By Matthew Tragesser
ImmigrationReform.com
https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/04/08/illegal-alien-benefits-states-immigrationreform-com/
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
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.
“Specifically, we find
that the average refugee will cost around $60,000 in net present value over his
or her lifetime, with adult refugees costing upwards of $133,000. These costs
are due mainly to the low levels of education possessed by refugees upon their
arrival,” they added.
Refugees cost taxpayers $60K-$133K — more
than for illegal immigrants
Even more than
immigrants, especially those in the United States illegally, refugees who enter
the country and tap into social welfare programs cost taxpayers
$60,000-$133,000, according to a new analysis.
In its latest report on
the costs to U.S. citizens for its welcoming immigration and refugee policies,
the Center for Immigration Studies said it was bringing accuracy to the issue
of costs to help policymakers in the immigration field.
It said that the
reports on refugee costs are inaccurate, do not include all programs refugees
tap, and do not take into account the education level of new arrivals, a key to
whether they will be a burden or not.
“In reality, the fiscal
impact of refugee resettlement is just one aspect of a more complex issue
involving economic, social, and political considerations. The purpose of this
report is not to argue that all refugee resettlement is wrong, but rather to
remind policymakers that there are costs associated with the program,” said the
authors of The Fiscal Impact of Refugee
Resettlement: No Free Lunch for Taxpayers.
“Specifically, we find
that the average refugee will cost around $60,000 in net present value over his
or her lifetime, with adult refugees costing upwards of $133,000. These costs
are due mainly to the low levels of education possessed by refugees upon their
arrival,” they added.
The refugee issue has
been a hot one under President Trump. He has cut the numbers of refugees
allowed into the U.S. each year and has asked states to say if they want
refugees.
In its report, CIS said
that some reports on refugee costs are inaccurate because they do not include
all programs refugees tap. Further, the reports lump the more educated refugees
who arrived a generation ago, with today’s refugees who arrive much less
educated. The report states that refugees who arrived a generation or two ago were
often quite educated, but government data indicates that today’s refugees only
have nine years of schooling on average.
Steven Camarota, the
center's director of research and co-author of the report, said, "The low
education attainment level of so many of today's refugees means they need a
great deal of government assistance. Given these costs, policymakers have to
decide if it makes more sense to settle a modest number here or help many more
people overseas."
His key points pulled
from the report:
- "The
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine developed a
model that estimates the lifetime fiscal impact of new immigrants,
counting all taxes paid and services consumed at the federal, state, and
local levels. Educational attainment is the most important predictor in
the model. Generally speaking, highly educated immigrants will contribute
more in taxes than they consume in services, while immigrants with low
levels of education will contribute less than they consume."
- "Based
on data from the Annual Survey of Refugees, one-third of refugees between
the ages of 25 and 64 completed no more than the sixth grade before their
arrival in the United States. About 53 percent have less than a high
school diploma. Only 18 percent have education beyond high school."
- "Because
the National Academies model is based on all immigrants at each education
level, some adjustments are required for refugees who, unlike most
immigrants, impose administrative costs for resettlement and can access
welfare payments immediately. After these adjustments, our cost estimate
rises to $60,000 per refugee."
- "Although
the fiscal impact of refugees is negative overall, it differs
significantly across age groups. Refugees who enter as adults (age 25 and
over) have a large negative impact under every plausible model. Refugees
who enter as children may have a positive impact, although this requires
optimistic assumptions about mobility."
- "No
plausible model, not even the National Academies’ best-case scenario,
comes close to suggesting that refugees who enter as adults will be net
fiscal contributors. Refugee-specific costs add about 22% over and above
the cost of other immigrants, but low education by itself is enough to
push adult refugees' estimated fiscal impact well into negative territory.
The National Academies is more optimistic about the children of low-skill
adult immigrants, whom the model assumes will surpass their parents'
education levels. But even with favorable assumptions about refugee
children, the overall impact (all age groups combined) is still clearly
negative."
JUDICIAL WATCH:
America builds the La Raza
“The Race” Mexican welfare state
Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. Taxpayers a
Stunning $134.9 Billion a Year
IT’S MEXICO
SUCKING THE BLOOD OF AMERICA…. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS FOR WELFARE, “FREE”
HEALTHCARE, HEROIN SALES, CRIME COST AND THEN THEY SEND TENS OF BILLIONS BACK
TO NARCOMEX
“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
WE CAN’T REBUILD THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS UNTIL
WE PUSH MEXICO OUT OF OUR BORDERS AND PRO-AMENSTY POLITICIANS AND BILLIONAIRES
OVER THE CLIFF!
THEY ASSAULT OUR
BORDERS, JOBS, WELFARE LINES AND INSTITUTIONS.
He added, “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities
for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.” PAUL BEDARD
Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $6.5K a
year each: Report
VIDEO:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-6-500-a-year-each?utm_source=Washington%20Secrets_02/06/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Washington%20Secrets&rid=117930
Illegal immigrants in
growing numbers are flooding into so-called sanctuary cities and states where
they are consuming up to $6,500 in taxpayer-funded services, according to a new
review of costs in 10 small states.
The surge is having an
outsized effect on smaller states and is cutting funds for services to
veterans, children, and disabled Americans, according to the report provided
exclusively to Secrets from the Federation
for American Immigration Reform.
The report said illegal
immigration costs the 10 states $454 million. “To put that figure into context,
that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana
budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total
sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” said the report.
And, it added, illegal
immigrants cost between $4,000 and $6,500 annually above any tax benefit they
provide.
“In many ways, the
influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even
greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban
areas,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “These areas have neither the tax
base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of
the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”
The 10 states analyzed
in the study, Small
Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, were New
Hampshire, Mississippi, Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, West Virginia, South
Dakota, Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming.
“Many local officials
tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic
stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the
opposite,” said Stein.
He added, “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities
for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.”
The report comes on the
heels of a key U.S. Supreme Court decision to let the Trump administration
block entry to immigrants who are likely to burden taxpayers.
FAIR’s report also
showed that sanctuary cities are a growing attraction for illegal immigrants,
especially in smaller states where the costs of living can be lower.
The key findings from
the report to Secrets:
- In each
of these states, each illegal immigrant resident carried a net tax deficit
of between $4,000 and $6,500 annually.
- Some
415,000 foreign-born reside in these 10 states, of whom about 88,000 (or
21%) are illegal immigrants. Additionally, there are about 35,000
U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants in these states.
- Collectively,
these illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost taxpayers in
the 10 states about $454 million each year for the provision of essential
services such as education and healthcare.
- Local
schools struggle to provide educators and cover the costs of instruction
for 50,000 K-12 students classified as Limited English Proficient.
- A
growing number of sanctuary jurisdictions (29 and counting, including the
entire state of Vermont), and lower living costs are a magnet for illegal
immigrants.
- The
growing immigrant population competes with legal residents for jobs in
economically depressed areas.
“This report highlights
the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with
an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on
individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of
the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by
antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top
of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” said Stein.
Exclusive–Steve
Camarota: Every Illegal Alien Costs Americans $70K Over Their Lifetime
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.
///
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
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.”
THE INVASION THAT AMERICA INVITED
Simultaneously,
illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the
highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
*
“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country
permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world
leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes
migration a human right.” VIRGINIA HALE
Census
Confirms: 63 Percent of ‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households
By Paul Bedard
Washington Examiner, December 3, 2018
“Concern over immigrant welfare use is
justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at
high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term
temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not
naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not
prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving
benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based
immigration think tank.
The numbers are huge. The report said that there
are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare.
. . .
Their key findings in the analysis:
* In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a
non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to
35 percent of native-headed households.
*Compared to native households, non-citizen
households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for
natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
. . .
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households
Let’s Shrink Illegal Alien Population, Save Billions at Same Time
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment