Friday, June 21, 2019

HANDING THE COUNTRY TO ILLEGALS - BUTTIGIEG WANTS ILLEGALS TO HAVE ID .... So they can vote and vote often?


Pete Buttigieg Endorses Federal ID for Illegal Immigrants

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA - JUNE 15: Democratic presidential candidate and Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg speaks at the 2019 Blue Commonwealth Gala fundraiser June 15, 2019 in Richmond, Virginia. Nearly 1,800 attended the event featuring Buttigieg and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Win McNamee/Getty
CHARLIE SPIERING
276
1:00

Mayor Pete Buttigieg endorsed a federal identification card for illegal immigrants on Friday, allowing them to access government services.

“I do believe that it is the responsibility for the federal government to make sure anyone who lives here regardless of their immigration status has the means to demonstrate that they are who they say they are,” he said at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials presidential forum on Friday morning.
Buttigieg was asked about his program to implement a city-wide ID for illegal immigrants in South Bend during his time as mayor and whether he would support the idea federally.
He indicated he did and argued elected officials had a responsibility to offer benefits to not just citizens, but “undocumented residents” as well.
“As a city, my responsibility as a mayor is in fact not only to citizens but to residents,” Buttigieg said.


Pete Buttigieg Gave Special IDs to Illegal Immigrants in South Bend


La Casa de Amistad
CHARLIE SPIERING
 10 Jun 201916
1:47

Mayor Pete Buttigieg created a way for illegal immigrants to get a special identification card in South Bend, Indiana.

Working with a Hispanic community organizing group, La Casa de Amistad, Buttigieg created a special “community resident card” for illegal immigrants and then signed an executive order requiring the town to accept them for local goods and services.
The card is created and issued by La Casa, instead of the town, to make illegals feel more secure about getting one. Anyone can get one provided they prove they have proof of an address in South Bend and other documents such as an ID from any country.
The program was recently highlighted by NBC News as a “big accomplishment” for the city.
The card can be used to access city buildings, public schools, librariesl and the South Bend police department, but does not allow you to drive.
“Something like a municipal ID or city ID, that allows you to be a card-carrying member of the city of South Bend, is an important thing that allows people to be better included and to be more empowered,” Buttigieg said at the time to the South Bend Tribune. “We have got to make sure that the city is supporting everyone who lives here.”
Buttigeig even had a card made for himself to help promote the ID program.
Buttigieg supports the idea of offering amnesty to illegal Americans if elected president.
“Comprehensive immigration reform must include a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living, working, paying taxes, and contributing to our American story, including DREAMers,” Buttigieg wrote on his website under his immigration proposals.

 

Pete Buttigieg: ‘Unknowable’ When Human Life Begins



Pexels
CHARLIE SPIERING
 23 May 2019295
2:31

Mayor Pete Buttigieg claimed Thursday that it was unknowable when human life begins, making the issue of abortion too complicated to regulate.

“For those who have a strong view about some of these almost unknowable questions around life, the best answer I can give, is that because we will never be able to settle those questions, in a consensus fashion,” he said in response to a question about abortion limits.
Buttigieg commented on the issue of abortion during a conversation with Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.
When asked to clarify his claim that it was “unknowable” when life began, he continued: “It’s certainly unknowable in the way that scientific questions are answered, it’s a moral question.”
He argued that government should not draw any legal limits on abortion, leaving the choice solely to pregnant women.
“It’s not how we politically decide where the line ought to be drawn, the question is who gets to draw the line,” he said, calling the idea part of the framework of Roe vs. Wade.
“Roe vs. Wade is widely popular in this country because it has allowed to us to negotiate that,” he said.
He warned that attempts to overturn Roe vs. Wade would inevitably lead to more unsafe illegal abortions that would harm more women.
In a Wednesday conversation with Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, Buttigieg rejected the concerns of pro-life Americans.
“We’re not going come to the same place on the choice issue, we’re just not,” he said, responding to a question Capehart posed from a pro-life Republican moderate who hated Donald Trump.
Buttigieg followed his rejection of life in the womb by urging Christians to join him on the principle of helping “the least among us.”
“If by chance, your view on that issue is motivated by faith, I would point out that this is also a moment for people of faith to think about what it means to support policies and politicians who care about lifting up the least among us,” he said.
Buttigieg’s approach is sharply different from former President Barack Obama who supported limits on late-term abortions when he ran for office and the concept of reducing unwanted pregnancies.
Buttigieg, who attends an Episcopalian church, urged Christians to see him as a “person of faith” despite their political disagreements about marriage and life in the womb.
“At least I can show you that I’m motivated by values and that the positions I’ve arrived at, are ones that I’ve come by honestly,” he said.

 


Pete Buttigieg Unveils 2020 Agenda: Amnesty, Legal Pot, and Abortion


DEREK HENKLE/AFP/Getty Images
CHARLIE SPIERING
 17 May 2019618
1:33

Mayor Pete Buttigieg released a series of policy proposals on his website after campaigning on vague campaign themes so far in his 2020 presidential race.

The new policy proposals published on his website include a plan for amnesty for illegal immigrants, the legalization of marijuana nationwide, and the unfettered right to abortion.
“Comprehensive immigration reform must include a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living, working, paying taxes, and contributing to our American story, including DREAMers,” Buttigieg wrote on his website under his immigration proposals.
Buttigieg also called for marijuana legalization as part of his agenda for criminal justice reform.
“For many Black and Brown communities, the criminal legal system has threatened, rather than promoted, safety and security,” he wrote. “Security is not accomplished by racially discriminatory policing.”
He described abortion as a woman’s right to freedom in America.
“The government’s role should be to make sure all women have access to comprehensive affordable care, and that includes preventive care, contraceptive services, prenatal and postpartum care, and safe and legal abortion,” he wrote on his website.
Buttigieg also proposed a military-style “assault weapons” ban and a “nationwide gun licensing system.”

 

 

As Breitbart News has reported, U.S. households headed by foreign-born residents use nearly twice the welfare of households headed by native-born Americans.

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

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. 

Buttigieg: 'Undocumented Immigrants Are Taxpayers' Who 'Are Subsidizing the Rest of Us'



By Susan Jones | April 23, 2019 | 8:03 AM EDT
Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigeig is now running for the Democrat presidential nomination. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(CNSNews.com) - South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg told a CNN town hall Monday night he doesn't know how the federal government defines "sanctuary city," but he said the South Bend police force does not enforce federal immigration law, "so you can call it whatever you like."
"We're a welcoming city," Buttigieg said, explaining that South Bend has a "population growth strategy."
While President Trump has tweeted that the United States is "full," Buttigieg said his city is not:
"I would be delighted to have more people. We only have 100,000 because so many people left after the auto factories collapsed in the 60s. We've got plenty of room for more residents and taxpayers who want to help fund the snowplowing and firefighters that I've got to have for 130,000 people...with only 100,000 people to pay for it.
"And let us not forget that in many respects, from property taxes to sales taxes, undocumented immigrants are taxpayers, and the truth is, in many respects, because they are not eligible for a lot of benefits, they are subsidizing the rest of us. Which is just one more reason we've got to get this sorted out."
Buttigieg advocates comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, not only for Dreamers, but for the millions of other people who are living here illegally.
"The thing that's incredibly frustrating about this to me is that there's actually, broadly, an American consensus on what we're supposed to do about this. You know, leadership is supposed to be about taking issues that are very divisive and somehow finding a way to unify Americans around that. That's how a good president earns her or his paycheck.
"But right now we have an issue where there's a pretty broad consensus, and it's been used to divide us. It's actually a remarkable feat of whatever the opposite of leadership is. And you can see it because there have been healthy compromises, bipartisan immigration reforms that have passed in one chamber --the House or the Senate in Washington -- only to go die in the other."
Buttigieg noted that the last time the nation passed "meaningful" comprehensive immigration reform was in 1984:
"So we know the outlines of a comprehensive immigration reform. A pathway to citizenship for undocumented people in this country. A level of protection for Dreamers. A set of reforms to clear up the bureaucracy and the backlogs in the lawful immigration system, which is how my father as an immigrant came to this country and became a U.S. citizen. And reasonable measures on border security.
"We know what to do," Buttigieg said. "It's just that we don't have the leadership in Washington to do it. And I'm afraid one of the reasons is, we’ve got a White House that has actually computed that it is better off politically if this problem goes unsolved so that Americans continue to be divided around it for short-term political gain, and that has got to end with a new president."
Buttigieg is one of 20 people running for the Democrat presidential nomination.

Exclusive–Steve Camarota: Every Illegal Alien Costs Americans $70K Over Their Lifetime



Loren Elliott / AFP / Getty
JOHN BINDER
 11 Apr 20191,671
3:39

Every illegal alien, over the course of their lifetime, costs American taxpayers about $70,000, Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steve Camarota says.

During an interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, Camarota said his research has revealed the enormous financial burden that illegal immigration has on America’s working and middle class taxpayers in terms of public services, depressed wages, and welfare.
“In a person’s lifetime, I’ve estimated that an illegal border crosser might cost taxpayers … maybe over $70,000 a year as a net cost,” Camarota said. “And that excludes the cost of their U.S.-born children, which gets pretty big when you add that in.”
LISTEN: 
“Once [an illegal alien] has a child, they can receive cash welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children,” Camarota explained. “Once they have a child, they can live in public housing. Once they have a child, they can receive food stamps on behalf of that child. That’s how that works.”
Camarota said the education levels of illegal aliens, border crossers, and legal immigrants are largely to blame for the high level of welfare usage by the f0reign-born population in the U.S., noting that new arrivals tend to compete for jobs against America’s poor and working class communities.
In past waves of mass immigration, Camarota said, the U.S. did not have an expansive welfare system. Today’s ever-growing welfare system, coupled with mass illegal and legal immigration levels, is “extremely problematic,” according to Camarota, for American taxpayers.
The RAISE Act — reintroduced in the Senate by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), David Perdue (R-GA), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) — would cut legal immigration levels in half and convert the immigration system to favor well-educated foreign nationals, thus relieving American workers and taxpayers of the nearly five-decade-long wave of booming immigration. Currently, mass legal immigration redistributes the wealth of working and middle class Americans to the country’s top earners.
“Virtually none of that existed in 1900 during the last great wave of immigration, when we also took in a number of poor people. We didn’t have a well-developed welfare state,” Camarota continued:
We’re not going to stop [the welfare state] tomorrow. So in that context, bringing in less educated people who are poor is extremely problematic for public coffers, for taxpayers in a way that it wasn’t in 1900 because the roads weren’t even paved between the cities in 1900. It’s just a totally different world. And that’s the point of the RAISE Act is to sort of bring in line immigration policy with the reality say of a large government … and a welfare state. [Emphasis added]
The immigrants are not all coming to get welfare and they don’t immediately sign up, but over time, an enormous fraction sign their children up. It’s likely the case that of the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, more than half are signed up for Medicaid — which is our most expensive program. [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News has reported, U.S. households headed by foreign-born residents use nearly twice the welfare of households headed by native-born Americans.

Every year the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 


///

Who's coming in and getting that instant customer service legal immigrants don't get? Well, people like Mirian Zelaya Gomez, a single mom with two kids and a fondness for Instagram luxury-life glamour shots who got her name in the news as "Lady Frijoles," the Honduran caravan migrant who disdained donated Mexican food in Tijuana, and who told the press she was migrating to the states to get free medical care for her kids. She's since been arrested for assaulting a relative who had given her housing in Dallas. Here she was, being booked:

  

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 


“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.
Immigration Funds Bigger Government, Says 2020 Democrat Buttigieg




Scott Olson/Getty
NEIL MUNRO
  22 Apr 201971
7:51

Extra immigration will fund the oversized government in the Indiana city of South Bend, Mayor Pete Buttigieg claimed during a campaign stop with pro-immigration Asian and Latino advocates in Des Moines, Iowa.

“We were built for 130,000 people and we’ve only got 100,000 now,” he said about the distressed town where he is the mayor. “I have got enough fire stations and roads and police officers and water capacity to take 30,000 more people. and I could use 30,000 more taxpayers to help us fund it.”
Buttigieg’s April 17 claim that immigration spurs taxes and economic growth is a commonplace claim among progressives.
But the data actually shows that the federal government’s immigration policies transfer growth and wealth from heartland states and small towns, and then send the jobs and wealth to the coastal states where most legal and illegal immigrants prefer to settle.
That massive transfer of wealth from the heartland to the coastal cities is made obvious in data posted April 18 by the New York Times, which reported that “international migration contributes to population growth more in larger metros than in smaller ones or in rural areas — and most of all in the dense urban counties of large metros.”
In 2014, the Brookings Institution reported that 51 percent of immigrants were clustered in just 10 cities — New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco, Washington, Dallas, Riverside, and Boston. In turn, the imported populations spike real estate values in the coastal regions, much to the advantage of property owners and investors along the coasts. In 2013, a business-funded pro-immigration advocacy group claimed:
The 40 million immigrants in the United States have created $3.7 trillion in housing wealth, helping stabilize less desirable communities where home prices are declining or would otherwise have declined.
That inflow of migrants to the major coastal cities absorbs much commercial investment that would otherwise employ the young American men and women who graduate from high schools and colleges in Indiana and other heartland states. The shift of investment away from the heartland means fewer jobs, lower wages, smaller families and more drug deaths. 
Buttigieg’s call for imported people is routine among Democrat and Republican politicians, said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies. But importing more migrants cannot fix the problems which cause declining populations in cities such as South Bend, he said, adding:
What it fails to address is the reason that people are leaving their cities, whether they are Gary, Indiana, or Houston [Texas]. The [politicians] are saying ‘We need replacement people!’ But where did the [Amerocan] people go? Why did they leave? … if your schools such, importing people won’t change things.
Politicians like Buttigieg make the mistake of thinking that immigrants are why dynamic cities are dynamic. In fact, it is the other way around. If a place is growing it attracts new residents, American or immigrants. If a place is depressing, it won’t change anything.
When a city has problems, immigrants act like Americans and exit the city, he said, adding “Aren’t they people too?”
 But Buttigieg is a progressive, and he argues that federal immigration policies can be targeted to help fund government in his small town, whatever the impact on Americans and their children. He said:
We need people here. We need to grow. my community …  If we’ve got responsible, able-bodied people on a path to citizenship, send them to South Bend. Because we trying to grow our community, and job growth in population growth go hand-in-hand.
…
We know — despite what they say about us here in the heartland —  we know how much our communities benefit from the growth that happens through immigration.
But President Donald Trump seems to be proving Buttigieg wrong.
Under Trump’s low-immigration “Hire American” economic policies, heartland states have gained jobs and investment faster than the Democrat-dominated coastal cities and countries won by Hillary Clinton in 2016. An April 17 article by the New York Timesreported:
Now, under a Republican administration, job growth rates in Trump country are rising faster than they are in Democratic America. As the national unemployment rate hovers at just below 4 percent, far more red states than blue states are setting records for low levels of joblessness.
“Everyone’s accelerated, but Trump counties have gone from lagging Clinton counties to seeing faster job growth,” Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings wrote by email. “Redder, smaller, more rural communities really are ‘winning’ a little more. So long as there’s no recession, that may shape the atmosphere surrounding the 2020 election.”
…
During the first 21 months of the Trump administration — January 2017 to September 2018 — both Clinton and Trump counties continued to experience faster rates of job growth. But the increase was substantially larger in Trump counties, where the rate of growth increased from 1.5 to 2.6 percent.
During his Des Moines speech, Buttigieg endorsed the mass immigration policies pushed by coastal progressives, including amnesty for illegals, the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty-and-cheap-labor legislation:
The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform [in 2013], and it died in the House [in 2014]. So it is another example of Washington being broken. But I think, with presidential leadership, we can get it done. And we are going to have to because our economy and the trajectory of this country depend on it. 
The 2013 amnesty included a “staple” provision allowing companies to hire an unlimited supply of foreign graduates in place of American graduates. 
In his speech, Buttigieg hid the problems of immigration behind a condemnation of illegal migration, as if legal immigration is automatically good simply because it is legal:
Of course we want [immigration] to be through a lawful ordinary process but we’ve got to fix the process or it is never going to work. 
He also dismissed the public’s deep concerns about illegal and legal immigration, saying: 
So, you know, there’s a political strategy that’s clearly been adopted by the President to try to divide us around the issue of immigration. I get it. Look, it appeals to a certain sense that I think all of us share that there should be a process for these things. My father is an immigrant. He went through the process. he arrived in the country as a student, he became an American citizen. But we can’t expect that process to work if were not willing to fix it.
Now, when it comes to what we ought to do with immigration policy, I think most Americans broadly agree on what to do. We need a pathway to citizenship, we need Temporary Protected Status and protections for Dreamers [young illegals]. We need to improve our lawful immigration processes that are bureaucratic and that are backlogged and we need to do whatever is appropriate and necessary on border security. I think we can all agree on that. 
In fact, many of Buttigieg’s comments imply support for unpopular progressive goals, including amnesty for younger illegals, more cheap-labor migration, and the displacement of American graduates by foreign visa-workers. For example, Buttigieg’s comment about “backlogged” immigration suggests he supports “country cap” legislation that would greatly expand the inflow of Indian visa workers into U.S. middle-class jobs.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)