apply for naturalization, or any other immigration benefit.)
The benefit package suggested above is not set in stone; it could be altered, but it would have to offer the foreign-born a substantial benefit. Provisions should be made to use tax funds to compensate the Social Security system for its additional costs.
The benefits should be made available to those in deportation hearings, if they were otherwise eligible, thus reducing the backlogs in the immigration courts.
Someone who had received the rewards described above could ask to be excused from the program by voluntarily returning the extra moneys; but this would be rare, and would be available to only those who had been in the United States legally at the time of retirement.
Other Advantages of RTW. Other advantages to the government of RTW would be lowering pressure on energy assistance plans for the poor; on public housing, which in many cities includes special housing for the elderly; and on non-public food banks and the like. In addition, there would be the less obvious advantages of a lower population and less wear and tear on the built environment.
In the specific instance of shutting down Temporary Protected Status for people from some nations, it would ease the departure of the older ones. Perhaps some TPS beneficiaries within a year or two of the RTW minimum age could be given special dispensations.
As for the returnees, the principal advantage to them would be the lower costs of living in the homelands, as opposed to those costs in the United States. There would also be the previously cited warmer weather (for most), the ease of returning to a situation where everyone uses one's native language, and for many, losing the fear of deportation. In short, a win-win situation.
This suggestion takes a long view of the question of migrant utilization of our income transfer programs and would impose some short-term costs on the government (the reward packages) in exchange for steady savings in the future. It certainly would be subject to attempted abuse, but in the long run it would start saving us $17,000 a year times hundreds of thousands of people.
It would be a quiet program, in contrast to the wall and border skirmishes, but it would inevitably lead to fewer illegal aliens in the nation, and lower welfare costs.
Why not try it for a while?
David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, has over 40 years of immigration policy experience.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by the Center for Immigration Studies.

 

 

 

 

Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant

Welfare



US Customs and Border Patrol
 4 Dec 201811,383
2:45

More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.

The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

NON-CITIZEN HOUSEHOLDS ALMOSTTWICE AS LIKELY TO BE ON WELFARE


December 3, 2018

Some truths are just basic and obvious. Yet the media insists on shoveling out nonsense about how Elon Musk and Sergey Brin are representative of the average immigrant. They're not. They used to be more representative before Ted Kennedy decided to replicate the ideal political ecosystem of the Democrats across the country. And so now here we are.
Skilled immigration is tough to manage. Unskilled migration is everywhere. With the inevitable results shown in his CIS study.
In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
Mass migration, of the kind that the Left champions, is dangerous and destructive. It's also hideously expensive. As unskilled migration continues, American competitiveness declines to match those countries where the migrants originate from. 
We're losing our work ethic, our skill sets and our reputation for innovation.
And meanwhile we sink ever deeper into a welfare state of the kind that the Democrats can always run and win on.

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.






A sign in a market window advertises this store accepts food stamps in New York, on Oct. 7, 2010. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Majority of Non-Citizen Households in US Access Welfare Programs, Report Finds

 

HTTPS://WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM/NEARLY-TWO-THIRDS-OF-NON-CITIZENS-ACCESS-WELFARE-PROGRAMS-REPORT-FINDS_2729720.HTML?REF=BRIEF_NEWS&UTM_SOURCE=EPOCH+TIMES+NEWSLETTERS&UTM_CAMPAIGN=6D

BY ALYSIA E. GARRISON

December 3, 2018 Updated: December 4, 2018
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive some form of welfare, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of native households, the study found. There are a total of 4.68 million non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10 years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their children.
“Non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth,” the CIS notes.
Although a number of programs were examined in the report, no single program accounts for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between citizens and non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education, compared with 36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules,” according to CIS.
The CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to determine the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to reduce welfare use among non-citizens.

It Pays to be Illegal in California

 By JENNIFER G. HICKEY  May 10, 2018 
It certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in California. Democratic State Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to permit illegal immigrants to serve on all state and local boards and commissions. This week, lawmakers unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending $250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently, undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly locked out of healthcare due to their immigration status. In a matter of weeks, California legislators will have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel and counterproductive fact,” Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
His legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000 uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan covers more than 100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000, however an estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
In addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in California illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
So, will politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once again to dip into their pockets to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
Before they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget proposal in January.
Given Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in recent years, not to mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure benefitting lawbreaking immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting illegal immigrant support.

Majority of Non-Citizen Households in US Access Welfare Programs, Report Finds



   
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive some form of welfare, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of native households, the study found. There are a total of 4.68 million non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10 years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their children.
“Non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth,” the CIS notes.
Although a number of programs were examined in the report, no single program accounts for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between citizens and non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education, compared with 36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules,” according to CIS.

The CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to determine the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to reduce welfare use among non-citizens.

No comments: