Tuesday, August 13, 2019


The Left creates a hullabaloo over denying green cards to migrants who are public charges

The Left is having a meltdown over the Trump administration's effort to begin enforcing longtime U.S. law about issuing green cards only to legal immigrants unlikely to become public charges.
"Damage the economy," blared the Los Angeles Times, citing a slew of open-borders advocates.  "A cruel and racist campaign," yelled a leftist state attorney general, the Connecticut Mirror reported.  It's a coast-to-coast collective howl, and another pile of lawsuits, once again, over whether the law means the law, are now commencing.
The whole thing goes to show how intertwined mass migration has become with the use of taxpayer-financed welfare services.  The original American idea around immigration had been one of requiring a new entrant to show self-sufficiency instead of living off some feudal lord — supplicant, dependent, and obedient to the state.  Today, immigration has become something different.  According to the lefty New American Economy Research Fund, 7 million immigrants (as of 2017) now take some form of public assistance, whether it's straight welfare, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, Medicare, or long-term care.  For perspective, note that the U.S. takes in about a million legal immigrants per year, so we have seven years' worth of legal immigrants living on public assistance signaling something very wrong with the admission system.  Walk into any food stamp office and notice how many languages the food stamp forms are printed in to get a sense of how word has gotten around and the bureaucrats are accommodating.  Notice the Louis Vuitton designer hijabs and expensive cars of the "clients" applying for the aid.  Aid of this kind pretty well ensures to even legal immigrants that assimilation into the U.S. isn't particularly necessary.  Why bother to learn the language of the U.S. when the whole ride already is free?
Trump's plan is to encourage self-sufficiency among legal immigrants, and discourage the sponges, who have become rather large in number.  There's nothing draconian about this; it's been the law of the U.S. since the 1880s.
It's also important, given that a recent study from the Center for Immigration Studies shows that migrants are coming to the U.S. grayer and grayer, meaning that they are past their prime working years and far more likely to use welfare services, particularly health care. Sleazy third world governments for years have used and benefited from such people's labor, and then fobbed off their elderly to the U.S. to get the gringos to pay for their pensions. 
An analysis of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey shows that immigrants (legal and illegal) are coming to the United States at significantly older ages than in the past. The average age and the share arriving at or near retirement increased significantly in the last two decades. These findings have implications for the often-made argument that immigration makes the country significantly younger. The findings also have implications for public coffers because prior research indicates that younger immigrants tend to have a more positive lifetime fiscal impact than older immigrants. The nation's overall immigrant population is also aging rapidly.
Among the findings:
  • The average age of newly arrived legal and illegal immigrants has increased from 26 in 2000 to 31 in 2017. The newly arrived are those who have lived in the country for 1.5 years or less at the time of the survey.
  • Older age groups have seen the largest increases. The share of newly arrived immigrants who are 50 or over nearly doubled, from 8 percent to 15 percent; the share 55 and over more than doubled, from 5 percent to 12 percent; and the share 65 and older roughly tripled, from 2 percent to 6 percent.
  • On an annual basis, 276,000 immigrants 50 and older now settle in the country, including 213,000 immigrants 55 and older, and 113,000 who are 65 and older.
  • The rise in the age at arrival for immigrants is a broad phenomenon affecting immigrants from most of the primary sending regions and top sending countries.
  • Several factors likely explain the rising age of new arrivals, including significant population aging in all of the top immigrant-sending regions of the world, an increase in the number of green cards going to the parents of U.S. citizens, and a decline in new illegal immigration prior to 2017.
I wrote about that issue last month here.
Politically, it's also a smart thing to do, it's what a majority of the voting public wants, given that in the case of illegal aliens, a very recent Heritage Action/Basswood Research poll shows that welfare use by this demographic is the number one thing that incenses voters across the board.  Illegals can be argued to be a proxy for legal immigrants, who are the topic now.
On the one hand, 83 percent of Republican voters said that "illegal immigration affects my life," including strong majorities of working-class and suburban voters. Yet when asked what they considered to be illegal immigration's biggest consequence, the most common answer wasn't violence, job losses or cultural change; more than half said overuse of social services.
When you add in those respondents who answered "all of the above," more than three-quarters of Republican voters were deeply concerned about illegal immigrants abusing our health care system, schools and welfare programs. Among independent voters, a plurality of 43 percent listed it as immigration's biggest consequence (which may explain why 72 percent of GOP voters and 54 percent of independents want legal immigrants to be admitted to the U.S. on the basis of merit or skills).
To call it racist, as Connecticut state Attorney General William Tong does is actually rather racist in itself given that such an advocate assumes that anyone who's a non-white immigrant is going to be a natural welfare user, incapable of contributing to society other than as a politically useful grievance group. The reality is that people are people, and being that, they respond to incentives. If someone has the gumption to want a green card (and rest assured, many migrants do not), living a life of self-sufficiency is both good for their own self-esteem, and in the interest of the U.S. society, too. Welfare actually acts as a damper to assimilation, allowing it to be put off and the vast welfare population among legal immigrants shows it. The new regulation, by the way, rather compassionately wipes the slate clean for immigrants who have used the services but get off them as a result of the new policy. These people, after all, were also responding to incentives, the one that said: Go ahead and take the free stuff they're trying to push onto you.
 Because when you get down to brass tacks, the howling from the leftis really an 'all about the money, honey' matter.
The Los Angeles Times and some other news outlets are raising holy hell about how discouraging legal migrants from using public benefits is going to "damage" the economy.
Laurel Lucia, director of the healthcare program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center, says the policy could have a damaging effect on California and the country's overall economy. Many in California who already have a green card or have become citizens may dis-enroll from public benefits such as Medi-Cal or CalFresh out of fear for what the policy may mean for themselves and for their family members, causing a chilling effect on the economy, she said.
"When these Californians dis-enroll that means fewer federal dollars coming into the state supporting not only our healthcare system but our whole economy," Lucia said.
In a 2018 study by Lucia, Ninez Ponce of the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and Tia Shimada of California Food Policy Advocates, the authors found the healthcare sector would suffer the biggest economic blow from such a policy change.
It's not just her, either. Janet Napolitano, chancellor of the University of California system makes the same argument for the same reason, warning that "the best and brightest" might be deterred from using California's public universities. Never mind the dumbest and least motivated, she'd like you to give them free stuff so that one exception to the rule gets into U.C. ahead of a U.S. citizen. Like all members of the Democrat industrial complex, she depends on a vast welfare class to ensure that the federal dollars roll in, and extra ones, of course, come in for immigrants in need of remedial English, legal services, medical care, making them an especially prized constituency for her public institution. She looks at them and she sees dollar signs. The rest of us see a welfare bill, along with millions of people using welfare instead of participating in the best economy the U.S. has seen in years.
Bureaucrats are going to screech loudest to preserve their sizes of their fiefs. Medieval lords, looking for supplicants, as it goes, supplicants who will respond in kind with Democrat votes, not contributions to the economy. That's what's really riling the left.

Trump’s Commonsense Rule on Immigrant Welfare Use

Washington, D.C. (August 13, 2019) [From a post in National Review by Mark Krikorian]- The newly finalized rule about immigrant welfare use is 837 pages long, but it boils down to two things: Foreigners who can’t pay their bills shouldn’t be allowed to move here, and “welfare” doesn’t just mean cash benefits.

As to the first: The first comprehensive immigration law at the federal level was the 1882 Immigration Act, which, among other things, excluded anyone who was “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” That principle — the “public-charge doctrine,” as it’s called — has been included in all subsequent immigration legislation, including the 1996 immigration and welfare-reform laws.

But the exclusion of “public charges” didn’t start in the 19th century, but well before that, when immigration law was handled by the states. In fact, preventing the immigration of people who couldn’t support themselves was the subject of the very first immigration law ever passed in the colonies, in Massachusetts Bay in 1645. It’s not too much to say that the public-charge doctrine is the founding principle of American immigration policy.

The second point involves a more recent issue. In 1996 Congress passed welfare-reform and immigration laws that sought to put more teeth in the existing public-charge rules. These measures had no lasting impact on the share of immigrants using welfare; within five years, the rate of immigration welfare use was right back where it had been before the changes. Today, some 63 percent of households headed by non-citizens use at least one welfare program, including an astonishing 80 percent of non-citizen households with children.


Immigrants shouldn’t just use welfare less than the native-born — ideally, they shouldn’t use it at all. Past attempts at building a wall around the welfare state have enjoyed only modest success at best, and I don’t expect this latest effort to be an exception. The only way to truly fix this is much lower overall numbers and much higher standards.

Read the full article: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/immigrant-welfare-use-common-sense-rule/

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. Taxpayers a Stunning $134.9 Billion a Year


 “According to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some type of welfare in the US!!! cis.org”

So when cities across the country declare that they will NOT be sanctuary, guess where ALL the illegals, criminals, gang members fleeing ICE will go???? straight to your welcoming city. So ironically the people fighting for sanctuary city status, may have an unprecedented crime wave to deal with along with the additional expense.
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
$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.
$22 billion is spent on (AFDC) welfare to illegal aliens each year.
$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as (SNAP) food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Does not include local jails and State Prisons.
2012 illegal aliens sent home $62 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. This is why Mexico is getting involved in our politics.
$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

THE DISUNITED STATES: The world’s welfare office!

 America is a nation with a severe housing crisis, a million legals who are homeless, tens of millions of legals who have given up finding a job that pays living wages and yet the borders are wide open to keep the hordes coming simply to keep wages DEPRESSED.

With crime soaring, rampant homelessness, sanctuary state status attracting the highest illegal immigrant population in the country and its “worst state in the U.S. to do business” ranking for more than a decade, California and its expansive, debt-ridden, progressive government is devolving into a third-world country. JANET LEVY

With crime soaring, rampant homelessness, sanctuary state status attracting the highest illegal immigrant population in the country and its “worst state in the U.S. to do business” ranking for more than a decade, California and its expansive, debt-ridden, progressive government is devolving into a third-world country. JANET LEVY

"This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY
"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein

We are now in the process of destabilizing our own country. FROSTY WOOLDRIGE

Welfare for Refugees Cost Americans $123 Billion in 10 Years ….YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!




The Democrat Party’s secret agenda for wider open borders, more welfare for invading illegals, more jobs and free anything they illegally vote for…. All to destroy the two-party system and build the GLOBALISTS’ DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED.



Demonstrably and irrefutably the Democrat Party became the party whose principle objective is to thoroughly transform the nature of the American electorate by means of open borders and the mass, unchecked importation of illiterate third world peasants who will vote in overwhelming numbers for Democrats and their La Raza welfare state. FRONTPAGE MAG
“Through love of having children we're going to take over."  Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
“The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the country, a population that exceeds the total number of annual American births.”   JOHN BINDER
‘Unbridled Immigration, Legal and Illegal, Is Taking the Country Down’
 “Through love of having children we're going to take over."  Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
This annual income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.

study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER

 “As Breitbart News recently reported, there are more anchor baby births in the Los Angeles, California metro area than the total U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Colombia. Every year, American taxpayers are billed about $2.4 billion to pay for the births of illegal aliens.” JOHN BINDER
“The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.” Maria Hsia Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno

"Mexican president candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass immigration to the United States, declaring it a "human right". We will defend all the (Mexican) invaders in the American," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life, job, welfare, and free medical in the United States."

"Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed ranting AMNESTY TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."

All that “cheap” labor is staggeringly expensive!
"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein.
Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.


America builds the La Raza “The Race” Mexican welfare state

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. Taxpayers a Stunning $134.9 Billion a Year


 "Critics argue that giving amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population." JOHN BINDER

"Additionally, under current legal immigration laws, if given amnesty, the illegal alien population would be allowed to bring an unlimited number of their foreign relatives to the U.S. This population could boost already high legal immigration levels to an unprecedented high. An amnesty for illegal aliens would also likely triple the number of border-crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border." JOHN BINDER
“At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States”…. Tom Barrett 




“In the U.S. the remittances that come of illegal immigration drive down U.S. wages, particularly of those on the lowest-skilled parts of the ladder, and as money flows out from local communities, leaves them underinvested and run-down. Nobody can live two places at once. Illegal immigrants live here but their money lives in Mexico. And it's often untaxed.” MONICA SHOWALTER
Who ultimately really pays for all the true cost of all that "cheap" labor?


“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.  DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE 
“Through love of having children we're going to take over." Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
 “The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”


This is why you work From Jan - May paying taxes to the government ....with the rest of the calendar year is money for you and your family.

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, with his fake Social Security number, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200..... free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.

Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after Paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people! 



“Washington, D.C. (May 22, 2018) – The Center of Immigration Studies analysis of new Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the first quarter of 2018 shows that the labor force participation rate has not returned to pre-2007 recession levels, and relative to 2000 the rate looks even worse. Things are particularly bad for those without a college education. The problem is not confined to one area of the country; in virtually every state, labor force participation is lower in 2018 than in 2007 or 2000 among the less-educated.”

Here’s how it breaks down; will make you want to be an illegal!
Staggering expensive "cheap" Mexican labor did not build this once great nation! Look what it has done to Mexico. It's all about keeping wages depressed and passing along the true cost of the invasion, their welfare, and crime tidal wave costs to the backs of the American people!
This annual income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.
study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER

“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.  DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE 


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. 

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

 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.”
“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


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

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

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.
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


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).

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.
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


US Customs and Border Patrol
 4 Dec 201811,383

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. 


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.


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




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

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.

No comments: